Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42538389›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

The co-design, development, and preliminary evaluation of a comprehensive breast cancer risk report incorporating polygenic risk information.

Mia N Hanley, Rebecca Purvis, Sharne Limb, Sibel Saya, Adrian Bickerstaffe, Jack Wheeler, Yuhan Shen, Matilda Hilton, Minchen Dai, Edbert Liu and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

13 authors.

Mia N HanleyParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Rebecca PurvisParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sharne LimbParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3074-8696
Sibel SayaDepartment of General Practice & Primary Care, Collaborative Centre for Cancer Genomic Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Adrian BickerstaffeMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jack WheelerParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Yuhan ShenMelbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Matilda HiltonGraduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Minchen DaiMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Edbert LiuMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Rowan Forbes ShepherdDepartment of Health Services Research and Implementation Science, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Paul A JamesParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4361-4657
Laura E ForrestParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. laura.forrest@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1126-4971

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical implementation of polygenic risk scores (PGS) in comprehensive cancer risk assessments is imminent. The successful implementation relies on clear communication to consumers to facilitate understanding of personalised risk information and motivate cancer prevention behaviours. Development of provider- and consumer-friendly resources to aid communication and understanding of PGS results is a critical implementation task. This study aimed to produce an acceptable report for delivering comprehensive, PGS-informed breast cancer risk assessments in research and clinical settings. A two-phase, multi-methods research program was conducted, focusing on co-design with a broad group of interest holders to gather preferences and feedback on the content, layout and visual tools of a risk report. Phase 1 involved a literature review, a quantitative survey with consumers and qualitative interviews with consumers and medical practitioners to generate an initial prototype report. Phase 2 involved qualitative interviews with genetic counsellors to seek feedback about the prototype and refine it into a final version. The report was operationalised as a web-based application that generates personalised versions in PDF. The evidence-based, interest-holder-informed comprehensive breast cancer risk report produced is highly usable, able to support ongoing clinical implementation research on PGS across cancer use-cases and contexts. Future work should explore consumer evaluation of the report and the feasibility of interactive and digital delivery mechanisms.

Identifiers

PMID42538389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.