Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41296773›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

CanRisk-GP protocol: A feasibility study of incorporating proactive multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment into general practice.

Francisca Stutzin Donoso, Stephanie Archer, Fiona M Walter, Stephen Morris, Jon Emery, Jack Broome, Tim Carver, Joe Dennis, Lorenzo Ficorella, Amy Lafont and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

17 authors.

Francisca Stutzin DonosoDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1590-1226
Stephanie ArcherDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1349-7178
Fiona M WalterWolfson Institute of Population Health, Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention & Early Diagnosis, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Stephen MorrisDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Jon EmeryDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5274-6336
Jack BroomeDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Tim CarverDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Joe DennisDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Lorenzo FicorellaDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0577-1571
Amy LafontDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8396-4216
Adam E StokesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7310-0338
Laura StylianouDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Cameron WilsonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Douglas F EastonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Marc TischkowitzDepartment of Medical Genetics, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Antonis C AntoniouDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Juliet A Usher-SmithDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCanRisk is a risk assessment tool that implements the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk model. The BOADICEA model is recommended for use by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in English, Welsh, and Northern Irish secondary/tertiary care to identify women who may be at moderate or high risk of developing breast cancer. BOADICEA combines information on cancer family history, demographic, lifestyle, hormonal risk factors and mammographic density with polygenic scores (PGS). Offering risk assessment using CanRisk in general practice has the potential to identify more women at moderate or high risk of developing breast cancer and improve their management and the appropriateness of referrals to secondary/tertiary care. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this feasibility study we plan to invite women aged 40-49 years from 5-8 practices across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough in England, UK to complete a breast cancer risk assessment using CanRisk via a newly developed public-facing version of the CanRisk tool and provide saliva samples for PGS. The study team will provide a risk report back to both the participants and their GP, with those women at above-population level risk advised to make an appointment with their GP to be referred to the clinical genetics service and subsequently managed in line with current NICE guidelines. This study will provide evidence on (1) whether offering cancer risk assessment including PGS in general practice is feasible and acceptable to women and healthcare professionals; (2) whether this approach can identify women at above-population level risk of breast cancer who would otherwise not have been identified and so not had access to risk-reducing options; and (3) the costs associated with implementing proactive multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment in women under 50 within general practice. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is listed on the ISRCTN registry. The registration number is ISRCTN17376192.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsGeneral PracticeAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID41296773
PMCPMC12654911

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.