Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40418377›Full record

ArticleFamilial cancer2025

Detection rates of multigene panel and exome testing in patients with previous negative BRCA1/2 results.

Jewel L Wasson, Trinity N Sprague, Darcy L Thull, Maureen May, Kathleen E Vitale, Shenin A Sanoba, Alexander N Yatsenko, Daniel Bellissimo, Phuong L Mai

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Familial cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Potential advantage of clinical exome sequencing inJournal of medical genetics · 2026
    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

9 authors.

Jewel L WassonUPMC Magee Center for Medical Genetics and Genomics, University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, 300 Halket Street, Suite 1651, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. wassonjl@upmc.edu.ORCID 0009-0009-5044-7103
Trinity N SpragueUPMC Magee Center for Medical Genetics and Genomics, University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, 300 Halket Street, Suite 1651, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3294-8328
Darcy L ThullUPMC Magee Center for Medical Genetics and Genomics, University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, 300 Halket Street, Suite 1651, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7999-2804
Maureen MayUPMC Clinical Genomics Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-4049-1506
Kathleen E VitaleUPMC Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Shenin A SanobaUPMC Magee Center for Medical Genetics and Genomics, University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, 300 Halket Street, Suite 1651, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9391-3471
Alexander N YatsenkoDepartment of OB/GYN and Reproductive Sciences, Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Daniel BellissimoDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Phuong L MaiDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7486-4974

Funding

Magee-Womens Research Institute HD096723
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since panel genetic testing has become widely available, national guidelines recommend that individuals who previously underwent BRCA1/2-only testing should undergo updated testing to include other hereditary breast and ovarian cancer predisposition genes. Our study assessed the yield of additional hereditary cancer predisposition testing in patients who previously underwent negative BRCA1/2 testing. Additionally, our study included a small pilot to evaluate whole exome sequencing in patients with a strong family history. Patients enrolled in a registry study who previously underwent negative BRCA1/2 testing were included and stratified into three categories based on personal and family cancer history-strongly suggestive, moderately suggestive, and possibly suggestive. Updated testing with a 36-gene pan-cancer panel was performed on most participants. A selected set of participants had whole exome sequencing. Patients with a pathogenic variant identified were offered clinical confirmatory testing. Rates of positive test results were compared among the three groups. Clinically relevant pathogenic variants in non-BRCA1/2 genes from the 36-gene panel test were identified in 8.1% of participants, most commonly in PALB2 (1.9%), ATM (1.2%), and MSH6 (1.2%). Positive findings were more common in patients with strongly suggestive history, but the differences were not statistically significant. Exome testing in individuals with a strongly suggestive personal and family history did not yield novel findings. Our findings aligned with previous studies and support the use of expanded gene panel testing in all patients meeting testing criteria who previously underwent negative BRCA1/2 testing. Our small pilot whole exome sequencing did not identify any novel finding.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsExome SequencingGenetic TestingHereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer SyndromeAdultAgedAtaxia Telangiectasia Mutated ProteinsBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinDNA-Binding ProteinsFanconi Anemia Complementation Group N ProteinFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsAtaxia Telangiectasia Mutated ProteinsATM protein, humanBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, humanDNA-Binding ProteinsFanconi Anemia Complementation Group N ProteinG-T mismatch-binding proteinPALB2 protein, humanBRCA negativeExomePanelUpdated testing

Identifiers

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.