Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39346015›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer prevention & current research2024

Implementation of risk assessment process for breast cancer risk in primary care.

Sarah Tucker Marrison, Caitlin G Allen, Kevin Hughes, Holly Raines, Mattie Banks, Travita Lee, Kiersten Meeder, Vanessa Diaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer prevention & current research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Patient and Physician Perspectives on Using Risk Prediction to Support Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Making.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sarah Tucker MarrisonDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, USA.
Caitlin G AllenDepartment of Public Heath, Medical University of South Carolina, USA.
Kevin HughesDepartment of Surgical Oncology Medical University of South Carolina, USA.
Holly RainesDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, USA.
Mattie BanksDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, USA.
Travita LeeDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, USA.
Kiersten MeederDepartment of Surgical Oncology Medical University of South Carolina, USA.
Vanessa DiazDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, USA.

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Current cancer prevention guidelines recommend assessing breast cancer risk using validated risk calculators such as Tyrer-Cuzick and assessing genetic testing eligibility with NCCN. Women at high-risk of breast cancer may be recommended to undergo additional or earlier screening. Risk assessment is not consistently implemented in the primary care setting resulting in increased morbidity and mortality in unidentified high-risk individuals. Methods: A single-arm interventional study was conducted in an academic primary care clinic for women 25-50 years old presenting for primary care appointments. Pre-visit workflows evaluated breast cancer risk using the Cancer Risk Assessment (CRA) Tool and information was provided to the clinician with guideline-based recommendations. Post-visit questionnaires and chart review were conducted. Results: The survey response rate was 24.5% (144/587) with 80.3% of responses completed online (94/117). The average age of respondents was 35.8 years with 50.4% White and 35.9% Black. There were no differences in response rate based on race. Risk discussion was documented in the medical record in 15.4% of cases with a higher rate of documentation in high-risk patient based on risk assessment as compared with average risk respondents (34.6% vs. 9.7%, p<0.01). In the high-risk women identified 11.4% (4/35) were seen by the high-risk breast clinic, and 5.7% (2/35) were referred for genetic evaluation. None had previously obtained MRI screening or genetic testing. Conclusions: There is limited identification and evaluation of women at high risk for breast cancer. Pre-visit surveys can be used as a tool to assess breast cancer risk in the primary care setting; however additional strategies are needed to implement systematic risk assessment and facilitate appropriate treatment based on risk level.

Indexed as

breast cancercancer risk assessmentcancer screeninggenetic risktelehealth

Identifiers

PMID39346015
PMCPMC11434167

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.