LIG Audit Status
This page is public. The editing interface lives at /cgi-bin/audit.cgi and requires login. Full-text AI processing status is at /cgi-bin/fulltext-status.cgi; paper upload is at /cgi-bin/fulltext-upload.cgi.
Batch audit-20260421-labels-seed42 · created 2026-04-21 07:03 · seed 42
caucasian
25 reviewed / 25 total
0 pending
Confirmed caucasian 25 · Not caucasian on review 0
white
25 reviewed / 25 total
0 pending
Confirmed white 24 · Not white on review 1
european
10 reviewed / 25 total
15 pending
Confirmed european 10 · Not european on review 0
other
25 reviewed / 25 total
0 pending
Confirmed other 25 · Not other on review 0
none of these labels
0 reviewed / 100 total
100 pending
Confirmed none of these labels 0 · Uses tracked labels on review 0
["Patient decisions regarding cancer gene panel testing: An exploratory study"]
Journal of Genetic Counseling · 2023 · article 169773775 · 10.1002/jgc4.1824
Review target: white. Review status: reviewed
Audit result: confirmed white · reviewer georgina · 2026-05-19 22:02
Classifier flags: white
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This study examined factors associated with the selection of a specific multi‐gene panel test by patients in a cancer genetic counseling clinic. We surveyed patients who received pre‐test genetic counseling at the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Cancer Risk Assessment (CCRA) in 2019 and their genetic counselors to assess demographic and clinical characteristics, patient concerns, and session outcome. Ultimately, 228 eligible participants completed the survey, of whom 85.1% consented to genetic testing. Of those who chose testing, 56.2% selected the largest panel type available, a pan‐cancer panel that included both actionable and inactionable genes. White patients were more likely than non‐white patients to pursue testing. Among testers, number of testing options offered, participant educational attainment, age, and NCCN Guidelines status were associated with patient choice between four panel options. Some patient concerns, including impact of results on future cancer screening and family dynamics, were also linked to test choice. Several other participant characteristics including income, cancer diagnosis, and family structure did not appear to be predictive of testing choice. Our results confirmed the patient preference for large gene panels and identified a limited number of associations between patient characteristics and concerns and testing choice. We noted however that a significant number of participants did not choose the most commonly selected test, and that test choice is difficult to predict based on clinical and demographic factors. Our results also provide further evidence of well‐documented disparities in cancer genetic testing. Study limitations do not allow our findings to be generalized to all cancer genetic counseling patients. Further research is needed to examine how and why patients choose between multiple genetic test options in the cancer setting. This study was one of the first to examine patient choice between a full spectrum of multi‐gene panel options.</jats:p>