Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33328582›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2021

Examining the uptake of predictive BRCA testing in the UK; findings and implications.

Antony P Martin, Jennifer Downing, Brendan Collins, Brian Godman, Ana Alfirevic, Karen Lynn Greenhalgh, Munir Pirmohamed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors.

Antony P MartinNational Institute for Health Research, Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, North West Coast (NIHR CLAHRC NWC), North West Coast, UK. apmartin@liv.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4383-6038
Jennifer DowningNational Institute for Health Research, Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, North West Coast (NIHR CLAHRC NWC), North West Coast, UK.
Brendan CollinsDepartment of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3023-8189
Brian GodmanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ana AlfirevicNational Institute for Health Research, Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, North West Coast (NIHR CLAHRC NWC), North West Coast, UK.
Karen Lynn Greenhalgh *Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Munir Pirmohamed *National Institute for Health Research, Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, North West Coast (NIHR CLAHRC NWC), North West Coast, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7534-7266

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/L006758/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predictive BRCA testing is offered to asymptomatic individuals to predict future risk where a variant has been identified in a relative. It is uncertain whether all eligible relatives access testing, and whether this is related to health care inequalities. Our aim was to analyse trends and inequalities in uptake of testing, and identify predictors of testing and time-to-receipt of testing. A database from April 2010 to March 2017 was collated. Multivariate analysis explored individual associations with testing. Predictor variables included gender, BRCA test type, cancer history, Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and education status. To evaluate factors associated with time-to-testing, a Cox proportional-hazards (CP) model was used. Of 779 tests undertaken, 336 (43.1%) were identified with a BRCA variant. A total of 537 (68.9%) were female and in 83.4% (387/464) of probands, predictive testing was received by relatives. Analysis identified inequalities since decreased testing was found when the proband was unaffected by cancer (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.33). Median time-to-testing was 390 days (range, 0-7090 days) and the CP model also identified inequalities in the hazard ratio (HR) for testing for people aged >40 was higher than for aged <40 (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.67) and BRCA2 testing was higher than for BRCA1 testing (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.18-1.64). Reduced testing was found when probands were unaffected by cancer and time-to-testing was found to vary by age and BRCA1/2 test. Given limited study sample size, further research is recommended to examine inequalities in predictive BRCA testing.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAge FactorsBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinEducational StatusFemaleGenetic Carrier ScreeningGenetic CounselingHereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer SyndromeHumansMaleUnited KingdomBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID33328582
PMCPMC8115171

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.