ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2026
Blueprint for building a patient-centered hereditary cancer program based on stakeholder perspectives.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: As the need for clinical cancer genetics services continues to rise, health systems must strategize on how best to deliver this specialized care. In anticipation of establishing a cancer genetics program at an urban medical institution, our objective was to assess key stakeholders' recommendations surrounding optimal care delivery models and service offerings based on prior experience. Methods: We performed virtual key informant interviews with 34 stakeholders from four institutions, including clinical cancer genetics providers, genetic counselors, referring providers, and administrative staff. Results: Important considerations for building a program emerged across three key areas: provider roles, program structure, and education. Stakeholders provided insights on the roles of various program staff, suggesting that genetic counselors maintain versatile responsibilities, genetic counselor assistants function to decrease administrative burden, and genetics providers order downstream tests and imaging for high-risk patients. Stakeholders expressed that cancer genetics programs should provide both initial genetic assessment and follow-up care and should focus on streamlining management of cascade testing, genetic sample collection, and appointment workflows. Creating a standalone clinical cancer genetics program was viewed as beneficial for care efficiency and continuity. Lastly, the ability to offer educational opportunities and resources for patients and providers was highlighted as an essential feature of a clinical cancer genetics program. Conclusions: These recommendations offer potential to aid healthcare systems and clinical practices in the establishment of cancer genetics services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.