Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30264118›Full record

ArticleJAMA2018

Prevalence of Variant Reclassification Following Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing.

Jacqueline Mersch, Nichole Brown, Sara Pirzadeh-Miller, Erin Mundt, Hannah C Cox, Krystal Brown, Melissa Aston, Lisa Esterling, Susan Manley, Theodora Ross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 150 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
150citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

150 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Not Forgotten: Patient Experiences with Genetic Variant Reclassifications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A scalable approach to resolving variants of uncertain significance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Reclassification ofEuropean journal of breast health · 2025
    Article

90 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jacqueline MerschUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Nichole BrownUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Sara Pirzadeh-MillerUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Erin MundtMyriad Genetic Laboratories Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Hannah C CoxMyriad Genetic Laboratories Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Krystal BrownMyriad Genetic Laboratories Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Melissa AstonMyriad Genetic Laboratories Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Lisa EsterlingMyriad Genetic Laboratories Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Susan ManleyMyriad Genetic Laboratories Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Theodora RossUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Funding

The Roles and Regulation of BRCA1 in HematopoiesisR01HL132251 · NHLBI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI ROSS, THEODORA S · 2017 to 2020
$1.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL132251Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Variant reclassification is an important component of hereditary cancer genetic testing; however, there are few published data quantifying the prevalence of reclassification. Objective: Retrospective cohort study of individuals who had genetic testing from 2006 through 2016 at a single commercial laboratory. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort of individuals who had genetic testing between 2006 and 2016 at a single commercial laboratory was assessed. Variants were classified as benign, likely benign, variant of uncertain significance, likely pathogenic, or pathogenic. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for patients from the University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) Medical Center. Exposures: Hereditary cancer genetic testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequency of and time to amended reports; frequency and types of variant reclassification. Results: From 2006 through 2018, 1.45 million individuals (median [interquartile range] age at testing, 49 years [40.69-58.31 years], 95.6% women) had genetic testing, and 56.6% (n = 821 724) had a personal history of cancer. A total of 1.67 million initial tests were reported and 59 955 amended reports were issued due to variant reclassification. Overall, 6.4% (2868 of 44 777) of unique variants were reclassified. Reclassification to a different clinical category was rare among unique variants initially classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic (0.7%, 61 of 9112) or benign or likely benign (0.2%, 15 of 8995). However, 7.7% (2048 of 26 670) of unique variants of uncertain significance were reclassified: 91.2% (1867 of 2048) were downgraded to benign or likely benign (median time to amended report, 1.17 years), 8.7% (178 of 2048) were upgraded to pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (median time to amended report, 1.86 years). Because most variants were observed in more than 1 individual, 24.9% (46 890 of 184 327) of all reported variants of uncertain significance were reclassified. Conclusions and Relevance: Following hereditary cancer genetic testing at a single commercial laboratory, 24.9% of variants of uncertain significance were reclassified, which included both downgrades and upgrades. Further research is needed to assess generalizability of the findings for other laboratories, as well as the clinical consequences of the reclassification as a component of a genetic testing program.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingGenetic VariationAdultFemaleGenetic Diseases, InbornHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPrevalenceRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30264118
PMCPMC6233618

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.