| Title |
Validation of Version 3.0 of the Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool (B-RST™)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetics in Medicine, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41436-018-0020-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cecelia Bellcross, April Hermstad, Christine Tallo, Christine Stanislaw |
| Abstract |
Despite increased awareness of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer among clinicians and the public, many BRCA1/2 mutation carriers remain unaware of their risk status. The Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool (B-RST™) was created and validated to easily identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer for referral to cancer genetics services. The purpose of this study was to revise B-RST™ to maximize sensitivity against BRCA1/2 mutation status. We analyzed pedigrees of 277 individuals who had undergone BRCA1/2 testing to determine modifications to the B-RST™ 2.0 algorithm that would maximize sensitivity for mutations, while maintaining simplicity. We used McNemar's chi-square test to compare validation measures between the revised version (3.0) and the 2.0 version. Algorithmic changes made to B-RST™ 2.0 increased the sensitivity against BRCA1/2 mutation analysis from 71.1 to 94.0% (P < 0.0001). While specificity decreased, all screen-positive individuals were appropriate for cancer genetics referral, the primary purpose of the tool. Despite calls for BRCA1/2 population screening, there remains a critical need to identify those most at risk who should receive cancer genetics services. B-RST™ version 3.0 demonstrates high sensitivity for BRCA1/2 mutations, yet remains a simple and quick screening tool for at-risk individuals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| India | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,782,070
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#1,922
of 2,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,908
of 341,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#60
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 341,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.