↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

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

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
20 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
100 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
Gaps in Incorporating Germline Genetic Testing Into Treatment Decision-Making for Early-Stage Breast Cancer
Published in
Journal of Clinical Oncology, July 2017
DOI 10.1200/jco.2016.71.6480
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allison W. Kurian, Yun Li, Ann S. Hamilton, Kevin C. Ward, Sarah T. Hawley, Monica Morrow, M. Chandler McLeod, Reshma Jagsi, Steven J. Katz

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 93 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Unspecified 16 17%
Student > Master 16 17%
Other 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 38%
Unspecified 20 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Other 8 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 239. 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 07 October 2019.
All research outputs
#53,609
of 13,622,686 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#103
of 13,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,584
of 263,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#2
of 370 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,622,686 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 263,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 370 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.