↓ Skip to main content

Managing Variant Interpretation Discrepancies in Hereditary Cancer: Clinical Practice, Concerns, and Desired Resources

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, December 2017
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
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Managing Variant Interpretation Discrepancies in Hereditary Cancer: Clinical Practice, Concerns, and Desired Resources
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10897-017-0184-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellen Zirkelbach, Syed Hashmi, Aarti Ramdaney, Leslie Dunnington, Myla Ashfaq, Elizabeth K. Nugent, Kate Wilson

Abstract

Variant interpretation is a complex process, and classification may vary between sources. This study aimed to determine the practice of cancer genetic counselors regarding discrepancies in variant interpretation and to identify concerns when counseling these discrepancies. An electronic survey was sent to genetic counselors in the NSGC Cancer Special Interest Group. The vast majority of counselors (93%) had seen a variant interpretation discrepancy in practice. A large majority (96%) of respondents indicated that they conducted their own research on reported variants. Most respondents cited variant databases as the most common resource utilized in researching variants. Approximately 33% of counselors spent 45 min or more of extra time researching a discrepancy compared to researching a variant with a single classification. When asked how they approached counseling sessions involving variant interpretation discrepancies, the free responses emphasized that counselors considered family history, clinical information, and psychosocial concerns, showing that genetic counselors tailored the session to each individual. Discrepancies in variant interpretation are an ongoing concern for clinical cancer genetic counselors, as demonstrated by the fact that counselors desired further resources to aid in addressing these discrepancies, including a centralized database (89%), guidelines from a major organization (88%), continuing education about the issue (74%), and functional studies (58%). Additionally, most respondents reported that the ideal database would be owned by a non-profit organization (59%) and obtain information directly from laboratories (91%). This investigation was the first to address these discrepancies from a clinical point of view. The study demonstrates that discrepancies in variant interpretation are a concern for clinical cancer genetic counselors and outlines the need for additional support.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 22%
Other 4 22%
Librarian 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 33%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,961,684
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#741
of 1,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,270
of 440,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#25
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 440,645 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.