Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 485

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical Evaluation of a Multiple-Gene Sequencing Panel for Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment

Open access
Kurian, Allison W., Hare, Emily E., Mills, Meredith A., Kingham, Kerry E., McPherson, Lisa, Whittemore, Alice S., McGuire, Valerie, Ladabaum, Uri, Kobayashi, Yuya, Lincoln, Stephen E., Cargill, Michele, Ford, James M.·2014·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Multiple-gene sequencing is entering practice, but its clinical value is unknown. We evaluated the performance of a customized germline-DNA sequencing panel for cancer-risk assessment in a representative clinical sample. Methods: Patients referred for clinical BRCA1/2 testing from 2002 to 2012 were invited to donate a research blood sample. Samples were frozen at −80° C, and DNA was extracted from them after 1 to 10 years. The entire coding region, exon-intron boundaries, and all known pathogenic variants in other regions were sequenced for 42 genes that had cancer risk associations. Potentially actionable results were disclosed to participants. Results: In total, 198 women participated in the study: 174 had breast cancer and 57 carried germline BRCA1/2 mutations. BRCA1/2 analysis was fully concordant with prior testing. Sixteen pathogenic variants were identified in ATM, BLM, CDH1, CDKN2A, MUTYH, MLH1, NBN, PRSS1, and SLX4 among 141 women without BRCA1/2 mutations. Fourteen participants carried 15 pathogenic variants, warranting a possible change in care; they were invited for targeted screening recommendations, enabling early detection and removal of a tubular adenoma by colonoscopy. Participants carried an average of 2.1 variants of uncertain significance among 42 genes. Conclusion: Among women testing negative for BRCA1/2 mutations, multiple-gene sequencing identified 16 potentially pathogenic mutations in other genes (11.4%; 95% CI, 7.0% to 17.7%), of which 15 (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.5% to 16.9%) prompted consideration of a change in care, enabling early detection of a precancerous colon polyp. Additional studies are required to quantify the penetrance of identified mutations and determine clinical utility. However, these results suggest that multiple-gene sequencing may benefit appropriately selected patients.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2013.53.6607

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 72 references

Cited by

See all 485

Metadata

Authors
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., Cargill, M., & Ford, J. M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2014-07-01
Volume
32
Issue
19
Pages
2001-2009
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2095787833
Cited by
485
References
72
FWCI
41.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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 Evaluation of a Multiple-Gene Sequencing Panel for Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2013.53.6607
The paper
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., Cargill, M., & Ford, J. M. (2014). Clinical Evaluation of a Multiple-Gene Sequencing Panel for Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.53.6607

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.