Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28637432›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2017

Current guidelines for BRCA testing of breast cancer patients are insufficient to detect all mutation carriers.

Eli Marie Grindedal, Cecilie Heramb, Inga Karsrud, Sarah Louise Ariansen, Lovise Mæhle, Dag Erik Undlien, Jan Norum, Ellen Schlichting

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Breast-Ovarian Hereditary Cancer Syndrome: BeyondCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Eli Marie GrindedalDepartment of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. ELIGR@ous-hf.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8198-1706
Cecilie HerambNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Women's Health, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Inga KarsrudSection for Breast- and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Cancer, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Sarah Louise AriansenDepartment of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Lovise MæhleDepartment of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Dag Erik UndlienDepartment of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jan NorumNorthern Norway Regional Health Authority trust, Bodø, Norway.
Ellen SchlichtingSection for Breast- and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Cancer, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentification of BRCA mutations in breast cancer (BC) patients influences treatment and survival and may be of importance for their relatives. Testing is often restricted to women fulfilling high-risk criteria. However, there is limited knowledge of the sensitivity of such a strategy, and of the clinical aspects of BC caused by BRCA mutations in less selected BC cohorts. The aim of this report was to address these issues by evaluating the results of BRCA testing of BC patients in South-Eastern Norway.

methods1371 newly diagnosed BC patients were tested with sequencing and Multi Ligation Probe Amplification (MLPA). Prevalence of mutations was calculated, and BC characteristics among carriers and non-carriers compared. Sensitivity and specificity of common guidelines for BRCA testing to identify carriers was analyzed. Number of identified female mutation positive relatives was evaluated.

resultsA pathogenic BRCA mutation was identified in 3.1%. Carriers differed from non-carriers in terms of age at diagnosis, family history, grade, ER/PR-status, triple negativity (TNBC) and Ki67, but not in HER2 and TNM status. One mutation positive female relative was identified per mutation positive BC patient. Using age of onset below 40 or TNBC as criteria for testing identified 32-34% of carriers. Common guidelines for testing identified 45-90%, and testing all below 60 years identified 90%. Thirty-seven percent of carriers had a family history of cancer that would have qualified for predictive BRCA testing. A Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) was identified in 4.9%.

conclusionsMutation positive BC patients differed as a group from mutation negative. However, the commonly used guidelines for testing were insufficient to detect all mutation carriers in the BC cohort. Thirty-seven percent had a family history of cancer that would have qualified for predictive testing before they were diagnosed with BC. Based on our combined observations, we suggest it is time to discuss whether all BC patients should be offered BRCA testing, both to optimize treatment and improve survival for these women, but also to enable identification of healthy mutation carriers within their families. Health services need to be aware of referral possibility for healthy women with cancer in their family.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingAdultAgedBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHeterozygoteHumansMiddle AgedMutationNorwayBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, humanBRCA mutationBreast cancerGenetic testingNorway

Identifiers

PMID28637432
PMCPMC5480128

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.