Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29508368›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2019

Clinicians' use of breast cancer risk assessment tools according to their perceived importance of breast cancer risk factors: an international survey.

Anne Brédart, Jean-Luc Kop, Antonis C Antoniou, Alex P Cunningham, Antoine De Pauw, Marc Tischkowitz, Hans Ehrencrona, Marjanka K Schmidt, Sylvie Dolbeault, Kerstin Rhiem and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prediction of Breast Cancer using Machine Learning Approaches.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Anne BrédartInstitut Curie, Supportive Care Department, Psycho-Oncology Unit, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Cedex 05, Paris, France. anne.bredart@curie.net.
Jean-Luc KopUniversité de Lorraine, 2LPN-CEMA, 23 boulevard Albert 1er-BP, 60446-54001 Cedex, Nancy, France.
Antonis C AntoniouCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Worts Causeway, CB1 8RN, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Alex P CunninghamCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Worts Causeway, CB1 8RN, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Antoine De PauwInstitut Curie, Cancer genetic clinic, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005, Paris Cedex 05, France.
Marc TischkowitzDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge, Box 238, Level 6 Addenbrooke's Treatment Centre Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Hans EhrencronaDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Laboratory Medicine, Office for Medical Services and Department of Clinical Genetics, Lund University, 221 85, Lund, Sweden.
Marjanka K SchmidtNetherlands Cancer Institute, Division of Molecular Pathology, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sylvie DolbeaultInstitut Curie, Supportive Care Department, Psycho-Oncology Unit, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Cedex 05, Paris, France.
Kerstin RhiemFamilial Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre, Cologne University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Kerpener Str. 34, I 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Douglas F EastonCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Worts Causeway, CB1 8RN, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Peter DevileeDepartment of Human Genetics, Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Centre, S4-P, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Dominique Stoppa-LyonnetInstitut Curie, Cancer genetic clinic, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005, Paris Cedex 05, France.
Rita SchmutlzerFamilial Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre, Cologne University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Kerpener Str. 34, I 50931, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16563Cancer Research UK 20861Cancer Research UK C12292/A20891
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The BOADICEA breast cancer (BC) risk assessment model and its associated Web Application v3 (BWA) tool are being extended to incorporate additional genetic and non-genetic BC risk factors. From an online survey through the BOADICEA website and UK, Dutch, French and Swedish national genetic societies, we explored the relationships between the usage frequencies of the BWA and six other common BC risk assessment tools and respondents' perceived importance of BC risk factors. Respondents (N = 443) varied in age, country and clinical seniority but comprised mainly genetics health professionals (82%) and BWA users (93%). Oncology professionals perceived reproductive, hormonal (exogenous) and lifestyle BC risk factors as more important in BC risk assessment compared to genetics professionals (p values < 0.05 to 0.0001). BWA was used more frequently by respondents who gave high weight to breast tumour pathology and low weight to personal BC history as BC risk factors. BWA use was positively related to the weight given to hormonal BC risk factors. The importance attributed to lifestyle and BMI BC risk factors was not associated with the use of BWA or any of the other tools. Next version of the BWA encompassing additional BC risk factors will facilitate more comprehensive BC risk assessment in genetics and oncology practice.

Indexed as

BOADICEABreast cancer risk assessmentClinical practiceFactorsSurveyTools

Identifiers

PMID29508368
PMCPMC6325038

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.