ArticleJAMA2018
Prevalence of Variant Reclassification Following Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing.
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.
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
150 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- [Hereditary genetic testing and its application in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of breast cancer].Magyar onkologia · 2025Guideline
- Testing strategies for Lynch syndrome in people with endometrial cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Recommendations for return of secondary genomic findings in observational cohort studies.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Rapid minigene workflow for functional reclassification of splicing variants in hereditary cancer diagnostics.Journal of medical genetics · 2026Article
- Germline genomic testing to assess the suitability of stem cell donors in the treatment of haematological malignancy: clinical ethics commentary.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Real-world genetic testing data of ovarian cancer patients: Informing counseling and risk reduction in patients over age seventy.Gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Not Forgotten: Patient Experiences with Genetic Variant Reclassifications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Genome-wide transcriptional profiling identifies molecular markers associated with early carcinogenesis in high-grade bladder cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the Murcian population using a comprehensive NGS panel.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- A scalable approach to resolving variants of uncertain significance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Breast cancer surgery in the era of genetic uncertainty: real-world outcomes in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Variant reclassification in cancer susceptibility genes and an updated variant spectrum of Turkish breast and colorectal cancer patients.Human genomics · 2026Article
- Impact of variants of uncertain significance on decision making about genetic testing for Hispanic males.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
- Article
- Multiplexable, High-Throughput DNA-Based Technologies in Screening and Confirmatory Testing of Newborn Conditions: A Scoping Review.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Review
- Utilization of Genetic Testing and Surgical Implications in an Ethnically Diverse Hawaiian Population.Hawai'i journal of health & social welfare · 2025Article
- Reclassification ofEuropean journal of breast health · 2025Article
90 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.