ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2022
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.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2022. 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Next-generation tumor tissue sequencing techniques may result in the detection of putative germline pathogenic variants (PVs), raising the possibility that germline cancer predisposition could be identified from archival medical tissue samples of deceased relatives. The approach, termed traceback, is designed to inform risk management recommendations for living family members. Provider perspectives regarding traceback testing have not yet been explored, so we conducted a cross-sectional survey of Clinical Cancer Genomics Community of Practice providers regarding their attitudes and beliefs toward traceback testing. Self-reported demographics, provider characteristics, attitudes and perceived barriers were collected. We evaluated responses in the context of whether providers had previous experience with traceback testing. Data were analyzed using chi-square and Fisher's exact testing. Among 207 respondents (of 816 eligible), most were women (89.4%), white (85.5%), and not Hispanic or Latino (89.7%). US-based providers represented the majority of respondents (87.4%). Relatively, few providers 32 of 207 (15.5%) had previous experience with traceback. Among the individuals without experience in traceback, 84.0% thought there would be barriers to implementation; however, only 68.8% of individuals with previous traceback experience agreed (p = .04). Respondents in both groups thought that traceback would be valuable in their practice (82.6%, p = .22) and that they would feel comfortable discussing the concept (83.6%, p = .83), interpreting the results (72.2%, p = .24), and discussing the results with their patients (80.7%, p = .38). Patient interest and cost were seen as less of a barrier by those with experience with traceback testing. Recurrent themes obtained in open-ended responses are also presented. Overall, providers believe that traceback would be a valuable tool in their practice. Individuals with previous experience identified less barriers with implementation of this testing, highlighting an area for future research and education.
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.