MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Targeted prostate cancer screening in men with mutations in <i>BRCA1</i> and <i>BRCA2</i> detects aggressive prostate cancer: preliminary analysis of the results of the IMPACT study

2010· article· en· W1901381303 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Mitra, Elizabeth Bancroft, Yolanda Barbáchano, Elizabeth Page, Christopher S. Foster, Charles Jameson, Gillian Mitchell, Geoffrey J. Lindeman, Andrew J. Stapleton, Graeme Suthers, D. Gareth Evans, D. G. Crüger, Ignacio Blanco, Catherine Mercer, Judy Kirk, Lovise Mæhle, Shirley Hodgson, Lyndon Walker, Louise Izatt, Gillian Douglas, Katherine Tucker, Huw Dorkins, Virginia Clowes, Alison Male, Alan Donaldson, C Brewer, Rebecca Doherty, Barbara Bulman, Palle Jørn Sloth Osther, Mónica Salinas, Diana Eccles, Karol Axcrona, Irene Jobson, Barbara Newcombe, Cezary Cybulski, Wendy S. Rubinstein, Saundra S. Buys, Sharron Townshend, Eitan Friedman, Susan M. Domchek, Teresa Ramón y Cajal, Allan D. Spigelman, Soo‐Hwang Teo, Nicola Nicolai, Neil K. Aaronson, Audrey Ardern‐Jones, Chris Bangma, David Dearnaley, Jórunn E. Eyfjörd, Alison Falconer, Henrik Grönberg, Freddie C. Hamdy, Óskar Þór Jóhannsson, Vincent Khoo, Zsofia Kote‐Jarai, Hans Lilja, Jan Lubiński, J Melia, Clare Moynihan, S. Peock, Gad Rennert, Fritz H. Schröder, Paul Sibley, Mohnish Suri, Penny Wilson, Y. J. Bignon, Sara S. Strom, Marc Tischkowitz, Annelie Liljegren, Denisa Ilenčíková, A. Abele, Kyriacos Kyriacou, Christi J. van Asperen, Lambertus A. Kiemeney, Douglas F. Easton, Rosalind A. Eeles

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsProstate cancerProstateCancerMedicineOncologyBRCA2 ProteinInternal medicineMutationBiologyGeneGeneticsGermline mutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Type – Diagnostic (validating cohort) Level of Evidence 1b What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Scientists have found a number of genetic factors that increase prostate cancer risk, including heritable mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 . These mutations are not common but can have major impact, as a BRCA2 mutation increases risk by up to seven‐fold while a BRCA1 mutation is thought to double risk in men under 65. The IMPACT study aims to determine whether targeted screening in men with a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation would lead to earlier diagnosis of prostate cancers. This data from the IMPACT study adds to the increasing evidence that BRCA mutation carriers develop more aggressive disease. Although these are early results, it appears that PSA screening is more accurate at predicting potentially aggressive prostate cancer among men at higher risk of the disease due to a genetic predisposition than general population screening. This study provides support for continued screening in men with genetic mutations. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the role of targeted prostate cancer screening in men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, an international study, IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls), was established. This is the first multicentre screening study targeted at men with a known genetic predisposition to prostate cancer. A preliminary analysis of the data is reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men aged 40–69 years from families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were offered annual prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, and those with PSA &gt;3 ng/mL, were offered a prostate biopsy. Controls were men age‐matched (± 5 years) who were negative for the familial mutation. RESULTS In total, 300 men were recruited (205 mutation carriers; 89 BRCA1, 116 BRCA2 and 95 controls) over 33 months. At the baseline screen (year 1), 7.0% (21/300) underwent a prostate biopsy. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in ten individuals, a prevalence of 3.3%. The positive predictive value of PSA screening in this cohort was 47·6% (10/21). One prostate cancer was diagnosed at year 2. Of the 11 prostate cancers diagnosed, nine were in mutation carriers, two in controls, and eight were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS The present study shows that the positive predictive value of PSA screening in BRCA mutation carriers is high and that screening detects clinically significant prostate cancer. These results support the rationale for continued screening in such men.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations98
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207