ArticleJCO precision oncology2019
Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Diagnostic Yield and Patient Experience of Multiplex Gene Panel Testing For Hereditary Cancer Risk.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06436157 (Genetic Testing Uptake Through an Enhanced Oncology Nurse-Led Intervention in Patients With Solid Tumors), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 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.
Genetic Testing Uptake Through an Enhanced Oncology Nurse-Led Intervention in Patients With Solid Tumors (GENESIS): A Pilot Study
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical management among individuals with variant of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical genetics · 2021Pooled it
- A qualitative study of unaffected ATM and CHEK2 carriers: How participants make meaning of 'moderate risk' genetic results in a population breast cancer screening trial.Journal of genetic counseling · 2022Trial
- Communication With Clinicians and Relatives About Cascade Genetic Testing in Cancer Patients With Germline Pathogenic Variants.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Evaluating a Mendelian Risk Prediction Model That Aggregates Across Genes and Cancers.Genetic epidemiology · 2026Article
- Patient-reported actions following receipt of pathogenic hereditary cancer genetic test results: results from a population-based screening study in primary care.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Advances in Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: How Precision Medicine Is Changing the Game.Cancers · 2025Review
- Considerations for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome molecular diagnosis: experience from the clinical practice.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Psychological distress following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Breast Cancer MRI Screening of Patients After Multiplex Gene Panel Testing.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Harnessing liquid biopsies: Exosomes and ctDNA as minimally invasive biomarkers for precision cancer medicine.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2023Review
- An apparent quandary: adoption of polygenics and gene panels for personalised breast cancer risk stratification.BJC reports · 2023Review
- Exploring Stakeholders' Perspectives on Implementing Universal Germline Testing for Colorectal Cancer: Findings From a Clinical Practice Survey.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
- Clinical implications of conflicting variant interpretations in the cancer genetics clinic.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2023Article
- Cases in Precision Medicine: Is There an Obligation to Return Reinterpreted Genetic Results to Former Patients?Annals of internal medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Privacy and utility of genetic testing in families with hereditary cancer syndromes living in three countries: the international cascade genetic screening experience.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Statistical methods for Mendelian models with multiple genes and cancers.Genetic epidemiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMultiplex gene panel testing (MGPT) allows for the simultaneous analysis of germline cancer susceptibility genes. This study describes the diagnostic yield and patient experiences of MGPT in diverse populations. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled participants from three cancer genetics clinics-University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, and Stanford Cancer Institute-who met testing guidelines or had a 2.5% or greater probability of a pathogenic variant (N = 2,000). All patients underwent 25- or 28-gene MGPT and results were compared with differential genetic diagnoses generated by pretest expert clinical assessment. Post-test surveys on distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences were administered at 3 months (69% response rate) and 1 year (57% response rate).
resultsOf 2,000 participants, 81% were female, 41% were Hispanic, 26% were Spanish speaking only, and 30% completed high school or less education. A total of 242 participants (12%) carried one or more pathogenic variant (positive), 689 (34%) carried one or more variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 1,069 (53%) carried no pathogenic variants or VUS (negative). More than one third of pathogenic variants (34%) were not included in the differential diagnosis. After testing, few patients (4%) had prophylactic surgery, most (92%) never regretted testing, and most (80%) wanted to know all results, even those of uncertain significance. Positive patients were twice as likely as negative/VUS patients (83%
conclusionIn a racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort, MGPT increased diagnostic yield. More than one third of identified pathogenic variants were not clinically anticipated. Patient regret and prophylactic surgery use were low, and patients appropriately encouraged relatives to be tested for clinically relevant results.
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.