Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31125106›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Evaluation of Cancer-Based Criteria for Use in Mainstream BRCA1 and BRCA2 Genetic Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer.

Zoe Kemp, Alice Turnbull, Shawn Yost, Sheila Seal, Shazia Mahamdallie, Emma Poyastro-Pearson, Margaret Warren-Perry, Anthony Eccleston, Min-Min Tan, Soo Hwang Teo and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
11.6field-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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Zoe KempBreast Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Alice TurnbullDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Shawn YostDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Sheila SealDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Shazia MahamdallieDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Emma Poyastro-PearsonDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Margaret Warren-PerryDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Anthony EcclestonDRG Abacus, Bicester, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
Min-Min TanCancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Soo Hwang TeoCancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Nicholas TurnerBreast Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Ann StrydomDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Angela GeorgeCancer Genetics Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Nazneen RahmanCancer Genetics Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Institute of Cancer Research · GBNational Health Service · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBCancer Research Malaysia · MYUniversity of Malaya · MY

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203477/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Increasing BRCA1 and BRCA2 (collectively termed herein as BRCA) gene testing is required to improve cancer management and prevent BRCA-related cancers. Objective: To evaluate mainstream genetic testing using cancer-based criteria in patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A quality improvement study and cost-effectiveness analysis of different BRCA testing selection criteria and access procedures to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and mutation detection performance was conducted at the Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust as part of the Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics (MCG) Programme. Participants included 1184 patients with cancer who were undergoing genetic testing between September 1, 2013, and February 28, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mutation rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were the primary outcomes. Results: Of the 1184 patients (1158 women [97.8%]) meeting simple cancer-based criteria, 117 had a BRCA mutation (9.9%). The mutation rate was similar in retrospective United Kingdom (10.2% [235 of 2294]) and prospective Malaysian (9.7% [103 of 1061]) breast cancer studies. If traditional family history criteria had been used, more than 50% of the mutation-positive individuals would have been missed. Of the 117 mutation-positive individuals, 115 people (98.3%) attended their genetics appointment and cascade to relatives is underway in all appropriate families (85 of 85). Combining with the equivalent ovarian cancer study provides 5 simple cancer-based criteria for BRCA testing with a 10% mutation rate: (1) ovarian cancer; (2) breast cancer diagnosed when patients are 45 years or younger; (3) 2 primary breast cancers, both diagnosed when patients are 60 years or younger; (4) triple-negative breast cancer; and (5) male breast cancer. A sixth criterion-breast cancer plus a parent, sibling, or child with any of the other criteria-can be added to address family history. Criteria 1 through 5 are considered the MCG criteria, and criteria 1 through 6 are considered the MCGplus criteria. Testing using MCG or MCGplus criteria is cost-effective with cost-effectiveness ratios of $1330 per discounted QALYs and $1225 per discounted QALYs, respectively, and appears to lead to cancer and mortality reductions (MCG: 804 cancers, 161 deaths; MCGplus: 1020 cancers, 204 deaths per year over 50 years). Use of MCG or MCGplus criteria might allow detection of all BRCA mutations in patients with breast cancer in the United Kingdom through testing one-third of patients. Feedback questionnaires from 259 patients and 23 cancer team members (12 oncologists, 8 surgeons, and 3 nurse specialists) showed acceptability of the process with 100% of patients pleased they had genetic testing and 100% of cancer team members confident to approve patients for genetic testing. Use of MCGplus criteria also appeared to be time and resource efficient, requiring 95% fewer genetic consultations than the traditional process. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that mainstream testing using simple, cancer-based criteria might be able to efficiently deliver consistent, cost-effective, patient-centered BRCA testing.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinBreast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID31125106
PMCPMC6632150
OpenAlexW2946440976

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.