ArticleCancers2020
Long-Term Evaluation of Women Referred to a Breast Cancer Family History Clinic (Manchester UK 1987-2020).
Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- How do women experience a change in their clinically-derived breast cancer risk estimates: views from a UK family history risk and prevention clinic.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a telehealth service to support breast cancer prevention medication uptake: a protocol of a mixed methods study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Are Women's Breast Cancer Risk Appraisals in Line with Updated Clinical Risk Estimates Communicated? Results from a UK Family History Risk and Prevention Clinic.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- Postpartum Breast Cancer and Survival in Women With Germline BRCA Pathogenic Variants.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Weight, weight gain and behavioural risk factors in women attending a breast cancer family history, risk and prevention clinic: an observational study.BJC reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Tamoxifen and the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420).British journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Special Issue "Gynaecological Cancers Risk: Breast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer and Endometrial Cancer".Cancers · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of BRCA 1/2 Genetic Test and Preventive Strategies: Using Real-World Data From an Upper-Middle Income Country.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Clinical utility of testing for PALB2 and CHEK2 c.1100delC in breast and ovarian cancer.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinics for women concerned about their family history of breast cancer are widely established. A Family History Clinic was set-up in Manchester, UK, in 1987 in a Breast Unit serving a population of 1.8 million. In this review, we report the outcome of risk assessment, screening and prevention strategies in the clinic and propose future approaches. Between 1987-2020, 14,311 women were referred, of whom 6.4% were from known gene families, 38.2% were at high risk (≥30% lifetime risk), 37.7% at moderate risk (17-29%), and 17.7% at an average/population risk who were discharged. A total of 4168 (29.1%) women were eligible for genetic testing and 736 carried pathogenic variants, predominantly in
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.