Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27878467›Full record

ArticleFamilial cancer2017

Outcomes of retesting BRCA negative patients using multigene panels.

Siddhartha Yadav, Ashley Reeves, Sarah Campian, Amy Paine, Dana Zakalik

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Summary ofGenes · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Siddhartha YadavDepartment of Internal Medicine, Beaumont Health, 3601 W 13 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA. Siddhartha.yadav@beaumont.org.
Ashley ReevesNancy and James Grosfeld Cancer Genetics Center, Beaumont Health, 3577 W 13 Mile Rd, Suite 140, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA.
Sarah CampianNancy and James Grosfeld Cancer Genetics Center, Beaumont Health, 3577 W 13 Mile Rd, Suite 140, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA.
Amy PaineNancy and James Grosfeld Cancer Genetics Center, Beaumont Health, 3577 W 13 Mile Rd, Suite 140, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA.
Dana ZakalikNancy and James Grosfeld Cancer Genetics Center, Beaumont Health, 3577 W 13 Mile Rd, Suite 140, Royal Oak, MI, 48073, USA.
Beaumont Health · USCancer Genetics (United States) · USOakland University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Genes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2AdultBiomarkers, TumorBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinDNA Mutational AnalysisFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansMiddle AgedRegistriesRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, humanActionabilityBRCA negativeClinical impactMultigene panelOutcomesRetesting

Identifiers

PMID27878467
OpenAlexW2553395979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.