Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29346471›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2018

Use of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Mammographic Density Plus Classic Risk Factors for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.

Elke M van Veen, Adam R Brentnall, Helen Byers, Elaine F Harkness, Susan M Astley, Sarah Sampson, Anthony Howell, William G Newman, Jack Cuzick, D Gareth R Evans

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 150 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Health science reports · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. International journal of medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Are Women's Breast Cancer Risk Appraisals in Line with Updated Clinical Risk Estimates Communicated? Results from a UK Family History Risk and Prevention Clinic.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Assessing the Value of Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score with Nongenetic Factors for Predicting Breast Cancer Diagnosis in the UK Biobank.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Elke M van VeenDivision of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, England.
Adam R BrentnallCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Charterhouse Square, Barts and The London, Queen Mary University of London, London, England.
Helen ByersDivision of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, England.
Elaine F HarknessPrevention Breast Cancer Centre and Nightingale Breast Screening Centre, Manchester University Hospital Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
Susan M AstleyPrevention Breast Cancer Centre and Nightingale Breast Screening Centre, Manchester University Hospital Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
Sarah SampsonPrevention Breast Cancer Centre and Nightingale Breast Screening Centre, Manchester University Hospital Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
Anthony HowellPrevention Breast Cancer Centre and Nightingale Breast Screening Centre, Manchester University Hospital Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
William G NewmanDivision of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, England.
Jack CuzickCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Charterhouse Square, Barts and The London, Queen Mary University of London, London, England.
D Gareth R EvansDivision of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, England.
Manchester University · USUniversity of Manchester · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16891Department of Health RP-PG-1214-20016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceSingle-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have demonstrated an association with breast cancer susceptibility, but there is limited evidence on how to incorporate them into current breast cancer risk prediction models.

objectiveTo determine whether a panel of 18 SNPs (SNP18) may be used to predict breast cancer in combination with classic risk factors and mammographic density. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsThis cohort study enrolled a subcohort of 9363 women, aged 46 to 73 years, without a previous breast cancer diagnosis from the larger prospective cohort of the PROCAS study (Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening) specifically to evaluate breast cancer risk-assessment methods. Enrollment took place from October 2009 through June 2015 from multiple population-based screening centers in Greater Manchester, England. Follow-up continued through January 5, 2017. EXPOSURES: Genotyping of 18 SNPs, visual-assessment percentage mammographic density, and classic risk assessed by the Tyrer-Cuzick risk model from a self-completed questionnaire at cohort entry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The predictive ability of SNP18 for breast cancer diagnosis (invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ) was assessed using logistic regression odds ratios per interquartile range of the predicted risk.

resultsA total of 9363 women were enrolled in this study (mean [range] age, 59 [46-73] years). Of these, 466 were found to have breast cancer (271 prevalent; 195 incident). SNP18 was similarly predictive when unadjusted or adjusted for mammographic density and classic factors (odds ratios per interquartile range, respectively, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.38-1.77 and 1.53; 95% CI, 1.35-1.74), with observed risks being very close to expected (adjusted observed-to-expected odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.69-1.28). A combined risk assessment indicated 18% of the subcohort to be at 5% or greater 10-year risk, compared with 30% of all cancers, 35% of interval-detected cancers, and 42% of stage 2+ cancers. In contrast, 33% of the subcohort were at less than 2% risk but accounted for only 18%, 17%, and 15% of the total, interval, and stage 2+ breast cancers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: SNP18 added substantial information to risk assessment based on the Tyrer-Cuzick model and mammographic density. A combined risk is likely to aid risk-stratified screening and prevention strategies.

Indexed as

Polymorphism, Single NucleotideAgedBiomarkers, TumorBreastBreast DensityBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCohort StudiesDNA Mutational AnalysisEnglandFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGenetic TestingHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID29346471
PMCPMC5885189
OpenAlexW2788346456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.