ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2018
Guidelines for reporting secondary findings of genome sequencing in cancer genes: the SFMPP recommendations.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Secondary findings in hereditary cancer genes after germline genetic testing - systematic review of literature.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- International policies guiding the selection, analysis, and clinical management of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: A systematic review.American journal of human genetics · 2024Pooled it
- Reporting practices for secondary findings among ERN GENTURIS member institutions in 15 European countries.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Adult-Onset Cancer Predisposition Variants in Pediatric Oncology.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- A curated list of immune system associated genes related to cancer.BMC genomic data · 2026Article
- Severity as a Criterion for Prioritizing Diagnostic Measures.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- Cascade counselling and testing. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Global Perspectives on Managing Incidental and Secondary Findings in Genomic Testing: A Comprehensive Review of Policies, Implementation Challenges, and Stakeholder Perspectives.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2026Review
- Returning of individual genetic findings to biobank participants: a mixed methods study results in Lithuania.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Population-based genetic carrier screening. A consensus statement from the Spanish societies: AEGH, AEDP, ASEBIR, SEAGEN, SEF and SEGCD.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Review
- Narrative review on ethical and psychological issues raised by genetic and genomic testing in pediatric oncology care.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Review
- Evaluation of a two-step model of opportunistic genomic screening.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Understanding communication between patients and healthcare professionals regarding comprehensive biomarker testing in precision oncology: A scoping review.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Engagement of patients and the public in personalised prevention in Europe using genomic information: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Opportunistic genetic screening increases the diagnostic yield and is medically valuable for care of patients and their relatives with hereditary cancer.Journal of medical genetics · 2023Article
- Article
- An spanish study of secondary findings in families affected with mendelian disorders: choices, prevalence and family history.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Article
- Prevalence of pathogenic germline variants in the circulating tumor DNA testing.International journal of clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Clinical exome-based panel testing for medically actionable secondary findings in a cohort of 383 Italian participants.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
46 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In oncology, the expanding use of multi-gene panels to explore familial cancer predisposition and tumor genome analysis has led to increased secondary findings discoveries (SFs) and has given rise to important medical, ethical, and legal issues. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published a policy statement for managing SFs for a list of genes, including 25 cancer-related genes. Currently, there are few recommendations in Europe. From June 2016 to May 2017, the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine (SFMPP) established a working group of 47 experts to elaborate guidelines for managing information given on the SFs for genes related to cancers. A subgroup of ethicists, lawyers, patients' representatives, and psychologists provided ethical reflection, information guidelines, and materials (written consent form and video). A subgroup with medical expertise, including oncologists and clinical and molecular geneticists, provided independent evaluation and classification of 60 genes. The main criteria were the "actionability" of the genes (available screening or prevention strategies), the risk evaluation (severity, penetrance, and age of disease onset), and the level of evidence from published data. Genes were divided into three classes: for class 1 genes (n = 36), delivering the information on SFs was recommended; for class 2 genes (n = 5), delivering the information remained questionable because of insufficient data from the literature and/or level of evidence; and for class 3 genes (n = 19), delivering the information on SFs was not recommended. These guidelines for managing SFs for cancer-predisposing genes provide new insights for clinicians and laboratories to standardize clinical practices.
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.