ArticleJAMA network open2019
Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer.
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.
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
45 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcriptome-directed analysis for Mendelian disease diagnosis overcomes limitations of conventional genomic testing.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2021Trial
- Sequencing approaches in hereditary cancer testing: strengths, limitations and future directions.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Implementing Timely Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Using a Genetics Copilot for Point-of-Care Education and Health Assessment.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- Utility of Targeted RNA Analysis in Neurogenetic Disorders.Neurology. Genetics · 2026Article
- The actionable transcriptome: a framework for incorporating RNA sequencing into precision oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- A Plot Twist: When RNA Yields Unexpected Findings in Paired DNA-RNA Germline Genetic Testing.Genes · 2025Article
- Refining the interpretation of variants of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer screening through integrated RNA sequencing.Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
- Paired DNA/RNA testing uncovers a deep intronicFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Impact of genome build on RNA-seq interpretation and diagnostics.American journal of human genetics · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Outcomes of Concurrent DNA and RNA Sequencing in Individuals Undergoing Hereditary Cancer Testing.JAMA oncology · 2024Article
- Impact of genome build on RNA-seq interpretation and diagnostics.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- RNA Panel Sequencing Is an Effective Tool to Help Classify Splice Variants for Clinical Oncogenetic Diagnosis.Human mutation · 2024Article
- Combining clinical and molecular characterization of CDH1: a multidisciplinary approach to reclassification of a splicing variant.Familial cancer · 2023Article
- Transcript capture and ultradeep long-read RNA sequencing (CAPLRseq) to diagnose HNPCC/Lynch syndrome.Journal of medical genetics · 2023Article
- Using the ACMG/AMP framework to capture evidence related to predicted and observed impact on splicing: Recommendations from the ClinGen SVI Splicing Subgroup.American journal of human genetics · 2023Article
- A PMS2 non-canonical splicing site variant leads to aberrant splicing in a patient suspected for lynch syndrome.Familial cancer · 2023Article
- Alternative mRNA Splicing and Promising Therapies in Cancer.Biomolecules · 2023Review
- APPLICATION OF THE ACMG/AMP FRAMEWORK TO CAPTURE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO PREDICTED AND OBSERVED IMPACT ON SPLICING: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CLINGEN SVI SPLICING SUBGROUP.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Identification of germline cancer predisposition variants in pediatric sarcoma patients from somatic tumor testing.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Blood-Based mRNA Tests as Emerging Diagnostic Tools for Personalised Medicine in Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.