↓ Skip to main content

Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists
Published in
BMC Cancer, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1934-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. K. Eccles, E. Copson, T. Maishman, J. E. Abraham, D. M. Eccles

Abstract

Mainstreaming genetic medicine, increased media coverage and clinical trials for BRCA mutation carriers are leading oncologists into more patient discussions about BRCA genetic testing. BRCA variants of uncertain significance (VUS) occur in 10-20 % of tests. VUS detection introduces additional uncertainty for patient and potentially clinician. We aimed to explore the ability of breast cancer specialists (BCS) in the UK to correctly respond to a VUS report. A survey sent to 800 UK BCS collected demographics data, VUS general knowledge and interpretation and communication based on two genetics reports. A separate survey of UK clinical geneticists collected demographics data, laboratory reporting practice and methods used to clarify VUS pathogenicity including classification systems. Of the 155 BCS (22.5 %) who completed the survey, 12 % reported no genetics training. Ninety five percent referred patients for BRCA genetic tests, 71 % felt unsure about the clinical implications of the test reports presented here. A VUS report from a patient with a positive family history was interpreted and theoretically communicated correctly by 94 % but when presented with a different VUS report with no management guidance and negative family history, 39 % did not know how to communicate this result to the patient. Geneticists reported multiple VUS classification systems; the most commonly used was word-based in 32 %. A consistent and standardised format to report particularly VUS results across all diagnostic laboratories plus additional training of UK BCS will be necessary for effective mainstreaming of BRCA testing to the oncology clinic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 16%
Other 15 13%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 24%
Psychology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,678,822
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#847
of 8,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,328
of 390,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#24
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,530 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.