Clinical criteria for genetic testing in pediatric oncology show a low specificity and miss every 4th child carrying a cancer predisposition
Friedrich, U. A.; Bienias, M.; Zinke, C.; Prazenicova, M.; Lohse, J.; Jahn, A.; Menzel, M.; Langanke, J.; Walter, C.; Wagener, R.; Brozou, T.; Varghese, J.; Dugas, M.; Schroeck, E.; Suttorp, M.; Borkhardt, A.; Hauer, J.; Auer, F.
Show abstract
Clinical checklists are the current gold standard to determine whether a child with cancer shows indications for genetic testing. Nevertheless, the efficacy of these tests to reliably detect genetic cancer predisposition in children with cancer is still insufficiently investigated. Here, we assessed the validity of clinically recognizable signs to identify cancer predisposition by correlating a state-of-the-art clinical checklist to the corresponding whole exome sequencing analysis in an unselected single-center cohort of 139 child-parent datasets. We applied a strict testing to only include autosomal dominant or compound heterozygous cancer-related variants. Our study reflects a high consent rate for genetic testing (>90%). In total, 1/3rd of patients had a clinical indication for genetic testing according to current recommendations and 10.8% (n=15/139) of children harbored a proven cancer predisposition based on exome sequencing. Out of these only 73.3% (n=11/15) were identified through the clinical checklist. In addition, >2 clinical findings in the applied checklist increased the likelihood to identifying genetic predisposition from 15% to 50%. While our data revealed a high rate of genetic predisposition (50%, n=5/10) in Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) cases, no cancer predisposition variants were identified in the sarcoma and lymphoma group. In summary, our data showed a low checklist specificity of 68.5%, and missed every 4th child with genetic predisposition. This highlights the drawbacks of sole clinical evaluation to accurately identify all children at risk and underlines the need for routine germline sequencing of pediatric cancers.
Matching journals
The top 12 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Mutational Profile Enables The Identification Of A High Risk Subgroup In Myelodysplastic Syndromes With Isolated Trisomy 8 93%
- Unraveling the heterogeneous mutational signature of spontaneously developing tumors in MLH1-/- mice 92%
- ARPP19 promotes MYC expression and associates with patient relapse in acute myeloid leukemia 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Panel Informativity Optimizer (PIO): an R package to improve cancer NGS panel informativity 93%
- Optical Genome Mapping: Clinical Validation and Diagnostic Utility for Enhanced Cytogenomic Analysis of Hematological Neoplasms 92%
- Cost-effective and scalable clonal hematopoiesis assay provides insight into clonal dynamics 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Mapping AML heterogeneity – multi-cohort transcriptomic analysis identifies novel clusters and divergent ex-vivo drug responses 92%
- DEK::NUP214 acts as an XPO1-dependent transcriptional activator of essential leukemia genes 92%
- A three-dimensional ex vivo model recapitulates in vivo features and unravels increased drug resistance in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evolving neoantigen profiles in colorectal cancers with DNA repair defects 92%
- Evaluating Genome Sequencing Strategies: Trio, Singleton, and Standard Testing in Rare Disease Diagnosis 91%
- Genomic analysis of patient-derived xenograft models reveals intra-tumor heterogeneity in endometrial cancer and can predict tumor growth inhibition with talazoparib 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Molecular and clinical characterization of a founder mutation causing G6PC3 deficiency 92%
- Novel SYK variant causes enhanced SYK autophosphorylation and PI3K activation in an antibody-deficient patient 89%
- A germline heterozygous dominant negative IKZF2 variant causing syndromic primary immune regulatory disorder and ICHAD 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.