ReviewNPJ breast cancer2022
Do current family history-based genetic testing guidelines contribute to breast cancer health inequities?
Review in NPJ breast cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does ovarian stimulation accelerate the progression of BI-RADS categories? a propensity score matching-based retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Impact of breast cancer genetic testing in Brazilian patients: insights from the MAGENTA study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Combining rare and common genetic variants improves population risk stratification for breast cancer.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
- Population-based genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes: quo vadis?BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2023Article
- BRCA germline mutations in multiethnic gynecologic patients: A 10-year retrospective analysis from a single cancer institute.PloS one · 2023Article
- Evidence-Based Interventions for Reducing Breast Cancer Disparities: What Works and Where the Gaps Are?Cancers · 2022Review
- A RE-AIM Framework Analysis of DNA-Based Population Screening: Using Implementation Science to Translate Research Into Practice in a Healthcare System.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prior to the recommended age for population-based breast cancer screening by mammography, which ranges from 40-50 years depending on guidelines, the main way to identify higher risk women for earlier breast cancer (BC) screening to improve outcomes and discuss targeted chemoprevention is through specific clinical guidelines which are largely based on family history of breast cancer and known mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes. The annual percent change (APC) in early-onset BC continues to rise, with the higher early-onset cancer burden and mortality continuing to be seen in non-Hispanic black (NHB) women compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) women. Coupled with the increasing incidence overall as well as the lower percent of BC family history reported in NHB women compared with that of NHW women means that continued reliance on guidelines to identify women for genetic screening and initiation of early BC screening based largely on family history could lead to even greater BC health inequities. The similarity in the prevalence of mutations in key BC susceptibility genes between NHB and NHW women contrasts sharply to the differences in age-specific incidence rates between NHB and NHW women, supporting that there must be environmental modifiers that are contributing to the increased incidence in NHB women. This reality further argues for identifying NHB women early in adulthood through genetic testing who may benefit from tailored BC risk-reduction programs and early BC screening.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.