Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23690142›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2013

Simplifying clinical use of the genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO.

Swati Biswas, Philamer Atienza, Jonathan Chipman, Kevin Hughes, Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera, Christopher I Amos, Banu Arun, Giovanni Parmigiani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. A validation of models for prediction of pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022
    Article
  3. PREDICTION OF HEREDITARY CANCERS USING NEURAL NETWORKS.The annals of applied statistics · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A two-stage approach to genetic risk assessment in primary care.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2016
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Swati BiswasDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, FO 35, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080-3021, USA. swati.biswas@utdallas.edu
Philamer Atienza
Jonathan Chipman
Kevin Hughes
Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera
Christopher I Amos
Banu Arun
Giovanni Parmigiani

Funding

VectorP30CA006516 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE · PI A. Heather Eliassen · 1985 to 2026
$330.6M
Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Genetic Risk Prediction in Primary CareR03CA173834 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS · PI ARUN, BANU K, BISWAS, SWATI · 2013 to 2014
$165k
NCI NIH HHS 1R03CA173834-01NCI NIH HHS 2P30CA006516-47NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006516NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS R03 CA173834
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health care providers need simple tools to identify patients at genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic risk prediction models such as BRCAPRO could fill this gap if incorporated into Electronic Medical Records or other Health Information Technology solutions. However, BRCAPRO requires potentially extensive information on the counselee and her family history. Thus, it may be useful to provide simplified version(s) of BRCAPRO for use in settings that do not require exhaustive genetic counseling. We explore four simplified versions of BRCAPRO, each using less complete information than the original model. BRCAPROLYTE uses information on affected relatives only up to second degree. It is in clinical use but has not been evaluated. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus extends BRCAPROLYTE by imputing the ages of unaffected relatives. BRCAPROLYTE-Simple reduces the data collection burden associated with BRCAPROLYTE and BRCAPROLYTE-Plus by not collecting the family structure. BRCAPRO-1Degree only uses first-degree affected relatives. We use data on 2,713 individuals from seven sites of the Cancer Genetics Network and MD Anderson Cancer Center to compare these simplified tools with the Family History Assessment Tool (FHAT) and BRCAPRO, with the latter serving as the benchmark. BRCAPROLYTE retains high discrimination; however, because it ignores information on unaffected relatives, it overestimates carrier probabilities. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple provide better calibration than BRCAPROLYTE, so they have higher specificity for similar values of sensitivity. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus performs slightly better than BRCAPROLYTE-Simple. The Areas Under the ROC curve are 0.783 (BRCAPRO), 0.763 (BRCAPROLYTE), 0.772 (BRCAPROLYTE-Plus), 0.773 (BRCAPROLYTE-Simple), 0.728 (BRCAPRO-1Degree), and 0.745 (FHAT). The simpler versions, especially BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple, lead to only modest loss in overall discrimination compared to BRCAPRO in this dataset. Thus, we conclude that simplified implementations of BRCAPRO can be used for genetic risk prediction in settings where collection of complete pedigree information is impractical.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseSoftwareBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2Genetic CounselingHeterozygoteHumansInternetMaleMedical InformaticsMutationOvarian NeoplasmsRisk

Identifiers

PMID23690142
PMCPMC3699331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.