Evidence mapPaperPMID 39259913Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2024

Clinical Utility of Molecular Tumor Board Review for Identification of Possible Germline Pathogenic Variants on Tumor Next-Generation Sequencing Reports.

Taylor A Rives, James Collard, Ning Li, Donglin Yan, Charles S Dietrich, Rachel W Miller, Frederick R Ueland, Justine Pickarski, Jill M Kolesar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO precision oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Taylor A RivesDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.ORCID 0000-0003-1084-6678
James CollardMarkey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.ORCID 0000-0003-4930-7188
Ning LiDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.ORCID 0000-0002-9383-7381
Donglin YanDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.ORCID 0000-0002-5111-9437
Charles S DietrichDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Rachel W MillerDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.ORCID 0000-0002-9417-6642
Frederick R UelandDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.ORCID 0000-0003-1213-7509
Justine PickarskiMarkey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Jill M KolesarDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.ORCID 0000-0001-8575-4546

Funding

UW COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER SUPPORTP30CA014520 · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · 1985 to 2025
$35.4M
University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center – Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA177558 · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · 2025 to 2025
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014520NCI NIH HHS P30 CA177558
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing identifies possible germline pathogenic variants (PGPVs), creating a dilemma for appropriate recognition, triage, and management. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical utility of an institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) in assessing tumor NGS reports for PGPVs.

methodsOur institutional MTB reviews all NGS reports to provide treatment and further testing recommendations, including genetic counseling referral and consideration of genetic testing (GC/GT). We studied the patients reviewed by the MTB who were recommended for GC/GT to determine the frequency of referral to a GC, germline test completion, rate of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs), factors related to PGVs, and germline conversion rate (GCR).

resultsOf the 2,355 patients reviewed by the MTB during the study period, 609 (25.9%) had a recommendation for GC/GT. Of the 609 with a GC/GT recommendation, only 181 (29.7%) were referred for GC/GT by their treating physicians, and only 107 (17.6%) completed GT. Of the 107 patients completing GT, 29 (26%) had a confirmed PGV. The only factors significantly associated with PGVs were testing due to a PGPV and higher mean variant allele fraction on the tumor NGS. Only 40 patients with a GC/GT recommendation (14.3%) due to a PGPV completed GT; however, the GCR was 42.5% (n = 17/40).

conclusionThe MTB review of PGPV is clinically valuable, identifying PGPV in 12% of patients undergoing tumor NGS and a GCR of 42.5%. Rates of GC/GT completion were relatively low due to under-referral by treating physicians. Given the high GCR, the authors encourage institutional algorithms to help increase GC/GT rates for patients found to have PGPV following tumor NGS testing.

Indexed as

Germ-Line MutationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingNeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID39259913
PMCPMC11404756

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.