ArticleJournal of medical genetics2025
Proposed framework for triage of putative germline variants detected via tumour genomic testing in UK oncology practice.
Article in Journal of medical genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Somatic and germline genetic testing pathways in haematological malignancies: Best practice consensus guidelines from the 2025 national meeting organised by UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), CanGene-CanVar and the NHS England Haematological Oncology Working Group.British journal of haematology · 2026Guideline
- Expert consensus on the reporting and clinical follow up of individuals with incidentally discovered germline RET variants in the UK.Endocrine-related cancer · 2026Article
- Identification and management of genetic susceptibility to cancer: UK perspective.BMJ oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the UK, most patients receive publicly funded medical care through the National Health Service (NHS), which funds tumour and/or germline testing for eligible patients with cancer to inform clinical management.Testing on tumour-derived DNA may identify putative heritable variants, with implications for the proband and their wider family, but is not a reliable substitute for germline genetic testing when hereditary cancer predisposition is suspected.The likelihood that a variant identified through tumour testing is of germline origin depends on multiple clinical and technical factors. Certain genotypes significantly influence a patient's cancer risk, and intervention in those carriers may facilitate cancer prevention or early detection, while other genotypes are associated with lower cancer risk, and associated intervention in such cases have limited clinical utility.We convened a national meeting of clinical cancer genetics and scientific leads to rationalise germline follow-up testing of variants identified through tumour-based testing. After contrasting potential approaches, implementation of an NHS-contextualised 'intermediate conservative' approach was agreed and refined by the authors, with the final pathway recirculated to the UK clinical and scientific community for consensus agreement and publication.We outline relevant patient, genetic and technical considerations informing likely origin of variants, a review of current relevant guidance and NHS laboratory practices and a workflow for laboratory and clinical teams to triage tumour-detected variants requiring onward germline follow-up. This approach aims to direct limited resources towards identifying germline variants associated with the greatest potential clinical impact, with a view to supporting more efficient and equitable delivery of genomic medicine in oncology.
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.