MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcomes associated with rapid genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 at time of breast cancer diagnosis.

2019· article· en· W2947205964 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Metcalfe, Aletta Poll, Andrea Eisen, Jordan Lerner‐Ellis, Steven A. Narod

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGenetic testingPsychosocialBreast cancerAnxietyDistressBRCA mutationGenetic counselingDepression (economics)CancerMastectomyGynecologyOncologyInternal medicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1577 Background: Bilateral mastectomy improves survival for women with BRCA-associated breast cancer. Most women do not know their BRCA status at the time of BC diagnosis when making surgical decisions. Rapid genetic testing (RGT) allows a woman to have genetic test results prior to treatment decision making, but it is unclear if RGT has an impact on treatment choices. It is also unclear if there are psychosocial implications associated with genetic testing at the time of breast cancer diagnosis. The objective of the current study was to assess the impact of RGT at the time of BC diagnosis on surgical decision-making and psychosocial functioning. Methods: Eligible women were referred from participating surgeons at BC diagnosis. Women completed baseline questionnaires assessing treatment preferences, cancer related distress, anxiety, and depression. All participants received in-person pre-test genetic counselling and genetic test results were given within 10 days. Participants completed surveys at 1 week and 1 year post-genetic testing to assess treatments and psychosocial functioning. Results: 1010 women consented to participate and 60 (5.9%) were identified with a BRCA mutation. 15% of those identified with a BRCA mutation did not meet provincial eligibility criteria for genetic testing, and 20% were eligible prior to a breast cancer diagnosis but had not received testing. Mean levels of cancer-related distress, anxiety and depression declined significantly from baseline to 1 year for all women (all p < .05), and there were no differences at any time point between those with and without a BRCA mutation. Of those identified with a BRCA mutation, 67.3% reported that their surgery choice changed. 73.7% of BRCA carriers had a bilateral mastectomy, compared to 20.2% of BRCA negative (p < 0.001). Most women used genetic testing results for surgical decision making (96.1% of BRCA positive and 86.4% for negative). Conclusions: Rapid genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 at the time of BC diagnosis does not have a negative impact on psychosocial functioning. There are no differences in cancer-related distress, anxiety or depression between women who receive a positive result compare to a negative genetic test result. Furthermore, surgical choice changed for many women identified with a BRCA mutation, with the majority electing for bilateral mastectomy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBRCA gene mutations in cancer→French-language works237,207→