Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35388639›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2022

Predicting breast cancer risk in a racially diverse, community-based sample of potentially high-risk women.

Rachel J Meadows, Wilson Figueroa, Kate P Shane-Carson, Tasleem J Padamsee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rachel J MeadowsCenter for Epidemiology & Healthcare Delivery Research, JPS Health Network, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6949-4932
Wilson FigueroaThe Ohio State University, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Evaluation Studies, College of Public Health, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Kate P Shane-CarsonDivision of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Tasleem J PadamseeDivision of Health Services Management & Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Ohio Department of Health · USCancer Genetics (United States) · USJPS Health Network · US

Funding

Preventing Breast Cancer: Decisions and Effects among Women at Elevated RiskK01CA181547 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI PADAMSEE, TASLEEM J · 2014 to 2018
$575k
NCI NIH HHS K01 CA181547
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying women with high risk of breast cancer is necessary to study high-risk experiences and deliver risk-management care. Risk prediction models estimate individuals' lifetime risk but have rarely been applied in community-based settings among women not yet receiving specialized care. Therefore, we aimed: (1) to apply three breast cancer risk prediction models (i.e., Gail, Claus, and IBIS) to a racially diverse, community-based sample of women, and (2) to assess risk prediction estimates using survey data.

methodsAn online survey was administered to women who were determined by a screening instrument to have potentially high risk for breast cancer. Risk prediction models were applied using their self-reported family and medical history information. Inclusion in the high-risk subsample required ≥20% lifetime risk per ≥1 model. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the proportions of women identified as high risk by each model.

resultsN = 1053 women were initially eligible and completed the survey. All women, except one, self-reported the information necessary to run at least one model; 90% had sufficient information for >1 model. The high-risk subsample included 717 women, of which 75% were identified by one model only; 96% were identified by IBIS, 3% by Claus, <1% by Gail. In the high-risk subsample, 20% were identified by two models and 3% by all three models.

conclusionsAssessing breast cancer risk using self-reported data in a community-based sample was feasible. Different models identify substantially different groups of women who may be at high risk for breast cancer; use of multiple models may be beneficial for research and clinical care.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBreastFemaleHumansModels, StatisticalRisk AssessmentRisk Factorsbreast cancer preventionbreast cancer riskClaus modelGail modelIBIS modelrisk predictionTyrer-Cuzick model

Identifiers

PMID35388639
PMCPMC9636513
OpenAlexW4224251746

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.