↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Application of Multigene Panels: Challenges of Next-Generation Counseling and Cancer Risk Management

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical Application of Multigene Panels: Challenges of Next-Generation Counseling and Cancer Risk Management
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2015.00208
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Paul Slavin, Mariana Niell-Swiller, Ilana Solomon, Bita Nehoray, Christina Rybak, Kathleen R. Blazer, Jeffrey N. Weitzel

Abstract

Multigene panels can be a cost- and time-effective alternative to sequentially testing multiple genes, especially with a mixed family cancer phenotype. However, moving beyond our single-gene testing paradigm has unveiled many new challenges to the clinician. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the reader with some of the challenges, as well as potential opportunities, of expanded hereditary cancer panel testing. We include results from 348 commercial multigene panel tests ordered from January 1, 2014, through October 1, 2014, by clinicians associated with the City of Hope's Clinical Cancer Genetics Community of Practice. We also discuss specific challenging cases that arose during this period involving abnormalities in the genes: CDH1, TP53, PMS2, PALB2, CHEK2, NBN, and RAD51C. If historically high risk genes only were included in the panels (BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH6, PMS2, TP53, APC, CDH1), the results would have been positive only 6.2% of the time, instead of 17%. Results returned with variants of uncertain significance (VUS) 42% of the time. These figures and cases stress the importance of adequate pre-test counseling in anticipation of higher percentages of positive, VUS, unexpected, and ambiguous test results. Test result ambiguity can be limited by the use of phenotype-specific panels; if found, multiple resources (the literature, reference laboratory, colleagues, national experts, and research efforts) can be accessed to better clarify counseling and management for the patient and family. For pathogenic variants in low and moderate risk genes, empiric risk modeling based on the patient's personal and family history of cancer may supersede gene-specific risk. Commercial laboratory and patient contributions to public databases and research efforts will be needed to better classify variants and reduce clinical ambiguity of multigene panels.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Estonia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 110 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 21%
Researcher 21 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 20 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#19,962,154
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#9,334
of 22,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,916
of 286,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#37
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,440 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.