Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28107349›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Using Breast Cancer Risk Associated Polymorphisms to Identify Women for Breast Cancer Chemoprevention.

Elad Ziv, Jeffrey A Tice, Brian Sprague, Celine M Vachon, Steven R Cummings, Karla Kerlikowske

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Elad ZivDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Jeffrey A TiceDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Brian SpragueDepartment of Surgery and University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America.
Celine M VachonDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.
Steven R CummingsSan Francisco Coordinating Center, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Karla KerlikowskeDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
University of California, San Francisco · USCalifornia Pacific Medical Center · USMayo Clinic · USUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Janie M Lee · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
Genetics of mammographic density and breast cancer risk in LatinasK24CA169004 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ZIV, ELAD · 2012 to 2021
$1.8M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100031CNCI NIH HHS K24 CA169004NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer can be prevented with selective estrogen receptor modifiers (SERMs) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs). The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women with a 5-year breast cancer risk ≥3% consider chemoprevention for breast cancer. More than 70 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been associated with breast cancer. We sought to determine how to best integrate risk information from SNPs with other risk factors to risk stratify women for chemoprevention.

methodsWe used the risk distribution among women ages 35-69 estimated by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model. We modeled the effect of adding 70 SNPs to the BCSC model and examined how this would affect how many women are reclassified above and below the threshold for chemoprevention.

resultsWe found that most of the benefit of SNP testing a population is achieved by testing a modest fraction of the population. For example, if women with a 5-year BCSC risk of >2.0% are tested (~21% of all women), ~75% of the benefit of testing all women (shifting women above or below 3% 5-year risk) would be derived. If women with a 5-year risk of >1.5% are tested (~36% of all women), ~90% of the benefit of testing all women would be derived.

conclusionSNP testing is effective for reclassification of women for chemoprevention, but is unlikely to reclassify women with <1.5% 5-year risk. These results can be used to implement an efficient two-step testing approach to identify high risk women who may benefit from chemoprevention.

Indexed as

ChemopreventionGenetic Predisposition to DiseasePolymorphism, Single NucleotideBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGenome-Wide Association StudyHumans

Identifiers

PMID28107349
PMCPMC5249071
OpenAlexW2573962702

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.