Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27200080›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2016

Evaluation of BRCAPRO Risk Assessment Model in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In situ Who Underwent Clinical BRCA Genetic Testing.

Nisreen Elsayegh, Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera, Kimberly I Muse, Heather Lin, Henry M Kuerer, Monica Helm, Jennifer K Litton, Banu K Arun

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. A Pragmatic Testing-Eligibility Framework for Population Mutation Screening: The Example ofCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nisreen ElsayeghClinical Cancer Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX, USA.
Angelica M Gutierrez BarreraDepartments of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX, USA.
Kimberly I MuseClinical Cancer Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX, USA.
Heather LinBiostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX, USA.
Henry M KuererSurgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX, USA.
Monica HelmClinical Cancer Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX, USA.
Jennifer K LittonDepartments of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX, USA.
Banu K ArunClinical Cancer Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA; Departments of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TX, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USCancer Genetics (United States) · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The authors retrospectively aimed to determine which of the following three scenarios, related to DCIS entry into BRCAPRO, predicted BRCA mutation status more accurately: (1) DCIS as an invasive breast cancer (IBC) entered using the actual age of diagnosis, (2) DCIS as IBC entered with 10 years added to the actual age of diagnosis, and (3) DCIS entered as no cancer. Of the 85 DCIS patients included in the study, 19% (n = 16) tested positive for a BRCA mutation, and 81% (n = 69) tested negative. DCIS patients who tested positive for a BRCA mutation had a higher BRCAPRO risk estimation (34.61%) than patients who tested negative (11.4%) when DCIS was entered at the actual age of diagnosis. When DCIS was entered with 10 years added to the actual age at diagnosis, the BRCAPRO estimate was still higher amongst BRCA positive patients (25.4%) than BRCA negative patients (7.1%). When DCIS was entered as no cancer, the BRCAPRO estimate remained higher among BRCA positive patients (2.56%) than BRCA negative patents (1.98%). In terms of accuracy of BRCA positivity, there was no statistically significant difference between DCIS at age at diagnosis, DCIS at 10 years later than age at diagnosis, and DCIS entered as no cancer (AUC = 0.77, 0.784, 0.75, respectively: p = 0.60). Our results indicate that regardless of entry approach into BRCAPRO, there were no significant differences in predicting BRCA mutation in patients with DCIS.

Indexed as

BRCBRCA1BRCA mutation statusBRCAPROductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)genegenesgenetics

Identifiers

PMID27200080
PMCPMC4847480
OpenAlexW2343676930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.