Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26484312›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2015

Clinical Application of Multigene Panels: Challenges of Next-Generation Counseling and Cancer Risk Management.

Thomas Paul Slavin, Mariana Niell-Swiller, Ilana Solomon, Bita Nehoray, Christina Rybak, Kathleen R Blazer, Jeffrey N Weitzel

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

73 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. RareFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Thomas Paul SlavinDivision of Clinical Cancer Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope , Duarte, CA , USA.
Mariana Niell-SwillerDivision of Clinical Cancer Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope , Duarte, CA , USA.
Ilana SolomonDivision of Clinical Cancer Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope , Duarte, CA , USA.
Bita NehorayDivision of Clinical Cancer Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope , Duarte, CA , USA.
Christina RybakDivision of Clinical Cancer Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope , Duarte, CA , USA.
Kathleen R BlazerDivision of Clinical Cancer Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope , Duarte, CA , USA.
Jeffrey N WeitzelDivision of Clinical Cancer Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope , Duarte, CA , USA.

Funding

Transgenic Mouse FacilityP30CA033572 · NCI · CITY OF HOPE/BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI XIWEI WU · 1985 to 2026
$86.3M
Cancer Genetics Professional Education in a Global Community of PracticeR25CA171998 · NCI · BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE/CITY OF HOPE · PI KATHLEEN R. BLAZER · 2013 to 2026
$4.3M
Clinical Cancer Genetics Community Network: A Sustainable Research PartnershipRC4CA153828 · NCI · BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE/CITY OF HOPE · PI WEITZEL, JEFFREY N · 2010 to 2010
$1.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA033572NCI NIH HHS R25 CA171998NCI NIH HHS RC4 CA153828
6 · The paper itself

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

genetic counselinghereditary breast cancerhereditary cancer panelhereditary colon cancermultigene panelsnext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID26484312
PMCPMC4586434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.