Header Logo

Connection

Tina Pesaran to Genetic Predisposition to Disease

This is a "connection" page, showing publications Tina Pesaran has written about Genetic Predisposition to Disease.
  1. Characteristics predicting reduced penetrance variants in the high-risk cancer predisposition gene TP53. HGG Adv. 2025 Oct 09; 6(4):100484.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.239
  2. Association of gene variant type and location with breast cancer risk in the general population. Ann Oncol. 2025 Aug; 36(8):954-963.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.235
  3. Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Susceptibility Genes Predispose to Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast. Clin Cancer Res. 2025 Jan 06; 31(1):130-138.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.230
  4. Functional analysis and clinical classification of 462 germline BRCA2 missense variants affecting the DNA binding domain. Am J Hum Genet. 2024 03 07; 111(3):584-593.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.217
  5. The landscape of reported VUS in multi-gene panel and genomic testing: Time for a change. Genet Med. 2023 12; 25(12):100947.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.209
  6. Suspected clonal hematopoiesis as a natural functional assay of TP53 germline variant pathogenicity. Genet Med. 2022 03; 24(3):673-680.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.186
  7. Germline Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes Among Women With Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast. J Clin Oncol. 2021 12 10; 39(35):3918-3926.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.184
  8. Risk of Late-Onset Breast Cancer in Genetically Predisposed Women. J Clin Oncol. 2021 11 01; 39(31):3430-3440.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.181
  9. Strong functional data for pathogenicity or neutrality classify BRCA2 DNA-binding-domain variants of uncertain significance. Am J Hum Genet. 2021 03 04; 108(3):458-468.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.176
  10. Differences in patient ascertainment affect the use of gene-specified ACMG/AMP phenotype-related variant classification criteria: Evidence for TP53. Hum Mutat. 2020 03; 41(3):537-542.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.163
  11. A clinical guide to hereditary cancer panel testing: evaluation of gene-specific cancer associations and sensitivity of genetic testing criteria in a cohort of 165,000 high-risk patients. Genet Med. 2020 02; 22(2):407-415.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.158
  12. p53 major hotspot variants are associated with poorer prognostic features in hereditary cancer patients. Cancer Genet. 2019 06; 235-236:21-27.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.156
  13. Alternative splicing and ACMG-AMP-2015-based classification of PALB2 genetic variants: an ENIGMA report. J Med Genet. 2019 07; 56(7):453-460.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.154
  14. Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Risk Genes Identified by Multigene Hereditary Cancer Panel Testing. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 08 01; 110(8):855-862.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.148
  15. Associations Between Cancer Predisposition Testing Panel Genes and Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017 Sep 01; 3(9):1190-1196.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.138
  16. ClinGen and Genetic Testing. N Engl J Med. 2015 10; 373(14):1376-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.121
  17. Utilization of multigene panels in hereditary cancer predisposition testing: analysis of more than 2,000 patients. Genet Med. 2014 Nov; 16(11):830-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.110
  18. Quantifying evidence for phenotypic specificity (PP4) for syndromic phenotypes: Large-scale integration of rare germline FH variants from diagnostic laboratory testing for HLRCC and renal cancer. Genet Med. 2025 Nov; 27(11):101565.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.060
  19. Evidence-based recommendations for gene-specific ACMG/AMP variant classification from the ClinGen ENIGMA BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variant Curation Expert Panel. Am J Hum Genet. 2024 Sep 05; 111(9):2044-2058.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.056
  20. CHEK2 is not a Li-Fraumeni syndrome gene: time to update public resources. J Med Genet. 2023 11 27; 60(12):1215-1217.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  21. Functional and Clinical Characterization of Variants of Uncertain Significance Identifies a Hotspot for Inactivating Missense Variants in RAD51C. Cancer Res. 2023 08 01; 83(15):2557-2571.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.052
  22. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Multigene Hereditary Cancer Panel Test Results for Women With Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 10 01; 113(10):1429-1433.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  23. An updated quantitative model to classify missense variants in the TP53 gene: A novel multifactorial strategy. Hum Mutat. 2021 10; 42(10):1351-1361.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  24. The Contribution of Germline Predisposition Gene Mutations to Clinical Subtypes of Invasive Breast Cancer From a Clinical Genetic Testing Cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 12 14; 112(12):1231-1241.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  25. Classification of variants of uncertain significance in BRCA1 and BRCA2 using personal and family history of cancer from individuals in a large hereditary cancer multigene panel testing cohort. Genet Med. 2020 04; 22(4):701-708.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  26. Assessment of Diagnostic Outcomes of RNA Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 10 02; 2(10):e1913900.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.040
  27. Tumour characteristics provide evidence for germline mismatch repair missense variant pathogenicity. J Med Genet. 2020 Jan; 57(1):62-69.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.040
  28. A Bayesian framework for efficient and accurate variant prediction. PLoS One. 2018; 13(9):e0203553.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.037
  29. DNA breakpoint assay reveals a majority of gross duplications occur in tandem reducing VUS classifications in breast cancer predisposition genes. Genet Med. 2019 03; 21(3):683-693.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.037
  30. Somatic TP53 variants frequently confound germ-line testing results. Genet Med. 2018 08; 20(8):809-816.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.