ArticleCureus2023
Universal Genetic Testing vs. Guideline-Directed Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes Among Traditionally Underrepresented Patients in a Community Oncology Program.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Universal versus Guideline-Directed Germline Testing in Breast Cancer: Incremental Diagnostic Yield in a Predominantly Black Population.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Results of a multigene panel testing approach targeting patients with suspected genetic predisposition to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Identification of Patients at Elevated Cancer Risk through a Community-Based Genetic Testing Program.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Are Broadened Guidelines Improving our Detection of Pathologic Genetic Mutations in Breast Cancer Patients? A 5-Year Comparative Analysis of American Society of Breast Surgeons and National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- ClinVar Database Evolution and Impact on Potential Pathogenic Germline Variant Reporting from Tumor Comprehensive Genomic Profiling.Cancer research communications · 2025Article
- Experience using conventional compared to ancestry-based population descriptors in clinical genomics laboratories.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- Update to the essential genomic nursing competencies and outcome indicators.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2024Article
- Frequency of Deleterious Germline Variants in HER2-Low Breast Cancer Patients Using a Hereditary Multipanel Gene Testing.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Article
- Disparate Rates of Germline Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes in African American/Black Compared With Non-Hispanic White Individuals Between 2015 and 2022.JCO precision oncology · 2024Article
- Germline findings in cancer predisposing genes from a small cohort of chordoma patients.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- The Clinical and Genetic Landscape of Hereditary Cancer: Experience from a Single Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory.Cancer genomics & proteomicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Detection of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) has implications for cancer screening, prognosis, treatment selection, clinical trial enrollment, and family testing. Published guidelines provide indications for PGV testing, determined by clinical and demographic factors, but their applicability in an ethnically and racially diverse community hospital population is unknown. This study describes the diagnostic and incremental yield of universal multi-gene panel testing in a diverse population in a community cancer practice. Methods We completed a prospective study of proactive germline genetic sequencing among patients with solid tumor malignancies at a community-based oncology practice in downtown Jacksonville, FL, between June 2020 and September 2021. The patients were unselected for cancer type, stage, family history, race/ethnicity, and age. PGVs identified using an 84-gene next-generation sequencing (NGS) tumor genomic testing platform were stratified by penetrance. National Comprehensive Cancer Networks (NCCN) guidelines determined incremental PGV rates. Results Two hundred twenty-three patients were enrolled, with a median age of 63 years, 78.5% female. 32.7% were Black/African American, and 5.4% were Hispanic. 39.9% of patients were commercially insured, Medicare/Medicaid insured 52.5%, and 2.7% were uninsured. The most common cancers in this cohort were breast (61.9%), lung (10.3%), and colorectal (7.2%). Twenty-three patients (10.3%) carried one or more PGVs, and 50.2% carried a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Though there was no significant difference in the rate of PGVs based on race/ethnicity, African Americans were numerically more likely to have a VUS reported than whites (P=0.059). Eighteen (8.1%) patients had incremental clinically actionable findings that practice guidelines would not have detected, which was higher in non-whites. Conclusions In this racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort, universal multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) increased diagnostic yield over targeted guideline-informed testing. Rates of VUS and incremental PGV were higher in non-white populations.
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.