Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36735256›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Assessment of Cancer Predisposition Syndromes in a National Cohort of Children With a Neoplasm.

Jette J Bakhuizen, Saskia M J Hopman, Machteld I Bosscha, Charlotte J Dommering, Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink, Janna A Hol, Lennart A Kester, Marco J Koudijs, Karin P S Langenberg, Jan L C Loeffen and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

18 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Jette J BakhuizenPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Saskia M J HopmanPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Machteld I BosschaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Charlotte J DommeringDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marry M van den Heuvel-EibrinkPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Janna A HolPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Lennart A KesterPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marco J KoudijsPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Karin P S LangenbergPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jan L C LoeffenPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jasper van der LugtPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Annette C MollDepartment of Ophthalmology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Max M van NoeselPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Stephanie E SmetsersPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Evelien de Vos-KerkhofPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Johannes H M MerksPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Roland P KuiperPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marjolijn C J JongmansPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Princess Máxima Center · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLUtrecht University · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLWilhelmina Children's Hospital · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: To improve diagnostics of cancer predisposition syndromes (CPSs) in children with cancer, it is essential to evaluate the effect of CPS gene sequencing among all children with cancer and compare it with genetic testing based on clinical selection. However, a reliable comparison is difficult because recent reports on a phenotype-first approach in large, unselected childhood cancer cohorts are lacking. Objective: To describe a national children's cancer center's experience in diagnosing CPSs before introducing routine next-generation sequencing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the National Retinoblastoma Treatment Center (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and the Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology (Utrecht, Netherlands) and included Dutch pediatric patients with a new diagnosis of neoplasm between June 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. Follow-up was at least 18 months after neoplasm diagnosis. Data analysis was conducted from July 2021 to February 2022. Exposures: As part of routine diagnostics, pediatric oncologists and ophthalmologists checked for characteristics of CPSs and selected children for referral to clinical geneticists and genetic testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Detected cancer predisposition syndromes. Results: A total of 824 patients (median [range] age at diagnosis 7.5 [0-18.9] years; 361 girls [44%]) were assessed, including 335 children with a hematological neoplasm (41%) and 489 (59%) with a solid tumor. In 71 of 824 children (8.6%), a CPS was identified, of which most (96%) were identified by a phenotype-driven approach. Down syndrome and neurofibromatosis type 1 were the most common CPSs diagnosed. In 42 of 71 patients (59%), a CPS was identified after these children developed a neoplasm. The specific type of neoplasm was the most frequent indicator for genetic testing, whereas family history played a minor role. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of children with a neoplasm, the prevalence of CPSs identified by a phenotype-driven approach was 8.6%. The diagnostic approach for identifying CPSs is currently shifting toward a genotype-first approach. Future studies are needed to determine the diagnostic value, as well as possible disadvantages of CPS gene sequencing among all children with cancer compared with the phenotype-driven approach.

Indexed as

Neurofibromatosis 1Cohort StudiesDisease SusceptibilityGenotypeHumansRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36735256
PMCPMC9898819
OpenAlexW4319058736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.