ReviewThe Journal of clinical investigation2025
Detecting likely germline variants during tumor-based molecular profiling.
Review in The Journal of clinical investigation, 2025. 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.
- Tumor, germline, and paired testing in oncology: practical considerations.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Distinct mutational landscapes for germline and somatic cancer variants in forty tumor suppressor genes.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Sequencing approaches in hereditary cancer testing: strengths, limitations and future directions.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Genetic testing in pituitary adenomas: a Pituitary Society International Consensus Statement.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2026Review
- Genetic and non-genetic factors influencing phenotypic variability in neurofibromatosis type 1.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Review
- Distinct mutational landscapes when comparing germline and somatic cancer variants in forty tumor suppressor genes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Identification ofOncology research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the use of molecular profiling of tumors expands, cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment planning increasingly rely on the information it provides. Although primarily designed to detect somatic variants, next-generation sequencing (NGS) tumor-based profiling also identifies germline DNA alterations, necessitating careful clinical interpretation of the data. Traditionally, germline risk testing has depended on prioritizing individuals based on physical exam findings consistent with known hereditary cancer syndromes, tumor-specific features, age at diagnosis, personal history, and family history. As NGS-based molecular profiling is used increasingly to diagnose, prognosticate, and follow cancer progression, DNA variants that are likely to be of germline origin are identified with increased frequency. Because pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants are critical biomarkers for risk stratification and treatment planning, consensus guidelines are expanding to recommend comprehensive germline testing for more cancer patients. This Review highlights the nuances of identifying DNA variants of potential germline origin incidentally at the time of NGS-based molecular profiling and emphasizes key differences between comprehensive germline versus tumor-based platforms, sample types, and analytical methodologies. In the growing era of precision oncology, clinicians should be adept at navigating these distinctions to optimize testing strategies and leverage insights regarding germline cancer risk surveillance and management for all people with cancer.
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.