MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402737351 · doi:10.14740/wjon1919

Multi-Gene Panel Testing for Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Among Patients Sixty-Five Years and Above Diagnosed With Breast Cancer

2024· article· en· W4402737351 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hikmat Abdel‐Razeq, Faris Tamimi, Baha’ Sharaf, Sarah M. Nielsen, Brandie Heald, Kathryn E. Hatchell, Edward D. Esplin, Hira Bani Hani, Khansa Al‐Azzam, Mais Alkyam, Rawan Mustafa, Areej Al-Atary

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHereditary CancerBreast cancerGenetic testingOncologyCancerInternal medicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The availability and affordability of germline genetic testing (GGT) has resulted in a broader utilization in daily clinical practice. However, adherence to testing guidelines is low, especially among older patients, where testing is often not offered. Methods: In this study, consecutive, newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer (BC) aged ¡Ý 65 years and eligible for GGT, as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (version 1, 2021), were invited to participate, from March 2021 to December 2022. Patients were offered a restricted (two- or 20-gene panel), or an expanded 84-gene panel. Results: During the study period, 204 patients were enrolled. The mean (standard deviation (SD)) age at BC diagnosis was 70.5 (5.13) years, ranging 65 - 81 years. All patients were Arab and the majority were Jordanian. The majority (n = 188, 92.2%) had early-stage (stages I and II) disease. One hundred three (50.5%) patients were tested with a restricted two-gene (n = 13) or 20-gene (n = 90) panel, while the remaining 101 (49.5%) patients had an expanded 84-gene panel. Family history of close blood relative(s) with BC was the most common indication for testing (n = 110, 53.9%). Among the entire study cohort, 22 (10.8%) had pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) and another 97 (47.5%) had ¡Ý 1 variants of uncertain significance (VUS). PGV rates were significantly higher with the expanded panel (14.9%) compared to restricted testing (6.8%) (P = 0.032). Similarly, VUS rates were significantly higher with the expanded panel (64.4%) compared to the restricted panel (31.1%) (P < 0.001). The most prevalent genes with PGVs were BRCA1/2 (31.3% of all PGV-positive patients), CHEK2 (23.1%) and ATM (19.2%). Conclusion: GGT should not be overlooked in older BC patients, as this study demonstrates that > 10% of patients have PGVs, largely in potentially actionable genes. World J Oncol. 2024;15(5):777-783 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1919

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207