ArticleFamilial cancer2025
Detection rates of multigene panel and exome testing in patients with previous negative BRCA1/2 results.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Potential advantage of clinical exome sequencing inJournal of medical genetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
40418377What 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.