ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2016
Unsolicited findings of next-generation sequencing for tumor analysis within a Dutch consortium: clinical daily practice reconsidered.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of a Multicenter Biobanking Collaboration for Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Biomarker Discovery Based on Fresh Frozen Pretreatment Tumor Tissue Biopsies.The oncologist · 2017Trial
- A predictor of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer patients with the DNA repair genes.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Integrating Somatic and Germline Next-Generation Sequencing Into Routine Clinical Oncology Practice.JCO precision oncology · 2021Review
- RAS and BRAF mutations in cell-free DNA are predictive for outcome of cetuximab monotherapy in patients with tissue-tested RAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer.Molecular oncology · 2019Article
- Implementation of Precision Cancer Medicine: Progress and the Path to Realizing the Promise of Tumor Sequencing.Journal of oncology practice · 2019Article
- Autonomy Challenges in Epigenetic Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening: How Can Patient Decision Aids Support Informed Consent?Journal of personalized medicine · 2019Review
- Molecular tools for the pathologic diagnosis of central nervous system tumors.Neuro-oncology practice · 2019Review
- Privacy and ethical challenges in next-generation sequencing.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2019Article
- Guidelines for reporting secondary findings of genome sequencing in cancer genes: the SFMPP recommendations.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- Cancer patients' intentions towards receiving unsolicited genetic information obtained using next-generation sequencing.Familial cancer · 2018Article
- Ethical considerations of neuro-oncology trial design in the era of precision medicine.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2017Review
- Harnessing Integrative Omics to Facilitate Molecular Imaging of the Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Family for Precision Medicine.Theranostics · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer patients participating in studies involving experimental or diagnostic next-generation sequencing (NGS) procedures are confronted with the possibility of unsolicited findings. The Center for Personalized Cancer Treatment (CPCT), a Dutch consortium of cancer centers, is offering centralized large-scale NGS for the discovery of somatic tumor mutations with their germline DNA as reference. The CPCT aims to give all cancer patients with advanced disease stages access to tumor DNA analysis in order to improve selection for experimental therapy. In this article, our experiences at the CPCT will serve as an example to discuss the ethical and practical aspects regarding the management of unsolicited findings in personalized cancer research and treatment. Generic issues, relevant for all researchers in this field are discussed and illustrated by description of three patients faced with an unsolicited DNA finding, while they intended to be candidate for future anticancer treatment by participating in a trial that included NGS of both somatic and germline DNA. As options for DNA analysis expand and costs decrease rapidly, more and more patients are offered large-scale NGS testing. After reviewing current recommendations in literature, we conclude that classical informed consent procedures need to be adapted to become more explicit in asking patients if they want to be informed about unsolicited findings and if so, what level of detail of genetic risk information exactly they want to be returned after the analysis.
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.