ArticleFamilial cancer2017
Outcomes of retesting BRCA negative patients using multigene panels.
Article in Familial cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Summary ofGenes · 2020Pooled it
- Multigene panel testing reveals the spectrum of non-BRCA germline variants in BRCA1/2-negative breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer patients from a Turkish cohort.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- The association between age at breast cancer diagnosis and prevalence of pathogenic variants.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Targeted next-generation sequencing of 21 candidate genes in hereditary ovarian cancer patients from the Republic of Bashkortostan.Journal of ovarian research · 2023Article
- Rare presentations can suggest more than one rare condition: Striking personal and family cancer history in a patient with both CDKN2A and BRCA1 pathogenic variants.JAAD case reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Outcomes of retesting in patients with previously uninformative cancer genetics evaluations.Familial cancer · 2022Article
- Multigene Panel Testing in Turkish Hereditary Cancer Syndrome Patients.Medeniyet medical journal · 2022Article
- 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
- Exome sequencing in BRCA1-2 candidate familias: the contribution of other cancer susceptibility genesFrontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Identifying sequence variants contributing to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 negative breast and ovarian cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Identification of genetic variants for clinical management of familial colorectal tumors.BMC medical genetics · 2018Article
- Lower gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms associated with hereditary cancer syndromes: a case series.Familial cancer · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The utility of multigene panels in retesting patients who previously tested negative for a pathogenic mutation by BRCA1/2 testing is not well established. Patients who previously tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation by standard sequencing, and who were seen in cancer genetics center between November 1, 2012 and June 30, 2015 for additional testing utilizing multigene panels, were identified using our genetic testing registry. Data on demographics, personal and family history of cancer, results of panel testing and the impact on patient management was collected retrospectively. A total of 122 patients underwent retesting during the study period. Thirteen (11%) pathogenic mutations were identified in the following genes: CHEK2(4), PALB2(3), ATM(2), CDH1, APC, BARD1 and MRE11A. Eleven out of these thirteen mutations were deemed actionable based on published guidelines. Of these eleven, seven patients had an actual change in clinical management as a result of retesting. Furthermore, retesting also led to a change in clinical management in the two patients with mutations in genes (BARD1 and MRE11A) which do not have clear guidelines for management. There were no significant differences in demographics and personal and family history of cancer between patients who tested positive and those who tested negative on retesting. This study demonstrates the clinical utility of multigene panels in a group of high risk individuals who previously tested negative for a BRCA1/2 mutation. This retesting approach revealed a pathogenic mutation in 11% of cases. Retesting led to significant change in clinical management in a majority of patients with actionable mutations (7 out of 11), as well as in those with mutations in genes which do not have specific management guidelines.
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.