multiplex testing
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

33
(FIVE YEARS 3)

H-INDEX

6
(FIVE YEARS 0)

Author(s):  
Jamil N Kanji ◽  
Nathan Zelyas ◽  
Kanti Pabbaraju ◽  
David Granger ◽  
Anita Wong ◽  
...  

Abstract To assess the burden of respiratory virus co-infections with SARS-CoV-2, this study reviewed 4,818 specimens positive for SARS-CoV-2 and tested using respiratory virus multiplex testing. Co-infections with SARS-CoV-2 were uncommon (2.8%), with rhinovirus/enterovirus as the most prevalent target (88.1%). Respiratory virus co-infections with SARS-CoV-2 remain low one-year into the pandemic.



2021 ◽  
Vol 140 ◽  
pp. 120-126
Author(s):  
Zoltán Prohászka ◽  
Ashley Frazer-Abel
Keyword(s):  


2021 ◽  
pp. 100050
Author(s):  
Elena Pariani ◽  
Renèe Pasciuta ◽  
Federica Novazzi ◽  
Andreina Baj ◽  
Cristina Galli ◽  
...  


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1508-1508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Domchek ◽  
Jamie Brower ◽  
Heather Symecko ◽  
Vanessa Marcell ◽  
Michael Francis Walsh ◽  
...  

1508 Background: With the expansion of multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility, increasing numbers of patients are identified with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (P/LP V) in genes which do not have a clearly actionable increased risk of ovarian cancer (OC) (lifetime risk of OC >5%). However, there is concern that patients and/or providers may ascribe OC risk to such genetic findings with the potential for unnecessary oophorectomy (ooph). Methods: The Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT) is an online registry for individuals with a genetic alteration detected on multiplex panel testing for cancer susceptibility. Participants self-enroll and complete baseline and annual follow-up questionnaires. PROMPT has enrolled 7388 participants (6936; 93.9% women) since September 2014. Results: 1566 women in the PROMPT registry reported ooph, the indications for which were reported as either cancer treatment (n=481, 30.7%) or benign disease (n=432, 27.6%). An additional 186 (12.8%) reported PV in genes associated with lifetime OC risk >5% ( BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP, or Lynch syndrome genes). The remaining 467 did not have guideline based indications for ooph due to OC risk and are described further here. 92 (19.7%) had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in genes associated with OC, 241 (51.6%) had a personal history of breast cancer (BC) and no VUS in OC genes, and 119 (25.5%) had no personal history of BC and no VUS in OC genes. The majority of women had no family history (FH) of OC in first or second degree relatives (Table). Most ooph occurred prior to age 50. Of the 405 women with CHEK2 P/LP, 11.4% reported ooph (59% under age 50 when age known), as did 13.2% (of 228) with CHEK2 VUS, 8.8% (of 261) with ATM P/LP (66.7% under age 50), and 8.3% (of 387) with ATM VUS. In addition, of the 184 women with PALB2 P/LP, 14.1% reported ooph (35.3% under age 50) as did 11.6% (of 198) with PALB2 VUS. Of those who reported provider discussions, 47.2% stated “my provider recommended this” (including >60% in the OC gene VUS group) and an additional 25.2% stated “my provider presented this as an option, but not a requirement”. In those with no FH of OC, 45.8% stated that their provider recommended ooph. Conclusions: 10-15% of women with PV/VUS in genes not associated with a high risk of OC reported ooph without a clear indication. [Table: see text]



Allergy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (8) ◽  
pp. 2091-2094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Koch ◽  
Karin Laipold ◽  
Lisa Arzt‐Gradwohl ◽  
Urban Čerpes ◽  
Eva Maria Sturm ◽  
...  


2020 ◽  
Vol 218 ◽  
pp. 157-165.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jillian M. Cotter ◽  
Jacob Thomas ◽  
Meghan Birkholz ◽  
Mark Brittan ◽  
Lilliam Ambroggio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  


2020 ◽  
Vol 129 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisele Pino ◽  
Erin Conboy ◽  
Silvia Tortorelli ◽  
Sara Minnich ◽  
Kim Nickander ◽  
...  


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1014-1035 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Čelakovská ◽  
J. Bukač ◽  
R. Vaňková ◽  
I. Krcmova ◽  
J. Krejsek ◽  
...  


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 827-848
Author(s):  
J. Čelakovská ◽  
J. Bukač ◽  
R. Vaňková ◽  
E. Cermakova ◽  
I. Krcmova ◽  
...  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document