Literature DB >> 25318351

Use of panel tests in place of single gene tests in the cancer genetics clinic.

A Yorczyk1,2, L S Robinson1,2, T S Ross1,2.   

Abstract

Improved technology has made it possible to test for mutations within multiple genes simultaneously. It is not clear when these gene 'panels' should be used in the hereditary cancer setting. These analyses were intended to guide panel testing criteria. Offering hereditary panel testing as a first and final, 'single-tier', option was explored. A 'two-tiered' approach, in which panel testing is offered reflexively following stricter criteria, was then applied to the same data. Within our cohort of 105 patients, the single-tier approach was associated with a higher mutation detection rate (6.7% vs 3.8%) and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) rate (0.94 vs 0.23 average per person) compared to a two-tiered approach. Of the VUSs also identified in other patients by another lab, 53% were classified differently between laboratories. Individuals reporting African American race had more VUSs compared to other ancestry groups (p = 0.001). The test cost for a single-tier test was 21% more than a two-tiered approach. Single-tier panel testing was associated with higher mutation and VUS rates, and there is inconsistent classification of the VUS/low penetrant genes between laboratories.
© 2014 The Authors. Clinical Genetics published by John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  hereditary cancer; next-generation sequencing; panel testing

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25318351     DOI: 10.1111/cge.12488

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genet        ISSN: 0009-9163            Impact factor:   4.438


  24 in total

1.  Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service.

Authors:  Angela Hamblin; Sarah Wordsworth; Jilles M Fermont; Suzanne Page; Kulvinder Kaur; Carme Camps; Pamela Kaisaki; Avinash Gupta; Denis Talbot; Mark Middleton; Shirley Henderson; Anthony Cutts; Dimitrios V Vavoulis; Nick Housby; Ian Tomlinson; Jenny C Taylor; Anna Schuh
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 2.  The current state of clinical interpretation of sequence variants.

Authors:  Derick C Hoskinson; Adrian M Dubuc; Heather Mason-Suares
Journal:  Curr Opin Genet Dev       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 5.578

3.  Increased yield of actionable mutations using multi-gene panels to assess hereditary cancer susceptibility in an ethnically diverse clinical cohort.

Authors:  Charité Ricker; Julie O Culver; Katrina Lowstuter; Duveen Sturgeon; Julia D Sturgeon; Christopher R Chanock; William J Gauderman; Kevin J McDonnell; Gregory E Idos; Stephen B Gruber
Journal:  Cancer Genet       Date:  2016-01-12

4.  Multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility in a rural Familial Cancer Program.

Authors:  David J Hermel; Wendy C McKinnon; Marie E Wood; Marc S Greenblatt
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  Performance of ACMG-AMP Variant-Interpretation Guidelines among Nine Laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.

Authors:  Laura M Amendola; Gail P Jarvik; Michael C Leo; Heather M McLaughlin; Yassmine Akkari; Michelle D Amaral; Jonathan S Berg; Sawona Biswas; Kevin M Bowling; Laura K Conlin; Greg M Cooper; Michael O Dorschner; Matthew C Dulik; Arezou A Ghazani; Rajarshi Ghosh; Robert C Green; Ragan Hart; Carrie Horton; Jennifer J Johnston; Matthew S Lebo; Aleksandar Milosavljevic; Jeffrey Ou; Christine M Pak; Ronak Y Patel; Sumit Punj; Carolyn Sue Richards; Joseph Salama; Natasha T Strande; Yaping Yang; Sharon E Plon; Leslie G Biesecker; Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 6.  Family-Specific Variants and the Limits of Human Genetics.

Authors:  Brian H Shirts; Colin C Pritchard; Tom Walsh
Journal:  Trends Mol Med       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 11.951

7.  Lynch Syndrome Limbo: Patient Understanding of Variants of Uncertain Significance.

Authors:  Ilana Solomon; Elizabeth Harrington; Gillian Hooker; Lori Erby; Jennifer Axilbund; Heather Hampel; Kara Semotiuk; Amie Blanco; William M P Klein; Francis Giardiello; Lori Leonard
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Kyle B Brothers; Sara Fitzgerald-Butt; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Leila Jamal; Cynthia A James; Gail P Jarvik; Jennifer B McCormick; Tanya N Nelson; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Julie Richer; Emmanuelle Souzeau; Jason L Vassy; Jennifer K Wagner; Howard P Levy
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Prevalence of mutations in a diverse cohort of 3162 women tested via the same multigene cancer panel in a managed care health plan.

Authors:  Mónica Alvarado; George E Tiller; Joanie Chung; Reina Haque
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2020-02-24

10.  Preferences for multigene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer risk among ethnically diverse BRCA-uninformative families.

Authors:  Belinda Vicuña; Harold D Delaney; Kristina G Flores; Lori Ballinger; Melanie Royce; Zoneddy Dayao; Tuya Pal; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-10-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.