Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Germline Testing in Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis Comparing Strengths and Challenges of Different Approaches
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Germline Testing in Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis Comparing Strengths and Challenges of Different Approaches
Do you wish to request the book?
Germline Testing in Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis Comparing Strengths and Challenges of Different Approaches
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Germline Testing in Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis Comparing Strengths and Challenges of Different Approaches
2025
Overview
Background/Objectives: Compared to single gene testing (SGT), multigene panel testing (MGPT) improves pathogenic variants (PVs) detection. However, MGPT yields complex results, including secondary findings, heterozygous PVs in recessive genes, low-penetrance PVs, and variants of uncertain significance. We reported our mono-institutional experience of germline testing in breast cancer (BC), comparing SGT and MGPT. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical and molecular data from 1084 BC patients: 308 underwent SGT (BRCA1/BRCA2) and 776 MGPT (for 28 cancer-related genes). We compared these approaches regarding the genetic classification of the findings (positive, uncertain, uninformative) and their impact on clinical management (primary findings (PFs); complex and inconclusive results). Additionally, we described clinical features supporting one approach over the other and focused on copy number variation (CNV) frequency in non-BRCA genes. Results: We found ≥1 PV in 165 patients (165/1084 = 15.2%), including 91 in BRCA1/BRCA2 (91/1084 = 8.4%), with 42 identified by SGT (42/308 = 13.6%) and 49 by MGPT (49/776 = 6.3%). MGPT detected PVs in non-BRCA genes in 74 patients (74/776 = 9.5%), including 40 PFs. Overall, MGPT identified 89 PFs (89/776 = 11.5%). We observed complex results in 21 patients (21/308 = 6.8%) with SGT and in 300 (300/776 = 38.7%) with MGPT. Compared to MGPT, SGT detected a similar percentage of PFs (13.6% vs. 11.5%) but a significantly reduced percentage of complex results (6.8% vs. 38.7%) (p < 0.001). Triple-negative BCs prevailed in BRCA1 carriers, while ER-positive BCs were more prevalent in ATM/CHEK2 carriers. Concerning non-BRCA genes, MGPT detected CNVs in PALB2, representing 20% of PVs in this gene. Conclusions: Although MGPT increases hereditary BC detection, its complexity requires clear guidelines for optimal clinical management and strategies for merging the benefits of SGT and MGPT.
