Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27796713›Full record

ArticleFamilial cancer2017

Risk algorithms that include pathology adjustment for HER2 amplification need to make further downward adjustments in likelihood scores.

D G Evans, E R Woodward, S J Howell, S Verhoef, A Howell, F Lalloo

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Familial cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

D G EvansManchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), Institute of Human Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK. gareth.evans@cmft.nhs.uk.
E R WoodwardManchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), Institute of Human Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
S J HowellGenesis Breast Cancer Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Trust, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.
S VerhoefManchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
A HowellGenesis Breast Cancer Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Trust, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.
F LallooManchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
Cancer Research UK Manchester Institute · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBWythenshawe Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0707-10031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess the need for adjustment in the likelihood of germline BRCA1/2 mutations in women with HER2+ breast cancers. We analysed primary mutation screens on women with breast cancer with unequivocal HER2 overexpression and assessed the likelihood of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations by age, oestrogen receptor status and Manchester score. Of 1111 primary BRCA screens with confirmed HER2 status only 4/161 (2.5%) of women with HER2 amplification had a BRCA1 mutation identified and 5/161 (3.1%) a BRCA2 mutation. The pathology adjusted Manchester score between 10 and 19% and 20%+ thresholds resulted in a detection rate of only 6.5 and 15% respectively. BOADICEA examples appeared to make even less downward adjustment. There is a very low detection rate of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women with HER2 amplified breast cancers. The Manchester score and BOADICEA do not make sufficient downward adjustment for HER2 amplification. For unaffected women, assessment of breast cancer risk and BRCA1/2 probability should take into account the pathology of the most relevant close relative. Unaffected women undergoing mutation testing for BRCA1/2 should be advised that there is limited reassurance from a negative test result if their close relative had a HER2+ breast cancer.

Indexed as

Germ-Line MutationAdultAge FactorsAlgorithmsBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinBreastBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2Genetic TestingHumansMiddle AgedBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, humanERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenBRCA1BRCA2Breast cancerHER2Manchester scoreOestrogen

Identifiers

PMID27796713
PMCPMC5357509
OpenAlexW2542045157

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.