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
["Cross‐sectional clinical cancer genomics community of practice survey analysis of provider attitudes and beliefs regarding the use of deceased family member tissue to guide living family member genetic cancer risk assessment"]
Journal of Genetic Counseling · 2022 · article 188998766 · 10.1002/jgc4.1587
Review target: white. Review status: reviewed
Audit result: confirmed white · reviewer georgina · 2026-05-19 22:03
Classifier flags: white
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Next‐generation tumor tissue sequencing techniques may result in the detection of putative germline pathogenic variants (PVs), raising the possibility that germline cancer predisposition could be identified from archival medical tissue samples of deceased relatives. The approach, termed traceback, is designed to inform risk management recommendations for living family members. Provider perspectives regarding traceback testing have not yet been explored, so we conducted a cross‐sectional survey of Clinical Cancer Genomics Community of Practice providers regarding their attitudes and beliefs toward traceback testing. Self‐reported demographics, provider characteristics, attitudes and perceived barriers were collected. We evaluated responses in the context of whether providers had previous experience with traceback testing. Data were analyzed using chi‐square and Fisher's exact testing. Among 207 respondents (of 816 eligible), most were women (89.4%), white (85.5%), and not Hispanic or Latino (89.7%). US‐based providers represented the majority of respondents (87.4%). Relatively, few providers 32 of 207 (15.5%) had previous experience with traceback. Among the individuals without experience in traceback, 84.0% thought there would be barriers to implementation; however, only 68.8% of individuals with previous traceback experience agreed (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .04). Respondents in both groups thought that traceback would be valuable in their practice (82.6%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .22) and that they would feel comfortable discussing the concept (83.6%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .83), interpreting the results (72.2%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .24), and discussing the results with their patients (80.7%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .38). Patient interest and cost were seen as less of a barrier by those with experience with traceback testing. Recurrent themes obtained in open‐ended responses are also presented. Overall, providers believe that traceback would be a valuable tool in their practice. Individuals with previous experience identified less barriers with implementation of this testing, highlighting an area for future research and education.</jats:p>