ArticleJAMA network open2022
Clinical Utility of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) Genetic Testing Results on Mastectomy Choice in Lumpectomy-Eligible Patients.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- A scalable new model of germline cancer genomic care delivery: Assessing psychological outcomes.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
- Universal Germline Genetic Testing in a Precision Oncology and Rare Cancer Clinic: Implementation and Outcomes.JCO oncology advances · 2026Article
- Review
- Screening, Risk Reduction Strategies, and Clinical Management of Unaffected Carriers ofWorld journal of oncology · 2026Review
- Clinical predictors ofFrontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Advancing Germline Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer in Resource-Restricted Settings: Evidence, Barriers, and a Practical Roadmap for Implementation.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Review
- Landscape of germline genetic alterations among non-western young male patients with cancer. Findings from The Jordanian exploratory cancer genetics study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- GermlinePathology oncology research : POR · 2026Article
- Targeted therapies in lung cancer: personalizing treatment across the age spectrum.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Testing for hereditary cancer genes in men: a missed opportunity for cancer prevention.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Exploring the role of germline genetic testing in surgical decision making for early-stage invasive breast cancer: insights from a safety-net hospital.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Detecting likely germline variants during tumor-based molecular profiling.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
- Germline variants detected by multigene panel testing in patients with suspected hereditary breast cancer.Surgery today · 2025Article
- Using Open-Source Large Language Models to Identify Access to Germline Genetic Testing in Veterans With Breast Cancer From Unstructured Text.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Clinical Predictors of Inherited Breast Cancer at a Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Oman:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2025Article
- SNP's use as a potential chemotoxicity stratification tool in breast cancer: from bench to clinic.Functional & integrative genomics · 2025Review
- Quality-of-Life Assessment in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction for Moderate-Penetrance Gene-Related Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Enhanced detection and characterization of germline structural variants in cancer predisposition genes via genome sequencing.Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
- Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: Clinical Implications of Genomic Medicine and Precision Oncology.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines currently recommend germline testing for high-risk genes in selected patients with breast cancer. The clinical utility of recommending testing all patients with breast cancer with multigene panels is currently under consideration. Objective: To examine the implications of universal testing of patients with breast cancer with respect to clinical decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients from a previously reported cohort were assessed as in-criteria or out-of-criteria according to the 2017 guidelines and underwent testing with a multigene germline panel between 2017 to 2018. Patients were women and men aged 18 to 90 years, with a new and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer who had not undergone either single or multigene testing. Clinicians from 20 community and academic sites documented patient clinical information and changes to clinical recommendations made according to test findings. Association between prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and previously unreported clinical features, including scores generated by the BRCAPRO statistical model, was determined. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to May 2022. Exposure: New and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease management recommendations that were changed as a result of genetic testing results are reported. Results: Clinicians were asked to assess changes to clinical management as a result of germline genetic testing for 952 patients. Informative clinician-reported recommendations were provided for 939 (467 in-criteria and 472 out-of-criteria) of the patients with breast cancer (936 [99.7%] female; 702 [74.8%] White; mean [SD] age at initial diagnosis, 57.6 [11.5] years). One or more changes were reported for 31 of 37 (83.8%) in-criteria patients and 23 of 34 (67.6%) out-of-criteria patients with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Recommendations were changed as a result of testing results for 14 of 22 (63.6%) out-of-criteria patients who had a variant in a breast cancer predisposition gene. Clinicians considered testing beneficial for two-thirds of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and for one-third of patients with either negative results or variants of uncertain significance. There was no difference in variant rate between patients meeting the BRCAPRO threshold (≥10%) and those who did not (P = .86, Fisher exact test). No changes to clinical recommendations were made for most patients with negative results (345 of 349 patients [98.9%]) or variants of uncertain significance (492 of 509 patients [96.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, germline genetic testing was used by clinicians to direct treatment for most out-of-criteria patients with breast cancer with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants, including those with moderate-risk variants. Universal germline testing informs clinical decision-making and provides access to targeted treatments and clinical trials for all patients with breast 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.