MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA testing: Impact on risk perception, worry, prevention, and counseling.

2012· article· en· W2980889392 on OpenAlexaff
Tracy Graham, Andrea Eisen, Sue Richter, Iman Haroun, Ellen Warner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWorryGenetic testingProphylactic MastectomyLikert scaleGenetic counselingBreast cancerRisk perceptionInternal medicineRecallGynecologyFamily medicineOncologyCancerMastectomyPerceptionAnxietyPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1555 Background: Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is an instrumental tool in clinical decision-making. Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) can occur in up to 25% of individuals and pose clinical challenges. We compared i) result recall ii) risk perception iii) worry and iv) risk modifying behaviours in individuals with VUS, a pathogenic mutation (PM) or an uninformative result (UR). Care provider attitudes to VUS were also studied. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to women testing positive for a VUS, PM or UR. Items included demographics, time from disclosure, result recall and cancer worry using the validated Trask score. Likelihood of risk modifying behaviours or intensified screening was evaluated by 5 point Likert scale. 9 regional genetic counselors and 11 referring physicians were surveyed on VUS management. Responses were evaluated by chi square and ANOVA. Results: All groups had similar age, marital status and education. Failure to correctly identify a result as uninformative occurred in 32% of VUS; 90% had low economic status. 87% (VUS) and 44% (PMC) had personal history of breast cancer. Perceived risk increased after disclosure in 29% (VUS), 70%(PM) and 10% (UR) (p<0.001). Mean Trask scores were 7.6 (VUS) and 9.8 (PMC) (p=0.006, t-test). In affected patients, mastectomy was 22% (VUS) and 55% (PMC) (p=0.01), oophorectomy 39% (VUS) and 85% (PMCs) (p<0.001) with75% and 95% intensified screening 75% in unaffected VUS and PM (p=0.16). 3% (VUS) and 6% (PMC) agreed with chemoprophylaxis (p=NS). Genetic counselors unanimously reported low comprehension in VUS vs PM. VUS was disclosed only 75% of the time with poor comprehension, perceived anxiety and negative family history as reasons. Referring physicians recommended predictive testing for relatives of VUS carriers (100%). Conclusions: Nearly 1/3 of patients fail to recall their VUS as uninformative. Perceived risk was increased after VUS disclosure but lower than PMC. Worry scores showed impact on daily functioning. Uptake of prophylactic surgery was lower in affected VUS vs PMC carriers with similar rates of intensified screening if unaffected. Patients with low economic status or anxiety are at particular risk of incomplete counseling.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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