As the use of molecular profiling of tumors expands, cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment planning increasingly rely on the information it provides. Although primarily designed to detect somatic variants, next-generation sequencing (NGS) tumor-based profiling also identifies germline DNA alterations, necessitating careful clinical interpretation of the data. Traditionally, germline risk testing has depended on prioritizing individuals based on physical exam findings consistent with known hereditary cancer syndromes, tumor-specific features, age at diagnosis, personal history, and family history. As NGS-based molecular profiling is used increasingly to diagnose, prognosticate, and follow cancer progression, DNA variants that are likely to be of germline origin are identified with increased frequency. Because pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants are critical biomarkers for risk stratification and treatment planning, consensus guidelines are expanding to recommend comprehensive germline testing for more cancer patients. This Review highlights the nuances of identifying DNA variants of potential germline origin incidentally at the time of NGS-based molecular profiling and emphasizes key differences between comprehensive germline versus tumor-based platforms, sample types, and analytical methodologies. In the growing era of precision oncology, clinicians should be adept at navigating these distinctions to optimize testing strategies and leverage insights regarding germline cancer risk surveillance and management for all people with cancer.
Diana Jaber, Jessica Zhang, Lucy A. Godley
Usage data is cumulative from August 2025 through August 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 898 | 0 |
200 | 0 | |
Figure | 170 | 0 |
Table | 59 | 0 |
Citation downloads | 21 | 0 |
Totals | 1,348 | 0 |
Total Views | 1,348 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.