Evidence mapPaperPMID 39885482Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2025

Clinical integration of germline findings from a tumor testing precision medicine program.

Maria Carolina Sanabria-Salas, Nina C Anggala, Brittany Gillies, Kirsten M Farncombe, Renee Hofstedter, Larissa Peck, Helia Purnaghshband, Laura Redondo, Emily Thain, Wei Xu and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
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

13 authors.

Maria Carolina Sanabria-SalasDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7946-2026
Nina C AnggalaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-5761-2524
Brittany GilliesBhalwani Familial Cancer Clinic, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1389-8027
Kirsten M FarncombeToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9413-201X
Renee HofstedterBhalwani Familial Cancer Clinic, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9977-6807
Larissa PeckBhalwani Familial Cancer Clinic, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-0551-7940
Helia PurnaghshbandDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7731-1670
Laura RedondoBhalwani Familial Cancer Clinic, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-3528-6973
Emily ThainBhalwani Familial Cancer Clinic, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8347-9998
Wei XuBiostatistics Department, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0257-8856
Peter SabatiniDivision of Genome Diagnostics, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3361-0468
Philippe L BedardDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6771-2999
Raymond H KimDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. raymond.kim@uhn.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2147-8674

Funding

FDC Foundation FDC Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegrating germline genetic testing (GGT) recommendations from tumor testing into hereditary cancer clinics and precision oncology trials presents challenges that require multidisciplinary expertise and infrastructure. While there have been advancements in standardizing molecular tumor boards, the implementation of tumor profiling for germline-focused assessments has only recently gained momentum. However, this progress remains inconsistent across institutions, largely owing to a lack of systematic approaches for managing these findings. This study outlines the development of a clinical pathway for identifying potential germline variants from an institutional tumor-sequencing research program at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre.

methodsBetween August 2022 and August 2023, a clinical pathway led by a germline Molecular Tumor Board (gMTB) was established to review tumor genetic variants (TGVs) flagged as potential germline findings in patients with advanced cancer via a multigene panel. Eligibility for hereditary cancer syndrome investigation ('germline criteria') followed Cancer Care Ontario's Hereditary Cancer Testing Criteria and clinical judgment. Germline-focused analysis of TGVs followed the European Society of Medical Oncology guidelines and similar published criteria ('tumor-only criteria').

resultsOf 243 tumor profiles, 83 (34.2%) had at least one TGV flagged by the genetic laboratory as potentially germline and were therefore referred to the gMTB for further review. Among these 83 cases, 47 (56.6%) met 'germline criteria' for GGT, regardless of the TGV assessment. A total of 127 TGVs were assessed in these 83 cases, of which 44 (34.6%) were considered germline relevant. Tier I TGVs, interpreted as pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) and found in most- or standard-actionable genes with high germline conversion rates (GCRs) in any context, were more likely to be considered germline relevant (p-value < 0.05). One confirmed germline variant was identified in nine patients meeting solely 'tumor-only criteria'. Overall, 27/44 germline relevant TGVs underwent germline testing. We found a germline P/LP variant in 9 cases of the entire cohort, with a GCR of 33% (9/27).

conclusionsIncorporating genetic counselors into gMTBs enhanced the integration of research findings into clinical care and improved the detection of disease-causing variants in patients outside traditional testing criteria.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingGerm-Line MutationNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineAdultAgedFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkers, tumorGenetic counselingGenetic predisposition testingHigh-throughput nucleotide sequencingMolecular tumor boardPrecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID39885482
PMCPMC11783960

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.