ArticleGenetic testing and molecular biomarkers2015
Next-Generation Testing for Cancer Risk: Perceptions, Experiences, and Needs Among Early Adopters in Community Healthcare Settings.
Article in Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision cancer medicine in Europe: a mixed-methods study on infrastructure for extended molecular diagnostics.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Multisite Quality Improvement Initiative to Identify and Address Racial Disparities and Deficiencies in Delivering Equitable, Patient-Centered Care for Multiple Myeloma-Exploring the Differences between Academic and Community Oncology Centers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- BRCA germline mutations in multiethnic gynecologic patients: A 10-year retrospective analysis from a single cancer institute.PloS one · 2023Article
- Genetic counselors' experience with reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket cost for multi-cancer gene panel testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.Journal of genetic counseling · 2022Article
- Cross-sectional clinical cancer genomics community of practice survey analysis of provider attitudes and beliefs regarding the use of deceased family member tissue to guide living family member genetic cancer risk assessment.Journal of genetic counseling · 2022Article
- Australian human research ethics committee members' confidence in reviewing genomic research applications.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- "Left in limbo": Exploring how patients with colorectal cancer interpret and respond to a suspected Lynch syndrome diagnosis.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2021Article
- Prioritizing genes for systematic variant effect mapping.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Factors influencing cancer genetic somatic mutation test ordering by cancer physician.Journal of translational medicine · 2020Article
- The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- MaveQuest: a web resource for planning experimental tests of human variant effects.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Oncologist Confidence in Genomic Testing and Implications for Using Multimarker Tumor Panel Tests in Practice.JCO precision oncology · 2020Article
- Article
- Germline variants in cancer genes in high-risk non-BRCA patients from Puerto Rico.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Multi gene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer - is it ready to be used?Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2019Review
- Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Experience with Personal Genetic Testing.Journal of personalized medicine · 2019Article
- Uncertainty related to multigene panel testing for cancer: a qualitative study on counsellors' and counselees' views.Journal of community genetics · 2019Article
- Somatic TP53 variants frequently confound germ-line testing results.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Article
- Maternal perceptions of BRCA genetic counseling communication processes about disclosing cancer risk information to children and adult relatives.Psycho-oncology · 2018Article
- The impact of hereditary cancer gene panels on clinical care and lessons learned.Cold Spring Harbor molecular case studies · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are driving a shift from single-gene to multigene panel testing for clinical genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). This study explored perceptions, experiences, and challenges with NGS testing for GCRA among U.S. community-based clinicians.
methodsSurveys delivered at initial and 8-month time points, and 12-month tracking of cases presented in a multidisciplinary web-based case conference series, were conducted with GCRA providers who participated in a 235-member nationwide community of practice.
resultsThe proportion of respondents ordering panel tests rose from 29% at initial survey (27/94) to 44% (46/107) within 8 months. Respondents reported significantly less confidence about interpreting and counseling about NGS compared with single-gene test results (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). The most cited reasons for not ordering NGS tests included concerns about clinical utility, interpreting and communicating results, and lack of knowledge/skills. Multigene panels were used in 204/668 cases presented during 2013, yielding 37 (18%) deleterious (7% in low/moderate-penetrance genes), 88 (43%) with ≥1 variant of uncertain significance, 77 (38%) uninformative negative, and 2 (1%) inconclusive results.
conclusionsDespite concerns about utility and ability to interpret/counsel about NGS results, a rapidly increasing uptake of NGS testing among community clinicians was documented. Challenges identified in case discussions point to the need for ongoing education, practice-based support, and opportunities to partner in research that contributes to characterization of lesser known genes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.