Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39516244›Full record

ReviewBJC reports2023

An apparent quandary: adoption of polygenics and gene panels for personalised breast cancer risk stratification.

Jerry S Lanchbury, Holly J Pederson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJC reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Jerry S LanchburyIndependent Researcher Salt Lake City, UT, USA. jerryslanchbury@icloud.com.
Holly J PedersonMedical Breast Services, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past 30 years, genetic and epidemiological advances have revolutionised the prediction of breast cancer risk in women with significant family history. By screening these women for high- and intermediate-risk pathogenic variants and by interrogating their genomes for multiple lower-risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we can provide individually tailored risk profiles in carriers of Mendelian breast cancer risk variants and in non-carriers, but clinical implementation of this approach is suboptimal. Risk mitigation may involve enhanced surveillance, preventive medications or risk-reducing surgery but barriers exist to the adoption of polygenic risk score (PRS)-based models in the clinic. PRS development has suffered from both systematic biases resulting from development and validation in those of European ancestry and from the consequences of unanticipated evolutionary differences particularly with regard to those of African ancestry. PRS approaches which take into account underlying genetic diversity offer a practical solution to the misapplication of European-derived PRS to other population groups including women of multiple ancestries. All ancestry PRS technology offers net benefit regardless of potency differences. While the new science of polygenics has surged ahead and its stratification insights have been incorporated into risk modelling, training of providers and genetic counsellors lags far behind and an educational revolution is also necessary to provide optimal patient care.

Identifiers

PMID39516244
PMCPMC11523941

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.