Gynecologic oncology · 2015
Rescreening for genetic mutations using multi-gene panel testing in patients who previously underwent non-informative genetic screening.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Frey Melissa K, Kim Sarah H, Bassett Rebecca Yee, Martineau Jessica, Dalton Emily, Chern Jing-Yi, Blank Stephanie V
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The availability of next-generation sequencing and identification of multiple cancer-related genes has caused a shift away from single gene testing towards multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. However, the utility of panels in individuals who previously underwent non-informative genetic screening has yet to be evaluated. We aim to evaluate the use of rescreening and results of multi-gene panels in this rescreened population.
METHODS: We reviewed the medical records for patients who had previously undergone genetic testing and then underwent multi-gene panel testing at a single institution between 9/2013 and 11/2014.
RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven patients with prior genetic testing underwent multi-gene panels. One hundred and four patients (82%) had a history of cancer and 118 (93%) had at least one family member with cancer. On primary testing, no pathogenic mutations were detected and 10 patients (8%) were found to have variants of uncertain significance (VUS). On repeat multi-gene panel testing, nine patients (7%) were found to have a pathogenic mutation and 53 patients (42%) were VUS not identified on prior testing.
CONCLUSIONS: Seven percent of patients with non-informative primary testing were found to have a pathogenic mutation with multi-gene panels, suggesting that there is a potential benefit to be gained from rescreening. However, 42% of patients were found to have new VUS with panels, a result that can cause patients anxiety without clear clinical implications.
METHODS: We reviewed the medical records for patients who had previously undergone genetic testing and then underwent multi-gene panel testing at a single institution between 9/2013 and 11/2014.
RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven patients with prior genetic testing underwent multi-gene panels. One hundred and four patients (82%) had a history of cancer and 118 (93%) had at least one family member with cancer. On primary testing, no pathogenic mutations were detected and 10 patients (8%) were found to have variants of uncertain significance (VUS). On repeat multi-gene panel testing, nine patients (7%) were found to have a pathogenic mutation and 53 patients (42%) were VUS not identified on prior testing.
CONCLUSIONS: Seven percent of patients with non-informative primary testing were found to have a pathogenic mutation with multi-gene panels, suggesting that there is a potential benefit to be gained from rescreening. However, 42% of patients were found to have new VUS with panels, a result that can cause patients anxiety without clear clinical implications.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Adaptor Proteins, Signal TransducingAdenosine TriphosphatasesAdultAgedAntigens, CDBreast NeoplasmsCadherinsCohort StudiesColonic NeoplasmsDNA Repair EnzymesDNA-Binding ProteinsFemaleGenes, BRCA2Genes, p53Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedMismatch Repair Endonuclease PMS2MutL Protein Homolog 1MutationNeoplasmsNuclear ProteinsOvarian NeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesUterine Neoplasms