Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Genetic testing for cancer risk

B Ponder1

  • 1Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 238, Level 3 Lab Block, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK. bajp@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk

Science (New York, N.Y.)
|November 14, 1997
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Excellent translational research in oncology: A journey towards novel and more effective anti-cancer therapies.

Molecular oncology·2016
Same author

A prospective study of neurofibromatosis type 1 cancer incidence in the UK.

British journal of cancer·2006
Same author

Confidential inquiries should be funded in clinical genetics.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2001
Same author

Does massively parallel transcriptome analysis signify the end of cancer histopathology as we know it?

Genome biology·2001
Same author

National Confidential Enquiry into counselling for genetic disorders by non-geneticists: general recommendations and specific standards for improving care.

British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology·1999
Same author

High frequency of germ-line BRCA2 mutations among Hungarian male breast cancer patients without family history.

Cancer research·1999
Same journal

Erratum for the Research Article "Detecting supramolecular organic nanoparticles during heat wave".

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same journal

Local signals, systemic decline.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same journal

The mechanics of liver regeneration.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same journal

Computing in a memory with physics.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same journal

Retraction.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same journal

Making time.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
See all related articles

Genetic testing for inherited cancer syndromes is established for rare conditions. Its use is debated when risks or interventions are uncertain, requiring careful cost-benefit analysis.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Genetics
  • Oncology
  • Clinical Decision-Making

Background:

  • Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility is integrated into managing families with well-defined inherited cancer syndromes.
  • The application of genetic testing becomes more controversial when predisposition mutation risks are uncertain or effective interventions for positive results are lacking.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the current landscape and controversies surrounding genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.
  • To highlight the need for careful assessment of costs, benefits, and intervention efficacy.
  • To emphasize the importance of clear communication and understanding of genetic testing issues among healthcare professionals and the public.

Main Methods:

  • This abstract is based on a review of current clinical practices and ethical considerations in cancer genetics.
Keywords:
Genetics and Reproduction

Related Experiment Videos

  • It synthesizes information regarding the application and implications of genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition.

    • Main Results:

    • Genetic testing is standard for some inherited cancer syndromes but debated for others with less certain risks or interventions.
    • The efficacy of interventions for individuals identified as high-risk requires further evaluation.
    • There is an ongoing need to address the complexities and ensure clear public and professional understanding.

    Conclusions:

    • The clinical utility of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility varies, necessitating careful evaluation beyond established syndromes.
    • Cost-benefit analyses and intervention efficacy are critical components for responsible implementation.
    • Education for healthcare providers and the public is essential to navigate the ethical and practical challenges of cancer genetic testing.