Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38740897›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2024

Actionability and familial uptake following opportunistic genomic screening in a pediatric cancer cohort.

Sophia Hammer-Hansen, Ulrik Stoltze, Emil Bartels, Thomas van Overeem Hansen, Anna Byrjalsen, Anne Tybjærg-Hansen, Klaus Juul, Kjeld Schmiegelow, Jacob Tfelt, Henning Bundgaard and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Measuring disease likelihood in genomic ascertainment.American journal of human genetics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Hitting the heights with CiteScore.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024
    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

12 authors.

Sophia Hammer-HansenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1298-7490
Ulrik StoltzeDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-5862-3292
Emil BartelsInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thomas van Overeem HansenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anna ByrjalsenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anne Tybjærg-HansenInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Klaus JuulDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kjeld SchmiegelowDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jacob TfeltInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Henning BundgaardInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Karin Wadt *Department of Clinical Genetics, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Birgitte Rode Diness *Department of Clinical Genetics, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Birgitte.rode.diness@regionh.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-9306-3419

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The care for patients with serious conditions is increasingly guided by genomic medicine, and genomic medicine may equally transform care for healthy individual if genomic population screening is implemented. This study examines the medical impact of opportunistic genomic screening (OGS) in a cohort of patients undergoing comprehensive genomic germline DNA testing for childhood cancer, including the impact on their relatives. Medical actionability and uptake after cascade testing in the period following disclosure of OGS results was quantified. A secondary finding was reported to 19/595 (3.2%) probands primarily in genes related to cardiovascular and lipid disorders. After a mean follow up time of 1.6 years (Interquartile range (IQR): 0.57-1.92 yrs.) only 12 (63%) of these variants were found to be medically actionable. Clinical follow up or treatment was planned in 16 relatives, and as in the probands, the prescribed treatment was primarily betablockers or cholesterol lowering therapy. No invasive procedures or implantation of medical devices were performed in probands or relatives, and no reproductive counseling was requested. After an average of 1.6 years of follow-up 2.25 relatives per family with an actionable finding had been tested. This real-world experience of OGS grants new insight into the practical implementation effects and derived health care demands of genotype-first screening. The resulting health care effect and impact on demand for genetic counseling and workup in relatives extends beyond the effect in the probands.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingNeoplasmsAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolFamilyFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID38740897
PMCPMC11220050

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.