Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31642931›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer.

Rachid Karam, Blair Conner, Holly LaDuca, Kelly McGoldrick, Kate Krempely, Marcy E Richardson, Heather Zimmermann, Stephanie Gutierrez, Patrick Reineke, Lily Hoang and 15 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Impact of genome build on RNA-seq interpretation and diagnostics.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

25 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Rachid KaramAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Blair ConnerAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Holly LaDucaAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Kelly McGoldrickAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Kate KrempelyAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Marcy E RichardsonAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Heather ZimmermannAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Stephanie GutierrezAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Patrick ReinekeAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Lily HoangAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Kyle AllenAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Amal YussufAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Suzette Farber-KatzAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Huma Q RanaDepartment of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Samantha CulverDepartment of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
John LeeSamuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Sarah NashedDivision of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.
Deborah ToppmeyerDivision of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.
Debra CollinsUniversity of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood.
Ginger HaynesAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Tina PesaranAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Jill S DolinskyAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Brigette Tippin DavisAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Aaron ElliottAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Elizabeth ChaoAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, California.
Ambry Genetics (United States) · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · USThe University of Kansas Cancer Center · USUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Performing DNA genetic testing (DGT) for hereditary cancer genes is now a well-accepted clinical practice; however, the interpretation of DNA variation remains a challenge for laboratories and clinicians. Adding RNA genetic testing (RGT) enhances DGT by clarifying the clinical actionability of hereditary cancer gene variants, thus improving clinicians' ability to accurately apply strategies for cancer risk reduction and treatment. Objective: To evaluate whether RGT is associated with improvement in the diagnostic outcome of DGT and in the delivery of personalized cancer risk management for patients with hereditary cancer predisposition. Design, Setting, and Participants: Diagnostic study in which patients and/or families with inconclusive variants detected by DGT in genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer sent blood samples for RGT from March 2016 to April 2018. Clinicians who ordered genetic testing and received a reclassification report for these variants were surveyed to assess whether RGT-related variant reclassifications changed clinical management of these patients. To quantify the potential number of tested individuals who could benefit from RGT, a cohort of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT for hereditary cancer were separately queried to identify variants predicted to affect splicing. Data analysis was conducted from March 2016 and September 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Variant reclassification outcomes following RGT, clinical management changes associated with RGT-related variant reclassifications, and the proportion of patients who would likely be affected by a concurrent DGT and RGT multigene panel testing approach. Results: In total, 93 if 909 eligible families (10.2%) submitted samples for RGT. Evidence from RGT clarified the interpretation of 49 of 56 inconclusive cases (88%) studied; 26 (47%) were reclassified as clinically actionable and 23 (41%) were clarified as benign. Variant reclassifications based on RGT results changed clinical management recommendations for 8 of 18 patients (44%) and 14 of 18 families (78%), based on responses from 18 of 45 clinicians (40%) surveyed. A total of 7265 of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT had likely pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance potentially affecting splicing, indicating that approximately 1 in 43 individuals could benefit from RGT. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, conducting RNA testing resolved a substantial proportion of variants of uncertain significance in a cohort of individuals previously tested for cancer predisposition by DGT. Performing RGT might change the diagnostic outcome of at least 1 in 43 patients if performed in all individuals undergoing genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer.

Indexed as

Decision MakingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansNeoplasmsRNATreatment OutcomeRNA

Identifiers

PMID31642931
PMCPMC6820040
OpenAlexW2981435903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.