Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42265275›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

Hereditary cancer: Germline testing practices across ERN GENTURIS member countries.

Milena Kiljańczyk, Zanda Daneberga, Mikk Tooming, Katarzyna Urbańczyk, Minna Pöyhönen, Tiina Kahre, Lenka Foretova, Emma Tham, Tamara Milagre, Béla Melegh and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Outcomes of 'in-house' genetic testing within a specialist hereditary colorectal cancer registry.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

23 authors.

Milena KiljańczykInternational Hereditary Cancer Center, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8050-1507
Zanda DanebergaEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0887-2973
Mikk ToomingEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Katarzyna UrbańczykEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Minna PöyhönenEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tiina KahreEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-4399-354X
Lenka ForetovaEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Emma ThamEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tamara MilagreEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Béla MeleghEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maria K HaanpääEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ana BlatnikEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Katharina WimmerEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0732-7538
Robin de PutterEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9410-8941
Karin WadtEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Claude HoudayerEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5190-0389
Elke Holinski-FederEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5172-2818
Antonis KattamisEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Barbara KlinkEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8753-8238
Hildegunn Høberg-VettiEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9876-576X
Ignacio Blanco GuillermoEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7414-7481
Nicoline HoogerbruggeEuropean Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2393-8141
Jan LubińskiInternational Hereditary Cancer Center, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland. jan.lubinski@pum.edu.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2931-3003

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Germline genetic testing practices for hereditary cancer vary across the European Reference Network on Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS) member countries. We surveyed experts in genetic testing from 20 EU member countries and Norway to assess multi-gene panel usage, availability of genome-wide sequencing, first-tier testing approaches, implementation of polygenic risk scores, and the roles of non-genetic healthcare professionals. National experts and members of the ERN GENTURIS completed a structured questionnaire covering founder germline pathogenic variants (gPV) testing, panel testing for common genetic tumour risk syndromes, use of whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing, polygenic risk score implementation, use of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour samples, laboratory accreditation, and the clinical roles of physicians, genetic counselors and nurses. Significant inter-country heterogeneity was observed. Most countries rely on next-generation sequencing (NGS) multi-gene panels. Founder gPV testing is first-line in a few high-prevalence populations (e.g., BRCA1/2 founders). All 21 countries offer NGS panel tests for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and ≥19 countries do so for colorectal and prostate cancers. However, NGS panel size and gene composition exhibit substantial variability. WES is available in 12 countries on a routine basis. Most countries implemented genetic testing on stored tumour tissue from deceased patients. In all countries, clinical geneticists can order germline genetic tests, and in 9 countries, any physician can do so. These findings show differences in accessibility to germline genetic testing of hereditary cancer in Europe. We propose EU-wide guidance via pathways, standards of care, and sharing of best practices to further optimize access to hereditary cancer genetic molecular diagnostics.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingGerm-Line MutationNeoplastic Syndromes, HereditaryEuropeFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic Risk ScoreHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID42265275
PMCPMC13549969

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.