Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30869999›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2019

Identifying Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer Using Data From the Electronic Health Record Compared With Self-Report.

Xinyi Jiang, Julia E McGuinness, Margaret Sin, Thomas Silverman, Rita Kukafka, Katherine D Crew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. User Comprehension and EHR Integration of theAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Xinyi JiangColumbia University, New York, NY.
Julia E McGuinnessColumbia University, New York, NY.
Margaret SinColumbia University, New York, NY.
Thomas SilvermanColumbia University, New York, NY.
Rita KukafkaColumbia University, New York, NY.
Katherine D CrewColumbia University, New York, NY.

Funding

Increasing breast cancer chemoprevention in the primary care settingR01CA177995 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CREW, KATHERINE D, KUKAFKA, RITA · 2014 to 2018
$3.5M
Multicenter trial of decision support for breast cancer chemopreventionR01CA226060 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CREW, KATHERINE D, KUKAFKA, RITA · 2019 to 2023
$3.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA177995NCI NIH HHS R01 CA226060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA barrier to chemoprevention uptake among high-risk women is the lack of routine breast cancer risk assessment in the primary care setting. We calculated breast cancer risk using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model, accounting for age, race/ethnicity, first-degree family history of breast cancer, benign breast disease, and mammographic density, using data collected from the electronic health records (EHRs) and self-reports. PATIENTS AND

methodsAmong women undergoing screening mammography, we enrolled those age 35 to 74 years without a prior history of breast cancer. Data on demographics, first-degree family history, breast radiology, and pathology reports were extracted from the EHR. We assessed agreement between the EHR and self-report on information about breast cancer risk.

resultsAmong 9,514 women with known race/ethnicity, 1,443 women (15.2%) met high-risk criteria based upon a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk of 1.67% or greater according to the BCSC model. Among 1,495 women with both self-report and EHR data, more women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer (14.6% v 4.4%) and previous breast biopsies (21.3% v 11.3%) were identified by self-report versus EHR, respectively. However, more women with atypia and lobular carcinoma in situ were identified from the EHR. There was moderate agreement in identification of high-risk women between EHR and self-report data (κ, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.42-0.54).

conclusionBy using EHR data, we determined that 15% of women undergoing screening mammography had a high risk for breast cancer according to the BCSC model. There was moderate agreement between information on breast cancer risk derived from the EHR and self-report. Examining EHR data may serve as an initial screen for identifying women eligible for breast cancer chemoprevention.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsSelf ReportAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPublic Health SurveillanceRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID30869999
PMCPMC6874029

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.