ReviewCancers2024
Genomic Newborn Screening for Pediatric Cancer Predisposition Syndromes: A Holistic Approach.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision Pediatric Cancer Nanomedicine: Advancing Personalized Nano Therapies to Reduce Non-Communicable Diseases Through AI-Driven 3D-Printed Drugs.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Cancer Biomarkers: Reflection on Recent Progress, Emerging Innovations, and the Clinical Horizon.Cancers · 2025Article
- Genomic and Structural Investigation of Mutations in Biotinidase (BTD) Gene Deficiency in Greater Middle Eastern Cohort: Insights from Molecular Dynamics Study.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Holistic precision wellness: Paving the way for next-generation precision medicine (ngPM) with AI, biomedical informatics, and clinical medicine.FASEB bioAdvances · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review of machine learning for heart disease prediction: challenges, trends, ethical considerations, and future directions.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Review
- Driving the future of value-based healthcare in the Gulf Cooperation Council: a roadmap for achieving sustainable access to specialty pharmaceuticals.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As next-generation sequencing (NGS) has become more widely used, germline and rare genetic variations responsible for inherited illnesses, including cancer predisposition syndromes (CPSs) that account for up to 10% of childhood malignancies, have been found. The CPSs are a group of germline genetic disorders that have been identified as risk factors for pediatric cancer development. Excluding a few "classic" CPSs, there is no agreement regarding when and how to conduct germline genetic diagnostic studies in children with cancer due to the constant evolution of knowledge in NGS technologies. Various clinical screening tools have been suggested to aid in the identification of individuals who are at greater risk, using diverse strategies and with varied outcomes. We present here an overview of the primary clinical and molecular characteristics of various CPSs and summarize the existing clinical genomics data on the prevalence of CPSs in pediatric cancer patients. Additionally, we discuss several ethical issues, challenges, limitations, cost-effectiveness, and integration of genomic newborn screening for CPSs into a healthcare system. Furthermore, we assess the effectiveness of commonly utilized decision-support tools in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic counseling and/or direct genetic testing. This investigation highlights a tailored and systematic approach utilizing medical newborn screening tools such as the genome sequencing of high-risk newborns for CPSs, which could be a practical and cost-effective strategy in pediatric cancer care.
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.