The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical Actionability of Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The practice of genetic testing for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) is rapidly evolving owing to the recent introduction of multigene panels. While these tests may identify 40% to 50% more individuals with hereditary cancer gene mutations than does testing for BRCA1/2 alone, whether finding such mutations will alter clinical management is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To define the potential clinical effect of multigene panel testing for HBOC in a clinically representative cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study of patients seen between 2001 and 2014 in 3 large academic medical centers. We prospectively enrolled 1046 individuals who were appropriate candidates for HBOC evaluation and who lacked BRCA1/2 mutations. INTERVENTIONS: We carried out multigene panel testing on all participants, then determined the clinical actionability, if any, of finding non-BRCA1/2 mutations in these and additional comparable individuals. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We evaluated the likelihood of (1) a posttest management change and (2) an indication for additional familial testing, considering gene-specific consensus management guidelines, gene-associated cancer risks, and personal and family history. RESULTS: Among 1046 study participants, 40 BRCA1/2-negative patients (3.8%; 95% CI, 2.8%-5.2%) harbored deleterious mutations, most commonly in moderate-risk breast and ovarian cancer genes (CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2) and Lynch syndrome genes. Among these and an additional 23 mutation-positive individuals enrolled from our clinics, most of the mutations (92%) were consistent with the spectrum of cancer(s) observed in the patient or family, suggesting that these results are clinically significant. Among all 63 mutation-positive patients, additional disease-specific screening and/or prevention measures beyond those based on personal and family history alone would be considered for most (33 [52%] of 63; 95% CI, 40.3%-64.2%). Furthermore, additional familial testing would be considered for those with first-degree relatives (42 [72%] of 58; 95% CI, 59.8%-82.2%) based on potential management changes for mutation-positive relatives. This clinical effect was not restricted to a few of the tested genes because most identified genes could change clinical management for some patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a clinically representative cohort, multigene panel testing for HBOC risk assessment yielded findings likely to change clinical management for substantially more patients than does BRCA1/2 testing alone. Multigene testing in this setting is likely to alter near-term cancer risk assessment and management recommendations for mutation-affected individuals across a broad spectrum of cancer predisposition genes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype
Landrum, M. J., Lee, J. M., Riley, G. R., Jang, W., Rubinstein, W. S., Church, D. M., & Maglott, D. R. (2014) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt1113 · Cited by 3,516
Domchek, S. M. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1237 · Cited by 1,494
A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors
Tyrer, J., Duffy, S. W., & Cuzick, J. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1668 · Cited by 1,345
Walsh, T., Casadei, S., Lee, M. K., Pennil, C. C., Nord, A. S., Thornton, A. M., Roeb, W., Agnew, K. J., Stray, S. M., Wickramanayake, A., et al. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1115052108 · Cited by 933
Breast-Cancer Risk in Families with Mutations in PALB2
Antoniou, A. C., Casadei, S., Heikkinen, T., Barrowdale, D., Pylkäs, K., Roberts, J., Lee, A., Subramanian, D., De Leeneer, K., Fostira, F., et al. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1400382 · Cited by 851
Meindl, A., Hellebrand, H., Wiek, C., Erven, V., Wappenschmidt, B., Niederacher, D., Freund, M., Lichtner, P., Hartmann, L., Schaal, H., et al. (2010) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.569 · Cited by 743
Couch, F. J., Hart, S. N., Sharma, P., Toland, A. E., Wang, X., Miron, P., Olson, J. E., Godwin, A. K., Pankratz, V. S., Olswold, C., et al. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2014.57.1414 · Cited by 672
Impact of Oophorectomy on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Women With a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation
Finch, A. P. M., Lubinski, J., Møller, P., Singer, C. F., Karlan, B., Senter, L., Rosen, B., Maehle, L., Ghadirian, P., Cybulski, C., et al. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2013.53.2820 · Cited by 664
Self-citationClinical Evaluation of a Multiple-Gene Sequencing Panel for Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment
Kurian, A. W., Hare, E. E., Mills, M. A., Kingham, K. E., McPherson, L., Whittemore, A. S., McGuire, V., Ladabaum, U., Kobayashi, Y., Lincoln, S. E., et al. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2013.53.6607 · Cited by 485
Self-citation
Cited by
Kurian, A. W., Ward, K. C., Howlader, N., Deapen, D., Hamilton, A. S., Mariotto, A., Miller, D., Penberthy, L. S., & Katz, S. J. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.18.01854 · Cited by 387
Self-citationSamadder, N. J., Riegert-Johnson, D., Boardman, L., Rhodes, D., Wick, M., Okuno, S., Kunze, K. L., Golafshar, M., Uson, P. L. S., Mountjoy, L., et al. (2021) · JAMA Oncology · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.6252 · Cited by 304
Kurian, A. W., Li, Y., Hamilton, A. S., Ward, K. C., Hawley, S. T., Morrow, M., McLeod, M. C., Jagsi, R., & Katz, S. J. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2016.71.6480 · Cited by 265
Self-citationImplementing Precision Medicine: The Ethical Challenges
Korngiebel, D. M., Thummel, K. E., & Burke, W. (2017) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2016.11.007 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Desmond, A., Kurian, A. W., Gabree, M., Mills, M. A., Anderson, M. J., Kobayashi, Y., Horick, N., Yang, S., Shannon, K. M., Tung, N., Ford, J. M., Lincoln, S. E., & Ellisen, L. W.
- Venue
- JAMA Oncology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2015-10-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 943
- ISSN
- 2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1545501013
- Cited by
- 333
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 24.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical Actionability of Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2690
- The paper
- Desmond, A., Kurian, A. W., Gabree, M., Mills, M. A., Anderson, M. J., Kobayashi, Y., Horick, N., Yang, S., Shannon, K. M., Tung, N., Ford, J. M., Lincoln, S. E., & Ellisen, L. W. (2015). Clinical Actionability of Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment. JAMA Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2690
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.