Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 25, 2025

Targeted Next-generation Sequencing and Bioinformatics Pipeline to Evaluate Genetic Determinants of Constitutional Disease
Published on: April 4, 2018
Practices and Views of US Oncologists and Genetic Counselors Regarding Patient Recontact After Variant
Sukh Makhnoon1, Elenita Davidson2, Brian Shirts3
1Peter O'Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
Purpose:
Over a 5-year or 10-year period, between 6% and 15% of germline cancer genetic variants undergo reclassification. Up-to-date interpretation can clarify a variant's clinical significance and guide patient management. As the frequency of reclassifications increase, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients with information about reclassification becomes important. However, the field lacks research evidence and definitive guidance from professional organizations about how providers should recontact patients. We compared the perspectives of US oncologists and cancer genetic counselors (GCs) to describe their practices and views regarding recontact.
Materials And Methods:
We developed a survey using themes identified from semistructured interviews with oncologists and GCs and administered it in a national sample of oncologists and GCs between July and September 2022.
Results:
In total, 634 respondents completed the survey including 349 oncologists and 285 GCs. On frequency of recontacting patients with reclassified results, 40% of GCs reported recontacting often compared with 12.5% of oncologists. Neither group reported recording patient preference for recontact on electronic medical record (EMR). Both groups agreed that all reclassified variants, even those that do not affect clinical management, should be returned to patients. They also reported that recontact via EMR messages, mailed letters, and phone calls from GC assistants were more suitable for downgrades. By contrast, face-to-face meetings and phone calls were preferred for upgrades. Remarkably, oncologists were more likely to endorse face-to-face return of results and were more likely to endorse return through a nongenetics provider compared to GCs.
Conclusion:
These data on current recontact practices and opinions provide a foundation for developing guidelines with explicit recommendations on patient recontact that can help maximize clinical effect while considering provider preferences for recontact within resource-constrained genomic practice settings.
More Related Videos
09:37Navigating MARRVEL, a Web-Based Tool that Integrates Human Genomics and Model Organism Genetics Information
Published on: August 15, 2019
08:15gDNA Enrichment by a Transposase-based Technology for NGS Analysis of the Whole Sequence of BRCA1, BRCA2, and 9 Genes Involved in DNA Damage Repair
Published on: October 6, 2014
Related Concept Videos
Cancer-Critical Genes II: Tumor Suppressor Genes
When the function of certain critical genes, especially those involved in cell cycle regulation and cell growth signaling cascades, gets disrupted, it upsets the cell cycle progression. Such cells with unchecked cell cycles start proliferating uncontrollably and eventually develop into tumors.
Such genes that act...
Nursing Ethical Principles II
Consider the following scenario, which illustrates how these principles are applied in the care of Mr. John, a fifty-year-old teacher diagnosed with metastatic liver cancer.
Initially, Mr. John's...
Treatment Resistant Cancers
Crossing Over
Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...