ArticleBJC reports2024
Patterns of referrals to regional clinical genetics services for women potentially at above-population level risk of breast cancer.
Article in BJC reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of NICE criteria with the BOADICEA multifactorial risk model to guide breast cancer risk assessment and referral amongst women under age 50 within primary care.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Priorities for breast cancer risk assessment in UK women under age 50: a survey and discrete choice experiment.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- The breast cancer risk assessment pathway in England: a systems analysis of current challenges and ways to improve.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Acceptability of breast cancer risk assessment for women aged 30-49: Views of women from six under-served groups.PloS one · 2026Article
- CanRisk-GP protocol: A feasibility study of incorporating proactive multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment into general practice.PloS one · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women in England at above-population risk be offered additional breast screening and, depending on the level of risk, risk-reducing medication or surgery.
methodsWe reviewed the hospital records of GP referrals made to two large genetics services in England between 01/12/2021-30/11/2022 for women aged 18-49 years and suspected to be at above-population level risk for breast cancer. We compared the women referred with the wider population and estimates of the number of women at above-population level risk using published data.
resultsUp to 20% of women referred did not provide sufficient information for a complete risk assessment and over 25% were considered at near-population level risk after assessment. We estimate that only a small fraction (<10%) of those above population level risk are identified and women in areas of lower deprivation are disproportionately represented amongst referrals.
conclusionsMany women are missing out on potential preventative and risk-reducing interventions for breast cancer and current pathways may be exacerbating existing health inequalities. Better systems for collecting data on family history, improved methods for risk assessment in general practice and more systematic risk assessment of women prior to population-based screening are needed.
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.