ArticleBMC medical genomics2019
Detection of large rearrangements in a hereditary pan-cancer panel using next-generation sequencing.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2019. 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.
- EMQN best practice guidelines for genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Guideline
- Enhanced Detection of BRCA Copy Number Alterations Within a Commercial HRD Assay: Implications for Precision Oncology in Ovarian Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Characterization of Copy Number Variants in Hereditary Cancer Patients Through NGS Shows a Distinctive PALB2 Contribution to the Diagnostic Yield.Human mutation · 2026Article
- Germline Findings From Tumor-Only Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in the RATIONAL Study: A Missed Opportunity?JCO precision oncology · 2025Observational
- Pan-genomics: Insight into the Functional Genome, Applications, Advancements, and Challenges.Current genomics · 2025Review
- Comparing the Diagnostic Yield of Germline Exome Versus Panel Sequencing in the Diverse Population of the Texas KidsCanSeq Pediatric Cancer Study.JCO precision oncology · 2024Article
- Insights into the Clinical, Biological and Therapeutic Impact of Copy Number Alteration in Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- A review of the pangenome: how it affects our understanding of genomic variation, selection and breeding in domestic animals?Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Copy Number Variants Are Ovarian Cancer Risk Alleles at Known and Novel Risk Loci.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Article
- Pancreatic Ductal Carcinoma Risk Associated With Hereditary Cancer-Risk Genes.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Article
- Multigene assessment of genetic risk for women for two or more breast cancers.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- Germline Structural Variations in Cancer Predisposition Genes.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Analysis of Sequence and Copy Number Variants in Canadian Patient Cohort With Familial Cancer Syndromes Using a Unique Next Generation Sequencing Based Approach.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare providers increasingly use information about pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes, including sequence variants and large rearrangements (LRs), in medical management decisions. While sequence variant detection is typically robust, LRs can be difficult to detect and characterize and may be underreported as a cause for hereditary cancer risk. This report describes the outcomes of hereditary cancer genetic testing using a comprehensive strategy that employs next-generation sequencing (NGS) for LR detection, coupled with LR confirmation using repeat hybrid capture NGS, microarray comparative genomic hybridization (microarray-CGH), and/or multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA).
methodsSequencing and LR analysis were conducted in a consecutive series of 376,159 individuals who received clinical testing with a hereditary pan-cancer gene panel from September 2013 through May 2017. NGS dosage analysis was used to evaluate potential deletions or duplications, with controls in place to exclude pseudogene reads. Samples positive for a putative LR based on NGS were confirmed using a comprehensive approach that included targeted microarray-CGH and/or MLPA analysis, with further examination as needed to ascertain the nature of the LR.
resultsA total of 3461 LRs were identified and classified as a deleterious mutation (DM), suspected deleterious mutation (SDM) or variant of uncertain significance. Pathogenic LRs (DM/SDM) accounted for the majority of LRs (67.7%), the largest proportion of which were deletions (86.1%), followed by duplications (11.3%), insertions (1.8%), triplications (0.5%), and inversions (0.3%). Several cases presented illustrate that the laboratory approach employed here can ensure consistent identification and accurate characterization of LRs. In the absence of this comprehensive testing strategy, 9% of LRs identified in this testing population might have been missed, potentially leading to inappropriate medical management in as many as 210 individuals referred for hereditary cancer testing.
conclusionsThese data show that copy number analysis using NGS coupled with confirmatory testing reliably detects and characterizes LRs. Further, LRs comprise a substantial proportion (7.2%) of pathogenic variants identified by the test. A robust and accurate LR identification strategy is an essential component of a high-quality genetic testing program, enabling clinicians to optimize patient medical management decisions.
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.