ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Are Broadened Guidelines Improving our Detection of Pathologic Genetic Mutations in Breast Cancer Patients? A 5-Year Comparative Analysis of American Society of Breast Surgeons and National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Performance of International and Korean Genetic Testing Criteria for Hereditary Breast Cancer: A Large-Scale Cohort Analysis of 2,188 Individuals.Journal of breast cancer · 2026Article
- Balancing global standards and regional nuances in breast cancer care: the role of guidelines, clinical research, precision medicine, and artificial intelligence in advancing quality of care for patients worldwide.Cancer biology & medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons expanded genetic testing (GT) criteria as some pathologic genetic mutations (PGM) were missed when adhering to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. We sought to evaluate our institutional detection of PGM and to understand what patient factors can be predictive of detection.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who had GT performed in association with a diagnosis of breast cancer from April 2019-2024 at our institution. Patient demographic and GT data were collected from the electronic medical record. The NCCN and non-NCCN cohorts were compared, and multivariable analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 933 patients were analyzed; 859 (92.1%) of those patients met NCCN guidelines. The PGM detection rate was 9.5% in the ASBrS cohort and 9.9% in the NCCN cohort. There was no difference in the PGM detection rates between the non-NCCN and NCCN cohort (p = 0.3). Of the 89 patients with PGM, 5.4% were in the non-NCCN cohort. Patients with invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma were significantly more likely to have PGM than those with other subtypes. Patients with an age at diagnosis > 50 trended toward being less likely to have PGM than those ≤ 50. Patients with a personal history of cancer tended to be more likely to have PGM than those without.
conclusionsAt our single institution during the past 5 years, we captured more patients with an actionable PGM through broader GT criteria, suggesting that patients with actionable PGM can be missed with more stringent guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40696256What 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.