Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gaps in Incorporating Germline Genetic Testing Into Treatment Decision-Making for Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Open access
Kurian, Allison W., Li, Yun, Hamilton, Ann S., Ward, Kevin C., Hawley, Sarah T., Morrow, Monica, McLeod, M. Chandler, Jagsi, Reshma, Katz, Steven J.·2017·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.2016.71.6480
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: Genetic testing for breast cancer risk is evolving rapidly, with growing use of multiple-gene panels that can yield uncertain results. However, little is known about the context of such testing or its impact on treatment. Methods: A population-based sample of patients with breast cancer diagnosed in 2014 to 2015 and identified by two SEER registries (Georgia and Los Angeles) were surveyed about genetic testing experiences (N = 3,672; response rate, 68%). Responses were merged with SEER data. A patient subgroup at higher pretest risk of pathogenic mutation carriage was defined according to genetic testing guidelines. Patients’ attending surgeons were surveyed about genetic testing and results management. We examined patterns and correlates of genetic counseling and testing and the impact of results on bilateral mastectomy (BLM) use. Results: Six hundred sixty-six patients reported genetic testing. Although two thirds of patients were tested before surgical treatment, patients without private insurance more often experienced delays. Approximately half of patients (57% at higher pretest risk, 42% at average risk) discussed results with a genetic counselor. Patients with pathogenic mutations in BRCA1/2 or another gene had the highest rates of BLM (higher risk, 80%; average risk, 85%); however, BLM was also common among patients with genetic variants of uncertain significance (VUS; higher risk, 43%; average risk, 51%). Surgeons’ confidence in discussing testing increased with volume of patients with breast cancer, but many surgeons (higher volume, 24%; lower volume, 50%) managed patients with BRCA1/2 VUS the same as patients with BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations. Conclusion: Many patients with breast cancer are tested without ever seeing a genetic counselor. Half of average-risk patients with VUS undergo BLM, suggesting a limited understanding of results that some surgeons share. These findings emphasize the need to address challenges in personalized communication about genetic testing.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2016.71.6480

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Kurian, A. W., Li, Y., Hamilton, A. S., Ward, K. C., Hawley, S. T., Morrow, M., McLeod, M. C., Jagsi, R., & Katz, S. J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2017-07-10
Volume
35
Issue
20
Pages
2232-2239
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.2016.71.6480
OpenAlex
W2605654091
Cited by
265
References
37
FWCI
22.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gaps in Incorporating Germline Genetic Testing Into Treatment Decision-Making for Early-Stage Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2016.71.6480
The paper
Kurian, A. W., Li, Y., Hamilton, A. S., Ward, K. C., Hawley, S. T., Morrow, M., McLeod, M. C., Jagsi, R., & Katz, S. J. (2017). Gaps in Incorporating Germline Genetic Testing Into Treatment Decision-Making for Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.71.6480

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.