Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 16 (11), 830-7

Utilization of Multigene Panels in Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Testing: Analysis of More Than 2,000 Patients


Utilization of Multigene Panels in Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Testing: Analysis of More Than 2,000 Patients

Holly LaDuca et al. Genet Med.


Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and molecular characteristics of 2,079 patients who underwent hereditary cancer multigene panel testing.

Methods: Panels included comprehensive analysis of 14-22 cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2 not included), depending on the panel ordered (BreastNext, OvaNext, ColoNext, or CancerNext). Next-generation sequencing and deletion/duplication analyses were performed for all genes except EPCAM (deletion/duplication analysis only). Clinical histories of ColoNext patients harboring mutations in genes with well-established diagnostic criteria were assessed to determine whether diagnostic/testing criteria were met.

Results: Positive rates were defined as the proportion of patients with a pathogenic mutation/likely pathogenic variant(s) and were as follows: 7.4% for BreastNext, 7.2% for OvaNext, 9.2% for ColoNext, and 9.6% for CancerNext. Inconclusive results were found in 19.8% of BreastNext, 25.6% of OvaNext, 15.1% of ColoNext, and 23.5% of CancerNext tests. Based on information submitted by clinicians, 30% of ColoNext patients with mutations in genes with well-established diagnostic criteria did not meet corresponding criteria.

Conclusion: Our data point to an important role for targeted multigene panels in diagnosing hereditary cancer predisposition, particularly for patients with clinical histories spanning several possible diagnoses and for patients with suspicious clinical histories not meeting diagnostic criteria for a specific hereditary cancer syndrome.


Figure 1
Figure 1
Percentage of positive, inconclusive, and negative results by panel.

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 106 articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. Wetterstrand KA. DNA sequencing costs: data from the NHGRI genome sequencing program (GSP) 2013 ; . Accessed June 2013.
    1. ten Bosch JR, Grody WW. Keeping up with the next generation: massively parallel sequencing in clinical diagnostics. J Mol Diagn. 2008;10:484–492. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McCarthy JJ, McLeod HL, Ginsburg GS. Genomic medicine: a decade of successes, challenges, and opportunities. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:189sr184. - PubMed
    1. Rabbani B, Mahdieh N, Hosomichi K, Nakaoka H, Inoue I. Next-generation sequencing: impact of exome sequencing in characterizing Mendelian disorders. J Hum Genet. 2012;57:621–632. - PubMed
    1. Lemke JR, Riesch E, Scheurenbrand T, et al. Targeted next generation sequencing as a diagnostic tool in epileptic disorders. Epilepsia. 2012;53:1387–1398. - PubMed