↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of BRCAPRO Risk Assessment Model in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In situ Who Underwent Clinical BRCA Genetic Testing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of BRCAPRO Risk Assessment Model in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In situ Who Underwent Clinical BRCA Genetic Testing
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2016.00071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nisreen Elsayegh, Angelica M. Gutierrez Barrera, Kimberly I. Muse, Heather Lin, Henry M. Kuerer, Monica Helm, Jennifer K. Litton, Banu K. Arun

Abstract

The authors retrospectively aimed to determine which of the following three scenarios, related to DCIS entry into BRCAPRO, predicted BRCA mutation status more accurately: (1) DCIS as an invasive breast cancer (IBC) entered using the actual age of diagnosis, (2) DCIS as IBC entered with 10 years added to the actual age of diagnosis, and (3) DCIS entered as no cancer. Of the 85 DCIS patients included in the study, 19% (n = 16) tested positive for a BRCA mutation, and 81% (n = 69) tested negative. DCIS patients who tested positive for a BRCA mutation had a higher BRCAPRO risk estimation (34.61%) than patients who tested negative (11.4%) when DCIS was entered at the actual age of diagnosis. When DCIS was entered with 10 years added to the actual age at diagnosis, the BRCAPRO estimate was still higher amongst BRCA positive patients (25.4%) than BRCA negative patients (7.1%). When DCIS was entered as no cancer, the BRCAPRO estimate remained higher among BRCA positive patients (2.56%) than BRCA negative patents (1.98%). In terms of accuracy of BRCA positivity, there was no statistically significant difference between DCIS at age at diagnosis, DCIS at 10 years later than age at diagnosis, and DCIS entered as no cancer (AUC = 0.77, 0.784, 0.75, respectively: p = 0.60). Our results indicate that regardless of entry approach into BRCAPRO, there were no significant differences in predicting BRCA mutation in patients with DCIS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 19%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Professor 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Computer Science 1 6%
Mathematics 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 6 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,805,293
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#7,282
of 12,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,273
of 300,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#60
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,324 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 300,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.