↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes of genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer syndromes in unaffected individuals

Overview of attention for article published in Familial Cancer, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Outcomes of genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer syndromes in unaffected individuals
Published in
Familial Cancer, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10689-014-9756-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shanna L. Gustafson, Victoria M. Raymond, Monica L. Marvin, Tobias Else, Erika Koeppe, Elena M. Stoffel, Jessica N. Everett

Abstract

Genetic testing (GT) for inherited cancer predisposition is most informative when initiated in individuals with cancer, thus standard practice recommends GT start in an affected individual. This strategy can be frustrating for unaffected consultands and providers. Retrospective review of cases was performed to compare outcomes of testing the unaffected consultand and recommending that testing start in an affected relative. Records from cancer-free consultands (N = 101), presenting to the University of Michigan Cancer Genetics Clinic between 6/1/2011 and 12/30/2011 were reviewed. All genetics records for these consultands were reviewed through 3/31/2013 for GT recommendations (117 total). The unaffected consultand was offered testing in 14.5 % of cases, testing was completed in 64.7 % of these with one mutation identified. Of consultands tested initially, 70.5 % received cancer-screening recommendations based on family history and test results. Testing was recommended to start in an affected family member in 30.7 % of cases. Fifty percent returned to clinic with information on an affected family member; 83.3 % documented that their family member underwent GT with one mutation identified. Consultands reported the affected family member refused testing in 22.2 % and two of these consultands subsequently pursued GT, identifying one mutation. Fifty percent of cases where testing the family member first was recommended were lost to follow-up with 66.6 % of these never given cancer-screening recommendations. Cancer genetic risk evaluation of healthy consultands should consider the option of pursuing GT in the unaffected consultand and should implement a plan for tailored risk management in the absence of informative genetic evaluation within the family.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Researcher 4 24%
Student > Master 2 12%
Other 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 12%
Psychology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,681,103
of 23,302,246 outputs
Outputs from Familial Cancer
#341
of 568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,790
of 253,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Familial Cancer
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,302,246 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 568 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 253,351 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.