ReviewAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting2016
How Far Do We Go With Genetic Evaluation? Gene, Panel, and Tumor Testing.
Review in American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Germline and Somatic Tumor Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluating the Cost of Genomic Testing for Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology.Oncology and therapy · 2026Article
- Hereditary ovarian cancer in women with African ancestry: a scoping review.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Review
- In Search of Ideal Solutions for Cancer Diagnosis: From Conventional Methods to Protein Biomarkers in Liquid Biopsy.Proteomes · 2025Review
- Genomic Newborn Screening for Pediatric Cancer Predisposition Syndromes: A Holistic Approach.Cancers · 2024Review
- Missed diagnosis or misdiagnosis: Common pitfalls in genetic testing.Singapore medical journal · 2023Article
- BRCA germline mutations in multiethnic gynecologic patients: A 10-year retrospective analysis from a single cancer institute.PloS one · 2023Article
- Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Providing Evidence of Predisposition Genes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Outcomes of retesting in patients with previously uninformative cancer genetics evaluations.Familial cancer · 2022Article
- Germline testing and genetic counselling in prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- Spectrum and management of breast cancer patients with variant of uncertain significance mutations at a tertiary care centre in North India.Ecancermedicalscience · 2022Article
- Fear of cancer recurrence in patients undergoing germline genome sequencing.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Genetic risk assessment for hereditary renal cell carcinoma: Clinical consensus statement.Cancer · 2021Article
- Impact of changing guidelines on genetic testing and surveillance recommendations in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer survivors with family history of pancreatic cancer.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Disease Spectrum of Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Diagnostic yield of a custom-designed multi-gene cancer panel in Irish patients with breast cancer.Irish journal of medical science · 2020Article
- The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Cancer Genetic Counseling-Current Practice and Future Challenges.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020Review
- Abdominal Imaging of Pancreatic Cysts and Cyst-Associated Pancreatic Cancer in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The traditional model by which an individual was identified as harboring a hereditary susceptibility to cancer was to test for a mutation in a single gene or a finite number of genes associated with a particular syndrome (e.g., BRCA1 and BRCA2 for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or mismatch repair genes for Lynch syndrome). The decision regarding which gene or genes to test for was based on a review of the patient's personal medical history and their family history. With advances in next-generation DNA sequencing technology, offering simultaneous testing for multiple genes associated with a hereditary susceptibility to cancer is now possible. These panels typically include high-penetrance genes, but they also often include moderate- and low-penetrance genes. A number of the genes included in these panels have not been fully characterized either in terms of their cancer risks or their management options. Another way some patients are unexpectedly identified as carrying a germline mutation in a cancer susceptibility gene is at the time they undergo molecular profiling of their tumor, which typically has been carried out to guide treatment choices for their cancer. This article first focuses on the issues that need to be considered when deciding between recommending more targeted testing of a single or a small number of genes associated with a particular syndrome (single/limited gene testing) versus performing a multigene panel. This article also reviews the issues regarding germline risk that occur within the setting of ordering molecular profiling of tumors.
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.