Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25605744›Full record

ReviewAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2015

Genetics of breast cancer: a topic in evolution.

S Shiovitz, L A Korde

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 263 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
263citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

263 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Association Between theFrontiers in genetics · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Analysing Breast Cancer Screening Trends in Rural Saudi Arabia: Vision 2030 Context.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

203 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

S ShiovitzDivison of Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle Divisions of Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA shiovitz@uw.edu.
L A KordeDivison of Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle Divisions of Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA.

Funding

TRAINING IN CANCER BIOLOGY &TRANSPLANTATIONT32CA009515 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI NANCY ELLEN DAVIDSON, Effie W Petersdorf · 1985 to 2026
$16.2M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009515NCI NIH HHS T32-CA009515
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A hereditary predisposition to breast cancer significantly influences screening and follow-up recommendations for high-risk women. However, in patients with a suggestive personal and/or family history, a specific predisposing gene is identified in <30% of cases. Up to 25% of hereditary cases are due to a mutation in one of the few identified rare, but highly penetrant genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, PTEN, TP53, CDH1, and STK11), which confer up to an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer. An additional 2%-3% of cases are due to a mutation in a rare, moderate-penetrance gene (e.g. CHEK2, BRIP1, ATM, and PALB2), each associated with a twofold increase in risk. Prediction models suggest that there are unlikely to be additional yet to be identified high-penetrance genes. Investigation of common, low-penetrance alleles contributing to risk in a polygenic fashion has yielded a small number of suggestive single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), but the contributive risk of an individual SNP is quite small. Mutation testing is currently recommended for individual genes in the appropriate clinical setting where there is a high index of suspicion for a specific mutated gene or syndrome. Next-generation sequencing offers a new venue for risk assessment. At the present time, there are clear clinical guidelines for individuals with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene. Otherwise, standard models are used to predict an individual's lifetime risk by clinical and family history rather than genomic information.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMutationNeoplasm ProteinsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideNeoplasm ProteinsBRCAbreast cancerfamily historygeneticsmultiplex gene panelsscreening

Identifiers

PMID25605744
PMCPMC4478970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.