ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2016
Discriminatory power of common genetic variants in personalized breast cancer diagnosis.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why the Gold Standard Approach by Mammography Demands Extension by Multiomics? Application of Liquid Biopsy miRNA Profiles to Breast Cancer Disease Management.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Utility of Genetic Testing in Addition to Mammography for Determining Risk of Breast Cancer Depends on Patient Age.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Technology advances in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) has engendered optimism that we have entered a new age of precision medicine, in which the risk of breast cancer can be predicted on the basis of a person's genetic variants. The goal of this study is to evaluate the discriminatory power of common genetic variants in breast cancer risk estimation. We conducted a retrospective case-control study drawing from an existing personalized medicine data repository. We collected variables that predict breast cancer risk: 153 high-frequency/low-penetrance genetic variants, reflecting the state-of-the-art GWAS on breast cancer, mammography descriptors and BI-RADS assessment categories in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. We trained and tested naïve Bayes models by using these predictive variables. We generated ROC curves and used the area under the ROC curve (AUC) to quantify predictive performance. We found that genetic variants achieved comparable predictive performance to BI-RADS assessment categories in terms of AUC (0.650 vs. 0.659, p-value = 0.742), but significantly lower predictive performance than the combination of BI-RADS assessment categories and mammography descriptors (0.650 vs. 0.751, p-value < 0.001). A better understanding of relative predictive capability of genetic variants and mammography data may benefit clinicians and patients to make appropriate decisions about breast cancer screening, prevention, and treatment in the era of precision medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.