ArticleFamilial cancer2024
A family-based approach to cascade genetic testing in a pediatric cancer genetics clinic.
Article in Familial cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trends in Childhood and Adolescent Cancer Incidence Rates in the United States between 2001 and 2022.Cancer discovery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hereditary cancer predisposition disorders account for up to 10% of all pediatric cancers. Genetic counseling for families of the proband includes risk assessment and recommendations for cascade genetic testing for parents and siblings, but there is no standardized method for cascade testing in place resulting in variability in how clinics approach cascade genetic testing. We explored the uptake and outcomes associated with a family-based approach to cascade testing, for non-syndromic cancer predisposition disorders, at a pediatric cancer genetics clinic serving an ethnically diverse patient population. A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate test uptake in the parents and siblings of 106 pediatric probands. The study included 99 mothers, 97 fathers, 116 full siblings, and 53 half siblings who were recommended testing due to genetic risk. Of these relatives, 156 (43%) had documentation of completed cascade testing within twenty-four months after the proband's result disclosure. Completion of cascade testing varied by the type of family member and degree of relatedness. 41% of mothers (41/99) were tested in comparison to 26% of fathers (26/97) and 70.6% of full siblings (82/116) were tested compared to 13.2% of half siblings (7/53). Statistical analysis using chi-squared tests revealed that siblings were more likely to have completed testing than parents (p < 0.001). Furthermore, amongst parents, mothers were more likely to complete testing than fathers (p = 0.03) and amongst siblings, full siblings were more likely to complete testing than half siblings (< 0.001). The proband's age (p = 0.008), parents' preferred language (p = 0.002), and interpreter use during visit (p = 0.004) were the factors associated with differences in test uptake amongst siblings, whereas the proband's race/ethnicity (p = 0.019) was the only factor associated with differences in test uptake amongst parents. The most common barriers noted in charts for lack of test completion included country of residence, lack of insurance, and loss to follow-up. In conclusion, we found that test uptake differed significantly among relatives of a proband with siblings being more likely to test than parents. We also found differences in the demographic and clinical factors associated with test uptake in parents and siblings. Future studies need to validate these differences and further explore the underlying cause of variation in test uptake among relatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39565446What 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.