Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40847711›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2025

BRCA genetic testing utilization and expenditures among privately insured adults in the United States, 2013 to 2022.

Lu Shi, Katherine Kolor, Zhuo Chen, Christine Y Lu, Juan Rodriguez, Muin J Khoury, Scott D Grosse

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Frontiers in oncology · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lu ShiDivision of Blood Disorders and Public Health Genomics, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: lu.shi@tuftsmedicine.org.
Katherine KolorDivision of Blood Disorders and Public Health Genomics, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Zhuo ChenDivision of Blood Disorders and Public Health Genomics, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; Department of Health Policy and Management, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Christine Y LuHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown NSW, Australia; Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney and the Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Juan RodriguezDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Muin J KhouryDivision of Blood Disorders and Public Health Genomics, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Scott D GrosseOffice of Director, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRecent clinical guidelines have broadened the criteria for BRCA counseling and testing for women and men, including indications based on family history, personal history, and current diagnosis of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.

methodsUsing claims data from 2013 to 2022, we identified BRCA testing using procedure codes to evaluate annual utilization, median expenditures per enrollee, and the percentage of 0 out-of-pocket expenditures by sex among enrollees aged 18 to 64 years who were continuously enrolled within calendar years. We examined BRCA utilization by metropolitan status and indications.

resultsAnnual BRCA testing utilization among women (and men) increased 10.2% (44.5%) per year during 2014 to 2015 and 1.7% (10.0%) per year during 2016 to 2019, decreased 34.4% (44.8%) in 2020, and rebounded 8.5% (22.3%) per year during 2021 to 2022, remaining below prepandemic levels in 2022. Median expenditures for comprehensive BRCA testing per enrollee decreased by 68% from 2013 to 2022, most of whom had 0 out-of-pocket expenditures. Most BRCA testing was done based on family health history of breast, ovarian, or prostate cancer and among women aged 18 to 50 years.

conclusionHealth care providers who are knowledgeable about evolving indications for germline BRCA testing can help ensure that eligible individuals have access to germline BRCA testing as preventive service.

Indexed as

BRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinGenetic TestingHealth ExpendituresAdolescentAdultBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGenetic CounselingHumansInsurance, HealthMaleMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsUnited StatesYoung AdultBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, humanBRCA testingExpendituresHereditary breast and ovarian cancerPublic health genomicsRural health disparities

Identifiers

PMID40847711
PMCPMC13389943

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.