Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23861169›Full record

ArticleCancer2013

Are physician recommendations for BRCA1/2 testing in patients with breast cancer appropriate? A population-based study.

Anne Marie McCarthy, Mirar Bristol, Tracey Fredricks, Lache Wilkins, Irene Roelfsema, Kaijun Liao, Judy A Shea, Peter Groeneveld, Susan M Domchek, Katrina Armstrong

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04533555 (Randomized Trial of Universal vs. Guideline-directed Germline Testing Among Young Adults With Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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.

NCT04533555 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Trial of Universal vs. Guideline-directed Germline Testing Among Young Adults With Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2020 to 2025Enrolled749ConditionsCancerArmsBroad gene panel for young adult cancers, Standard
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Germline Analysis from Tumor-Germline Sequencing Dyads to Identify Clinically Actionable Secondary Findings.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2016
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Healthcare Predictors of Information Dissemination About Genetic Risks.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
    Article
  17. Article
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

10 authors.

Anne Marie McCarthyDepartment of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mirar Bristol
Tracey Fredricks
Lache Wilkins
Irene Roelfsema
Kaijun Liao
Judy A Shea
Peter Groeneveld
Susan M Domchek
Katrina Armstrong

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN CTR SUPPORT GRANTP30CA016520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SHELLEY L BERGER · 1985 to 2026
$222.3M
Racial Differences in BRCA1/2 Testing: Patients or Providers?R01CA133004 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GROENEVELD, PETER W. · 2009 to 2013
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS 5-R01-CA133004-3NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016520NCI NIH HHS R01 CA133004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo the best of the authors' knowledge, few population-based studies to date have examined the use of BRCA1/2 testing or patterns of physician recommendations for genetic testing among women diagnosed with breast cancer. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the rates and predictors of physician recommendation for BRCA1/2 testing among patients with breast cancer.

methodsWomen aged 18 years to 64 years who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2007 were identified from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry and mailed a survey regarding their family history of cancer, physician treatment recommendations, and BRCA1/2 testing. Of the 4009 women who were sent surveys, 2258 responded (56%). Based on age at diagnosis and family history, women were categorized as being at high, moderate, or low risk of BRCA1/2 mutations.

resultsNearly 25% of the participants were classified as being at high risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation based on their age at the time of breast cancer diagnosis and family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Physician recommendations for BRCA1/2 testing were found to be strongly associated with risk of carrying a mutation, with 53% of high-risk women reporting a testing recommendation compared with 9% of low-risk women. In addition, physician recommendations were strongly correlated with the use of testing in all risk groups. Among high-risk women, the lack of a recommendation for BRCA1/2 testing was more common among older, low-income, and employed women.

conclusionsAlthough BRCA1/2 testing recommendations appear to be appropriately correlated with mutation risk, a significant percentage of patients with breast cancer who meet criteria for BRCA1/2 testing may not receive a recommendation for such testing from their health care providers.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseasePractice Patterns, Physicians'AdolescentAdultAgedBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGenetic TestingHumansMiddle AgedMutationNeoplasm StagingPennsylvaniaBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, humanBRCA1/2breast cancercancer registrygenetic testingphysician recommendations

Identifiers

PMID23861169
PMCPMC3795950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.