ReviewCancers2022
Diagnostic Strategies and Algorithms for Investigating Cancer Predisposition Syndromes in Children Presenting with Malignancy.
Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiology of Childhood Cancer and Cancer Predisposition Syndromes (CPSs): A 20-Year Single-Center Cohort from the Greater Poland Region.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical challenges of cancer predisposition syndromes with pediatric central nervous system tumors: a single-center study.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2025Article
- Genetic Predisposition to Hematologic Malignancies.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2025Review
- Rate of germline pathogenic sequence variants in cancer susceptibility genes in an Israeli pediatric and adolescent cancer cohort: a single institute experience.Familial cancer · 2025Article
- Retinoblastoma management in China: clinical challenges.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Genetic predisposition to childhood cancer.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2024Article
- Article
- Genomic Newborn Screening for Pediatric Cancer Predisposition Syndromes: A Holistic Approach.Cancers · 2024Review
- Germline Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes in Pediatric Patients with Central Nervous System Tumors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Ethical considerations of genetic and genomic testing in pediatric oncology: A narrative review.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the past recent years, the expanding use of next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of new cancer predisposition syndromes (CPSs), which are now known to be responsible for up to 10% of childhood cancers. As knowledge in the field is in constant evolution, except for a few "classic" CPSs, there is no consensus about when and how to perform germline genetic diagnostic studies in cancer-bearing children. Several clinical screening tools have been proposed to help identify the patients who carry higher risk, with heterogeneous strategies and results. After introducing the main clinical and molecular features of several CPSs predisposing to solid and hematological malignancies, we compare the available clinical evidence on CPS prevalence in pediatric cancer patients and on the most used decision-support tools in identifying the patients who could benefit from genetic counseling and/or direct genetic testing. This analysis highlighted that a personalized stepwise approach employing clinical screening tools followed by sequencing in high-risk patients might be a reasonable and cost-effective strategy in the care of children with 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.