MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924618784 · doi:10.2147/cmar.s189627

<p>A systematic review of international guidelines and recommendations for the genetic screening, diagnosis, genetic counseling, and treatment of <em>BRCA</em>-mutated breast cancer</p>

2019· review· en· W2924618784 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carol Forbes, Debra Fayter, Shelley de Kock, Ruben G.W. Quek

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Management and Research · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Society for Medical OncologyPfizer
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineGenetic counselingBRCA mutationGenetic testingBreast cancerFamily medicineMEDLINECancerGynecologyOncologyInternal medicinePathologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review of international guidelines on screening and management of patients with BRCA -mutated breast cancer (BC). Methods: Major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase; N=8) and gray literature sources were searched (January 2007 to February 2018). Latest guideline recommendations on genetic screening, counseling, and BC treatment of BRCA mutation carriers were summarized. Guidelines specific to germline BRCA (g BRCA ) mutation were captured where available. Results: A total of 3,775 records were retrieved and 32 guidelines were included; Europe (n=16), USA (n=11), Canada (n=3), Australia (n=1), and Japan (n=1) were included. Across and within guidelines, genetic counseling was recommended at multiple points in the care pathway, though the format was not always clearly defined. US guidelines emphasized that BRCA mutation testing should occur after specialized genetic counseling; other European guidelines are less prescriptive. BRCA testing eligibility criteria differed, with some guidelines being less restrictive; US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) BC guidelines specified that HER2-negative BC patients eligible for single-agent therapy are eligible for g BRCA testing. Fast-track BRCA testing is recommended in the Netherlands if treatment choice will affect survival, but in the UK only as part of clinical trials. More recent European (European School of Oncology–European Society for Medical Oncology 3rd International Consensus Guidelines for Breast Cancer in Young Women 2017, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie 2017 in Germany) and US (NCCN) guidelines have updated recommendations regarding g BRCA -targeted poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in BC. Conclusion: Regional and organizational guidelines differ for genetic screening, counseling, and treatment of patients with BRCA -mutated BC. Guideline harmonization would optimize identification and management of these patients. Keywords: BRCA1 , BRCA2 , guidelines, systematic review, chemotherapy, PARP inhibitor

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0160.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations112
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Management and ResearchSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207