ArticleFrontiers in oncology2015
Clinical Application of Multigene Panels: Challenges of Next-Generation Counseling and Cancer Risk Management.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 73 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
73 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Germline Variants and Risk for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Emerging Concepts.Pancreas · 2018Pooled it
- Uptake of Cancer Genetic Services for Chatbot vs Standard-of-Care Delivery Models: The BRIDGE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- Clinical exome sequencing vs. usual care for hereditary colorectal cancer diagnosis: A pilot comparative effectiveness study.Contemporary clinical trials · 2019Trial
- Clinician Discussion of Family Cancer Risk and Use of Genetic Testing Among US Adults With a Family History of Cancer.Preventing chronic disease · 2026Article
- Article
- Risks and Implications of Multiple Actionable Pathogenic Germline Variants Discovered by Panel-Based Cancer Predisposition Testing.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Germline Testing in Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis Comparing Strengths and Challenges of Different Approaches.Cancers · 2025Article
- Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing: 30 Years of Impact on Cancer Care.Delaware journal of public health · 2024Article
- Genetic analysis of PALB2 gene WD40 domain in canine mammary tumour patients.Veterinary medicine and science · 2024Article
- Determination of genetic predisposition to early breast cancer in women of Kazakh ethnicity.Oncotarget · 2023Article
- Article
- Frequency of germline genetic variants in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer from Brazil.Molecular biology reports · 2022Article
- The Challenge of Genetic Variants of Uncertain Clinical Significance : A Narrative Review.Annals of internal medicine · 2022Review
- Spectrum and management of breast cancer patients with variant of uncertain significance mutations at a tertiary care centre in North India.Ecancermedicalscience · 2022Article
- Characterization of genetic predisposition to molecular subtypes of breast cancer in Brazilian patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Hereditary Breast Cancer in the Brazilian State of Ceará (The CHANCE Cohort): Higher-Than-Expected Prevalence of Recurrent Germline Pathogenic Variants.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- RareFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Article
- Improving our model of cascade testing for hereditary cancer risk by leveraging patient peer support: a concept report.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2021Article
- Prevalence of Germline Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Predisposing Genes in Czech and Belgian Pancreatic Cancer Patients.Cancers · 2021Article
13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultigene panels can be a cost- and time-effective alternative to sequentially testing multiple genes, especially with a mixed family cancer phenotype. However, moving beyond our single-gene testing paradigm has unveiled many new challenges to the clinician. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the reader with some of the challenges, as well as potential opportunities, of expanded hereditary cancer panel testing.
methodsWe include results from 348 commercial multigene panel tests ordered from January 1, 2014, through October 1, 2014, by clinicians associated with the City of Hope's Clinical Cancer Genetics Community of Practice. We also discuss specific challenging cases that arose during this period involving abnormalities in the genes: CDH1, TP53, PMS2, PALB2, CHEK2, NBN, and RAD51C.
resultsIf historically high risk genes only were included in the panels (BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH6, PMS2, TP53, APC, CDH1), the results would have been positive only 6.2% of the time, instead of 17%. Results returned with variants of uncertain significance (VUS) 42% of the time.
conclusionThese figures and cases stress the importance of adequate pre-test counseling in anticipation of higher percentages of positive, VUS, unexpected, and ambiguous test results. Test result ambiguity can be limited by the use of phenotype-specific panels; if found, multiple resources (the literature, reference laboratory, colleagues, national experts, and research efforts) can be accessed to better clarify counseling and management for the patient and family. For pathogenic variants in low and moderate risk genes, empiric risk modeling based on the patient's personal and family history of cancer may supersede gene-specific risk. Commercial laboratory and patient contributions to public databases and research efforts will be needed to better classify variants and reduce clinical ambiguity of multigene panels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.