ArticleJCO oncology advances2026
Universal Germline Genetic Testing in a Precision Oncology and Rare Cancer Clinic: Implementation and Outcomes.
Article in JCO oncology advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
purposeCurrent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for germline testing are complex and often miss patients with cancer susceptibility. We evaluated results of universal germline genetic testing in a Precision Medicine and Rare Cancer clinic, focusing on the prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants and the proportion of affected patients who would have been missed by NCCN guidelines, comparing patients with rare and common cancer.
methodsAll consenting patients with cancer seen at Froedtert Hospital's Precision Oncology and Rare Cancer clinic (June 2023 to January 2025; N = 120 patients; 55, common cancers, 65 rare cancers), who had not previously had germline testing, met with a clinic-embedded genetic counselor and underwent germline testing. Key variables included cancer type (rare
resultsThe positive rate for P/LP germline variants was 15% (n = 18; 13%, patients with common cancer; 17%, patients with rare cancer). Notably, 29% and 64%, respectively, of patients with positive common and rare cancer did not meet NCCN guidelines at the time of testing. Among patients with common and rare cancer with positive results, 83% and 42% of P/LP variants were in high/moderate penetrance genes (eg,
conclusionUniversal germline testing identified a substantial number of patients with clinically valuable germline variants, many of whom would be missed by NCCN guidelines, exposing guideline-based testing limitations. Overall, 50% of patients positive for germline variants did not meet NCCN testing criteria. A clinic-embedded genetic counselor facilitated testing and post-test counseling as part of a comprehensive cancer management approach. These findings emphasize the need for inclusive testing strategies to better identify cancer predisposition, including in rare cancers.
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.