Abstract P4-10-11: An active approach to genetic counseling in Trinidadian women with breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Breast cancer (BC) is the leading cause of cancer death in Caribbean women. The prevalence of deleterious mutations in BRCA1/2, PALB2 and RAD51C among unselected BC patients in the Caribbean is 5-25%. We previously reported data on low usage of genetic counseling services by Bahamian women. In order to improve the dissemination of genetic testing results to Caribbean probands and their families we developed a structured approach to genetic test result dissemination and family counseling. Methods After approval by the University of Miami IRB and the Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health of Trinidad & Tobago, we prospectively evaluated the active approach to genetic counseling in 32 BC mutation carriers in Trinidad & Tobago in 2015. The intervention consisted of: 1) initial appointment with referring oncologist for results discussion; 2) review of family tree with proband to identify all relatives at 25% or 50% risk (ARR) who should attend the genetic counseling session; 3) preschedule a counseling appointment for ARR within 2 weeks; 4) written invitation to genetic counseling session; 5) handouts of genetic information given to proband to distribute to family members; 6) offer assistance with contacting family members; 7) free genetic testing to ARR who attended the family counseling session. Results Twenty-five carriers (78%) consented to enroll in the study. At initial counseling, probands identified 158 ARR, however full family pedigree review at post-result counseling/consultation identified 225 ARR. 101 ARR (64%) attended the information sessions and 76 participants (75.2%) consented to be tested for BC gene mutations. Genetic sequencing revealed 35 ARR (46%) were carriers of at least one mutation. The most frequent reasons for ARR not attending the meetings were: living abroad (18%), unable to be contacted (17%), refusing to participate (17%), not showing up (17%), probands being estranged from ARR (12%) or being afraid to know the results (7%). Conclusions In Trinidad & Tobago, a structured approach to the dissemination of genetic test results leads to a significant improvement in the rate of family participation compared to previous efforts (64% in Trinidad & Tobago vs. 9% in the Bahamas). Citation Format: George SH, Bravo GL, Sandoval AC, Palacio S, Ali J, Donenberg TR, Akbari MR, Narod S, Hurley J. An active approach to genetic counseling in Trinidadian women with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-11.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".