Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36136330›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Clinical Utility of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer.

Pat W Whitworth, Peter D Beitsch, Rakesh Patel, Barry Rosen, Gia Compagnoni, Paul L Baron, Rache Simmons, Eric A Brown, Linsey Gold, Dennis Holmes and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Clinical predictors ofFrontiers in oncology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. GermlinePathology oncology research : POR · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

28 authors.

Pat W WhitworthNashville Breast Center, Nashville, Tennesee.
Peter D BeitschTME Breast Care Network, Dallas, Texas.
Rakesh PatelTME Breast Care Network, Dallas, Texas.
Barry RosenTME Breast Care Network, Dallas, Texas.
Gia CompagnoniAdvanced Surgical Care of Northern Illinois, Barrington.
Paul L BaronNorthwell Health, New York, New York.
Rache SimmonsDepartment of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Eric A BrownComprehensive Breast Care, A Division of Michigan Healthcare Professionals, Troy.
Linsey GoldComprehensive Breast Care, A Division of Michigan Healthcare Professionals, Troy.
Dennis HolmesPrivate practice, Los Angeles, California.
Linda Ann SmithBreast Surgery Associates of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Michael KinneyCenter for Advanced Breast Care, Arlington Heights, Illinois.
Ian GradyNorth Valley Breast Clinic, Redding, California.
Patricia ClarkIronwood Cancer and Research Centers, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Karen BarbosaAlaska Breast Care Specialists, Anchorage.
Samuel LyonsLyons Care Associates, Kahului, Hawaii.
Lee RileySt Luke's University Health Network, Easton, Pennsylvania.
Cynara CoomerDepartment of Surgery, Northwell Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, New York.
Lisa CurcioBreast Link, Laguna Hills, California.
Antonio RuizChesapeake Regional Medical Center, Chesapeake, Virginia.
Sadia KhanHoag Hospital Newport Beach, Newport Beach, California.
Heather MacDonaldHoag Hospital Newport Beach, Newport Beach, California.
Kevin HughesDepartment of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
Mary Kay HardwickTME Breast Care Network, Dallas, Texas.
Brandie HealdInvitae, San Francisco, California.
Sandra B MunroInvitae, San Francisco, California.
Sarah M NielsenInvitae, San Francisco, California.
Edward D EsplinInvitae, San Francisco, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Breast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingGerm CellsHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID36136330
PMCPMC9500554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.