ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Healthcare professional perspectives on hereditary breast cancer risk assessment prior to gender-affirming mastectomy.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 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
Abstract
purposeTransgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy (GAM) face unique challenges related to breast cancer risk assessment and screening. This study aimed to identify factors that influence healthcare professionals' (HCPs) integration of cancer risk evaluation, including genetic assessment, within the context of GAM and pre-surgical planning.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 healthcare professionals - including six primary care providers, five cancer genetic counselors, six oncologists, and three plastic surgeons - experienced in caring for TGD patients considering or undergoing GAM. Using a social constructivist framework, we applied reflexive thematic analysis to explore HCP perspectives and generate key themes.
resultsWe conceptualized five key themes: (1) HCPs perceive no clear ownership for care integration of breast cancer risk assessment; (2) conflicting guidelines force HCPs to rely on their own judgment, resulting in inconsistent practice; (3) care pathways are driven by individual HCP champions rather than standardized protocols; (4) GAM frequently occurs at young ages prior to age of population cancer risk screening initiation, complicating risk discussions; and (5) structural failures in care delivery compromise patient safety.
conclusionImproving cancer risk assessment for TGD patients undergoing GAM demands clear institutional accountability, harmonized evidence-based guidelines, standardized care pathways, and genetic counseling embedded into multidisciplinary gender-affirming care teams. These coordinated structural efforts are critical to integrate equitable, personalized, and patient-centered cancer prevention with gender-affirming surgical care.
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.