ReviewBJC reports2023
An apparent quandary: adoption of polygenics and gene panels for personalised breast cancer risk stratification.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Considering Clinical Implementation of Polygenic Scores in Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment: Recipients' Perspectives on Influencing Factors and Strategies.The patient · 2025Article
- Long Intergenic Non-Coding RNA 00511 (LINC00511) Genetic Variations and Haplotypes in Breast Cancer: A Case-Controlled Study and Bioinformatics Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Standardization, Education, and Resourcing: The Way Forward for Implementing Polygenic Risk Scores in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.