Dataset Information

A systematic review of recommendations on screening strategies for breast cancer due to hereditary predisposition: Who, When, and How?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Breast cancer is a global health problem that cannot be underestimated. Many studies have shown that breast cancer is related to pathogenic mutations in hereditary predisposition genes. Clinical practice guidelines play a vital role in guiding the selection of breast cancer screening. Little is known about the quality and consistency of guidelines' recommendations and their changes over these years.

Methods

We reviewed the existing screening guidelines for genetic susceptibility to breast cancer and assessed the methodological quality, and summarized the recommendations to aid clinicians to make decisions. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and guideline-specific databases, aiming to find the guidelines of breast cancer due to hereditary predisposition. The necessary information was exacted by Excel. We also summarized different evidence grading systems. The qualities of the guidelines were assessed by the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

Results

A total of 54 recommendations from 13 guidelines were extracted. Generally speaking, the recommendations were consistent, mainly focusing on mammography and MRI.

Conclusions

The recommendations differ in details. Moreover, different guidelines are based on different grading systems, and some guidelines are not divided for age limits, which may limit the promotion and implementation of the guidelines. It is suggested that improvement can be made in this regard in the future.

SUBMITTER: Cai Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8124106 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of breast cancer screening is still under debate. Our objective was to systematically review studies assessing personalized breast cancer screening strategies based on women's individual risk and to conduct a risk of bias assessment.MethodsWe followed the standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA declaration and searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Clinical Trials databases for studies published in English. The quality of the studies was assessed using the ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Questionnaire and The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two independent reviewers screened full texts and evaluated the risk of bias.ResultsOut of the 1533 initially retrieved citations, we included 13 studies. Three studies were randomized controlled trials, while nine were mathematical modeling studies, and one was an observational pilot study. The trials are in the recruitment phase and have not yet reported their results. All three trials used breast density and age to define risk groups, and two of them included family history, previous biopsies, and genetic information. Among the mathematical modeling studies, the main risk factors used to define risk groups were breast density, age, family history, and previous biopsies. Six studies used genetic information to define risk groups. The most common outcome measures were the gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), absolute costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), while the main outcome in the observational study was the detection rate. In all models, personalized screening strategies were shown to be effective. The randomized trials were of good quality. The modeling studies showed moderate risk of bias but there was wide variability across studies. The observational study showed a low risk of bias but its utility was moderate due to its pilot design and its relatively small scale.ConclusionsThere is some evidence of the effectiveness of screening personalization in terms of QUALYs and ICER from the modeling studies and the observational study. However, evidence is lacking on feasibility and acceptance by the target population.Review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42018110483.

Project description:BackgroundBreast, colorectal, ovarian, and endometrial cancers constitute approximately 30% of newly diagnosed cancer cases in Switzerland, affecting more than 12,000 individuals annually. Hundreds of these patients are likely to carry germline pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC) or Lynch syndrome (LS). Genetic services (counseling and testing) for hereditary susceptibility to cancer can prevent many cancer diagnoses and deaths through early identification and risk management.ObjectiveCascade screening is the systematic identification and testing of relatives of a known mutation carrier. It determines whether asymptomatic relatives also carry the known variant, needing management options to reduce future harmful outcomes. Specific aims of the CASCADE study are to (1) survey index cases with HBOC or LS from clinic-based genetic testing records and determine their current cancer status and surveillance practices, needs for coordination of medical care, psychosocial needs, patient-provider and patient-family communication, quality of life, and willingness to serve as advocates for cancer genetic services to blood relatives, (2) survey first- and second-degree relatives and first-cousins identified from pedigrees or family history records of HBOC and LS index cases and determine their current cancer and mutation status, cancer surveillance practices, needs for coordination of medical care, barriers and facilitators to using cancer genetic services, psychosocial needs, patient-provider and patient-family communication, quality of life, and willingness to participate in a study designed to increase use of cancer genetic services, and (3) explore the influence of patient-provider communication about genetic cancer risk on patient-family communication and the acceptability of a family-based communication, coping, and decision support intervention with focus group(s) of mutation carriers and relatives.MethodsCASCADE is a longitudinal study using surveys (online or paper/pencil) and focus groups, designed to elicit factors that enhance cascade genetic testing for HBOC and LS in Switzerland. Repeated observations are the optimal way for assessing these outcomes. Focus groups will examine barriers in patient-provider and patient-family communication, and the acceptability of a family-based communication, coping, and decision-support intervention. The survey will be developed in English, translated into three languages (German, French, and Italian), and back-translated into English, except for scales with validated versions in these languages.ResultsDescriptive analyses will include calculating means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages of variables and participant descriptors. Bivariate analyses (Pearson correlations, chi-square test for differences in proportions, and t test for differences in means) will assess associations between demographics and clinical characteristics. Regression analyses will incorporate generalized estimating equations for pairing index cases with their relatives and explore whether predictors are in direct, mediating, or moderating relationship to an outcome. Focus group data will be transcribed verbatim and analyzed for common themes.ConclusionsRobust evidence from basic science and descriptive population-based studies in Switzerland support the necessity of cascade screening for genetic predisposition to HBOC and LS. CASCADE is designed to address translation of this knowledge into public health interventions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03124212; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03124212 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6tKZnNDBt).

Project description:Hereditary cancer syndromes constitute approximately 10% of all cancers. Cascade testing involves testing of at-risk relatives to determine if they carry the familial pathogenic variant. Despite growing efforts targeted at improving cascade testing uptake, current literature continues to reflect poor rates of uptake, typically below 30%. This study aims to systematically review current literature on intervention strategies to improve cascade testing, assess the quality of intervention descriptions and evaluate the implementation outcomes of listed interventions. We searched major databases using keywords and subject heading of "cascade testing". Interventions proposed in each study were classified according to the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. Quality of intervention description was assessed using the TIDieR checklist, and evaluation of implementation outcomes was performed using Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework. Improvements in rates of genetic testing uptake was seen in interventions across the different EPOC taxonomy strategies. The average TIDieR score was 7.3 out of 12. Items least reported include modifications (18.5%), plans to assess fidelity/adherence (7.4%) and actual assessment of fidelity/adherence (7.4%). An average of 2.9 out of 8 aspects of implementation outcomes were examined. The most poorly reported outcomes were cost, fidelity and sustainability, with only 3.7% of studies reporting them. Most interventions have demonstrated success in improving cascade testing uptake. Uptake of cascade testing was highest with delivery arrangement (68%). However, the quality of description of interventions and assessment of implementation outcomes are often suboptimal, hindering their replication and implementation downstream. Therefore, further adoption of standardized guidelines in reporting of interventions and formal assessment of implementation outcomes may help promote translation of these interventions into routine practice.

Project description:The aim of this systematic literature review was to assess what dissemination strategies are feasible to inform and educate patients about recommendations (also known as guidelines).The search was performed in February 2016 in PubMed, Ebsco/PsycINFO, Ebsco/CINAHL and Embase. Studies evaluating dissemination strategies, involving patients and/or reaching patients, were included. A hand search and a search in the grey literature, also done in February 2016, were added. Searches were not restricted by language or publication type. Publications that referred to (1) guideline(s) or recommendation(s), (2) dissemination, (3) dissemination with patients/patient organisations and (4) dissemination to patients/patient organisations were included in this article. Criteria 1 AND 2 were mandatory together with criteria 3 OR 4.The initial search revealed 3753 unique publications. Forty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for detailed review. The hand search and grey literature resulted in four relevant articles. After reading the full text of the 47 articles, 21 were relevant for answering our research question. Most publications had low levels of evidence, 3 or 4 of the Oxford levels of evidence. One article had a level of evidence of 2(b). This article gives an overview of tools and strategies to disseminate recommendations to patients. Key factors of success were a dissemination plan, written at the start of the recommendation development process, involvement of patients in this development process and the use of a combination of traditional and innovative dissemination tools. The lack of strong evidence calls for more research of the effectiveness of different dissemination strategies as well as the barriers for implementing a strategic approach of dissemination.Our findings provide the first systematic overview of tools and strategies to disseminate recommendations to patients and patient organisations. Participation of patients in the whole process is one of the most important findings. These findings are relevant to develop, implement and evaluate more (effective) dissemination strategies which can improve health care.

Project description:Hereditary breast cancer syndromes are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and constitute a unique patient population, making up approximately 5%-10% of breast cancer cases in the United States. By virtue of the germline mutations that define these syndromes, invasive breast cancers in these patients have unique mechanisms that can be rationally targeted for therapeutic opportunities distinct from standard of care treatments in nongermline mutation associated breast cancers. This review intends to describe existing data on several of the most common hereditary breast cancer syndromes, including BRCA-related breast cancer syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Cowden syndrome, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer syndrome, specifically focusing on rational therapeutics utilized in these distinct patient subgroups and completed or ongoing clinical trials evaluating their efficacy. By exploiting the distinct biologic features associated with these syndromes, tailored treatment strategies have the potential for improved efficacy and lower toxicity. Knowledge of the emergence of these targeted cancer therapies is critical for appropriate management in these patients, extending beyond treatment to highlight the need for appropriate genetic screening to allow for early recognition of these patients and therefore appropriate treatment.Molecular testing allows for identification of germline mutations that place individuals at high risk for breast cancer and that are associated with distinct histopathology and molecular characteristics that define the invasive breast cancer cases that these patients develop. These unique characteristics may ultimately provide rational targets for systemic treatments with improvements in both morbidity and efficacy. Identification of patients with these germline mutations is important for not only appropriate screening and prophylaxis, but knowledge of therapies specifically targeting several of the most common hereditary breast cancer syndromes is essential to ensure appropriate treatment of invasive breast cancers in these patients.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in cancer screening decisions for older adults (≥ 65 years), but recommendations vary by cancer type and jurisdiction.PurposeTo examine the factors influencing PCPs' recommendations for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening for older adults.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, searched from 1 January 2000 to July 2021, and citation searching in July 2022.Study selectionAssessed factors influencing PCPs' breast, prostate, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening decisions for older adults' (defined either as ≥ 65 years or < 10-year life expectancy).Data extractionTwo authors independently conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. Decisions were crosschecked and discussed where necessary.Data synthesisFrom 1926 records, 30 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty were quantitative, nine were qualitative, and one used a mixed method design. Twenty-nine were conducted in the USA, and one in the UK. Factors were synthesized into six categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient health characteristics, patient and clinician psycho-social factors, clinician characteristics, and health system factors. Patient preference was most reported as influential across both quantitative and qualitative studies. Age, health status, and life expectancy were also commonly influential, but PCPs held nuanced views about life expectancy. Weighing benefits/harms was also commonly reported with variation across cancer screening types. Other factors included patient screening history, clinician attitudes/personal experiences, patient/provider relationship, guidelines, reminders, and time.LimitationsWe could not conduct a meta-analysis due to variability in study designs and measurement. The vast majority of included studies were conducted in the USA.ConclusionsAlthough PCPs play a role in individualizing cancer screening for older adults, multi-level interventions are needed to improve these decisions. Decision support should continue to be developed and implemented to support informed choice for older adults and assist PCPs to consistently provide evidence-based recommendations.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42021268219.Funding sourceNHMRC APP1113532.

Project description:IntroductionApproximately 10% of breast cancer (BC) cases result from hereditary causes. Genetic testing has been widely implemented in BC care to determine hereditary cancer syndromes and personalized medicine. Thus, identification of individuals carrying germline pathogenic variants could be useful to provide appropriate prophylactic or screening measures for each BC subtype, however, there are few formal recommendations for genetic testing in this sense so far. In this study, we assessed rare germline variants in a specific group of genes in order to determine the association with human epidermal growth factor 2 enriched (HER2+) BC phenotype through a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing subtypes overexpressing HER2 with other clinically recognized subtypes of BC. This review was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023447571).MethodsWe conducted an online literature search in PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and EMBASE databases. We included original studies that investigated germline variants in HER2+ BC patients and selected the studies that reported only rare and/or pathogenic germline variants. We assessed the risk of bias and quality of the studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklists and the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Genetic Studies, respectively. Considering hormone receptor and HER2 expression status, we compared gene-based risks initially in HR-HER2-, HR+HER2-, HR+HER2+, and HR-HER2+ groups, conducting separate meta-analyses using the random effects model for each comparison, and within them for each gene.ResultsOf the total 36 studies describing germline variants, 11 studies provided information on the prevalence of variants in the different clinically relevant BC subtypes and allowed comparisons. Germline variants within eight genes showed significant differences when meta-analyzed between the BC groups: BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, and BARD1. Notably, TP53, ATM, and CHEK2 germline variants were identified as predisposing factors for HER2+ subtypes, whereas BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and BARD1 germline variants were associated with a predisposition to low HER2 expression. Main concerns about bias and quality assessment were the lack of confounding factors control; and comparability or outcome assessment, respectively.DiscussionOur findings underscore the connection between germline variants and differential expression of the HER2 protein and BC subtypes.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023447571.