Breast cancer risk assessment: Evaluation of screening tools for genetics referral

被引:2
|
作者
Himes, Deborah O. [1 ]
Zaro, Maren L. [1 ]
Williams, Mary [1 ]
Freeborn, Donna [1 ]
Eggett, Dennis L. [2 ]
Kinney, Anita Y. [3 ]
机构
[1] Brigham Young Univ, Coll Nursing, 500 Spencer W Kimball Tower, Provo, UT 84602 USA
[2] Brigham Young Univ, Dept Stat, Provo, UT 84602 USA
[3] Rutgers State Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Camden, NJ USA
关键词
BRCA1; BRCA2; BRCA1/2; breast cancer risk assessment; familial breast cancer; FHS-7; genetic referral; genetic risk for breast cancer; HBOC; hereditary breast cancer; Manchester Scoring System; medical management; Ontario-FHAT; PAT; RST; USPSTF guidelines; FAMILY-HISTORY; SCORING SYSTEM; OVARIAN-CANCER; WOMEN; VALIDATION; BRCA1; SUSCEPTIBILITY; BOADICEA; MUTATION; SOCIETY;
D O I
10.1097/JXX.0000000000000272
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and purpose: The United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends breast cancer risk-screening tools to help primary care providers determine which unaffected patients to refer to genetic specialists. The USPSTF does not recommend one tool above others. The purpose of this study was to compare tool performance in identifying women at risk for breast cancer. Methods: Pedigrees of 85 women aged 40-74 years with first-degree female relative with breast cancer were evaluated using five tools: Family History Screen-7 (FHS-7), Pedigree Assessment Tool, Manchester Scoring System, Referral Screening Tool, and Ontario Family History Assessment Tool (Ontario-FHAT). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to describe each tool's ability to identify women with elevated risk as defined by Claus Model calculations (lifetime risk >= 15%). Receiver operating curves were plotted. Differences between areas under the curve were estimated and compared through logistic regression to assess for differences in tool performance. Conclusions: Claus calculations identified 14 of 85 women with elevated risk. Two tools, Ontario-FHAT and FHS-7, identified all women with elevated risk (sensitivity 100%). The FHS-7 tool flagged all participants (specificity 0%). The Ontario-FHAT flagged 59 participants as needing referral (specificity 36.2%) and had a NPV of 100%. Area under the curve values were not significantly different between tools (all p values > .05), and thus were not helpful in discriminating between the tools. Implications for practice: The Ontario-FHAT outperformed other tools in sensitivity and NPV; however, low specificity and PPV must be balanced against these findings. Thus, the Ontario-FHAT can help determine which women would benefit from referral to genetics specialists.
引用
收藏
页码:562 / 572
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of risk assessment tools for breast cancer screening in Chinese population
    Zhao, Junyu
    Song, Xiuling
    Leng, Ling
    Wang, Huanjun
    Liao, Lin
    Dong, Jianjun
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2017, 10 (02): : 3582 - 3587
  • [2] Predicting risk in breast cancer: an assessment of screening tools
    Al-Tuama, A.
    Bolger, J. C.
    Roche, T.
    Hill, A. D. K.
    [J]. IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2014, 183 : S54 - S55
  • [3] Breast cancer genetic risk evaluation and referral for assessment
    Fenton, Mary Anne
    Szyamnski, Tara
    Perez, Kimberly
    Benson, Cindy
    Phornphutkul, Chanika
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 31 (31)
  • [4] Further development and evaluation of a breast/ovarian cancer genetics referral screening tool
    Bellcross, Cecelia
    [J]. GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2010, 12 (04) : 240 - 240
  • [5] Evaluation of a breast/ovarian cancer genetics referral screening tool in a mammography population
    Bellcross, Cecelia A.
    Lemke, Amy A.
    Pape, Laura S.
    Tess, Angela L.
    Meisner, Lorraine T.
    [J]. GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2009, 11 (11) : 783 - 789
  • [6] Breast Cancer: Genetics and Risk Assessment
    Tejada-Berges, Trevor
    [J]. CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 59 (04): : 673 - 687
  • [7] Clinical tools and counseling considerations for breast cancer risk assessment and evaluation for hereditary cancer risk
    Hipp, Lauren E.
    Hulswit, Bailey B.
    Milliron, Kara J.
    [J]. BEST PRACTICE & RESEARCH CLINICAL OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2022, 82 : 12 - 29
  • [8] Referral for cancer genetics consultation: a review and compilation of risk assessment criteria
    Hampel, H
    Sweet, K
    Westman, JA
    Offit, K
    Eng, C
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS, 2004, 41 (02) : 81 - 91
  • [9] Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme
    Amir, E
    Evans, DG
    Shenton, A
    Lalloo, F
    Moran, A
    Boggis, C
    Wilson, M
    Howell, A
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS, 2003, 40 (11): : 807 - 814
  • [10] Breast cancer genetics and risk assessment: an overview for the clinician
    Larkin, L.
    [J]. CLIMACTERIC, 2023, 26 (03) : 229 - 234