Kelly-Anne Phillips

University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Are you Kelly-Anne Phillips?

Claim your profile

Publications (67)569.18 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Annexin A1 (ANXA1) is a protein related with the carcinogenesis process and metastasis formation in many tumors. However, little is known about the prognostic value of ANXA1 in breast cancer. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association between ANXA1 expression, BRCA1/2 germline carriership, specific tumor subtypes and survival in breast cancer patients. Clinical-pathological information and follow-up data were collected from nine breast cancer studies from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) (n = 5,752) and from one study of familial breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 107). ANXA1 expression was scored based on the percentage of immunohistochemical staining in tumor cells. Survival analyses were performed using a multivariable Cox model. The frequency of ANXA1 positive tumors was higher in familial breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations than in BCAC patients, with 48.6 % versus 12.4 %, respectively; P <0.0001. ANXA1 was also highly expressed in BCAC tumors that were poorly differentiated, triple negative, EGFR-CK5/6 positive or had developed in patients at a young age. In the first 5 years of follow-up, patients with ANXA1 positive tumors had a worse breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) than ANXA1 negative (HRadj = 1.35; 95 % CI = 1.05-1.73), but the association weakened after 10 years (HRadj = 1.13; 95 % CI = 0.91-1.40). ANXA1 was a significant independent predictor of survival in HER2+ patients (10-years BCSS: HRadj = 1.70; 95 % CI = 1.17-2.45). ANXA1 is overexpressed in familial breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and correlated with poor prognosis features: triple negative and poorly differentiated tumors. ANXA1 might be a biomarker candidate for breast cancer survival prediction in high risk groups such as HER2+ cases.
    BMC Medicine 07/2015; 13(1):156. DOI:10.1186/s12916-015-0392-6 · 7.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication of the final version.
  • Cancer Research 05/2015; 75(9 Supplement):P3-02-03-P3-02-03. DOI:10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS14-P3-02-03 · 9.28 Impact Factor
  • Cancer Research 05/2015; 75(9 Supplement):P1-12-06-P1-12-06. DOI:10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS14-P1-12-06 · 9.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical genetic testing is commercially available for rs61764370, an inherited variant residing in a KRAS 3′ UTR microRNA binding site, based on suggested associations with increased ovarian and breast cancer risk as well as with survival time. However, prior studies, emphasizing particular subgroups, were relatively small. Therefore, we comprehensively evaluated ovarian and breast cancer risks as well as clinical outcome associated with rs61764370.
    Gynecologic Oncology 05/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.04.034 · 3.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Previous studies have identified common germline variants nominally associated with breast cancer survival. These associations have not been widely replicated in further studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of previously reported SNPs with breast cancer-specific survival using data from a pooled analysis of eight breast cancer survival genome-wide association studies (GWAS) from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Methods A literature review was conducted of all previously published associations between common germline variants and three survival outcomes: breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival and disease-free survival. All associations that reached the nominal significance level of P value <0.05 were included. Single nucleotide polymorphisms that had been previously reported as nominally associated with at least one survival outcome were evaluated in the pooled analysis of over 37,000 breast cancer cases for association with breast cancer-specific survival. Previous associations were evaluated using a one-sided test based on the reported direction of effect. Results Fifty-six variants from 45 previous publications were evaluated in the meta-analysis. Fifty-four of these were evaluated in the full set of 37,954 breast cancer cases with 2,900 events and the two additional variants were evaluated in a reduced sample size of 30,000 samples in order to ensure independence from the previously published studies. Five variants reached nominal significance (P <0.05) in the pooled GWAS data compared to 2.8 expected under the null hypothesis. Seven additional variants were associated (P <0.05) with ER-positive disease. Conclusions Although no variants reached genome-wide significance (P <5 x 10−8), these results suggest that there is some evidence of association between candidate common germline variants and breast cancer prognosis. Larger studies from multinational collaborations are necessary to increase the power to detect associations, between common variants and prognosis, at more stringent significance levels. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13058-015-0570-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
    Breast Cancer Research 04/2015; 17(1). DOI:10.1186/s13058-015-0570-7 · 5.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ovarian failure is a common toxic effect of chemotherapy. Studies of the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to protect ovarian function have shown mixed results and lack data on pregnancy outcomes. We randomly assigned 257 premenopausal women with operable hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer to receive standard chemotherapy with the GnRH agonist goserelin (goserelin group) or standard chemotherapy without goserelin (chemotherapy-alone group). The primary study end point was the rate of ovarian failure at 2 years, with ovarian failure defined as the absence of menses in the preceding 6 months and levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in the postmenopausal range. Rates were compared with the use of conditional logistic regression. Secondary end points included pregnancy outcomes and disease-free and overall survival. At baseline, 218 patients were eligible and could be evaluated. Among 135 with complete primary end-point data, the ovarian failure rate was 8% in the goserelin group and 22% in the chemotherapy-alone group (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09 to 0.97; two-sided P=0.04). Owing to missing primary end-point data, sensitivity analyses were performed, and the results were consistent with the main findings. Missing data did not differ according to treatment group or according to the stratification factors of age and planned chemotherapy regimen. Among the 218 patients who could be evaluated, pregnancy occurred in more women in the goserelin group than in the chemotherapy-alone group (21% vs. 11%, P=0.03); women in the goserelin group also had improved disease-free survival (P=0.04) and overall survival (P=0.05). Although missing data weaken interpretation of the findings, administration of goserelin with chemotherapy appeared to protect against ovarian failure, reducing the risk of early menopause and improving prospects for fertility. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; POEMS/S0230 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00068601.).
    New England Journal of Medicine 03/2015; 372(10):923-32. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1413204 · 54.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Tumor lymphocyte infiltration is associated with clinical response to chemotherapy in estrogen receptor (ER) negative breast cancer. To identify variants in immunosuppressive pathway genes associated with prognosis after adjuvant chemotherapy for ER-negative patients, we studied stage I-III invasive breast cancer patients of European ancestry, including 9,334 ER-positive (3,151 treated with chemotherapy) and 2,334 ER-negative patients (1,499 treated with chemotherapy). Methods: We pooled data from sixteen studies from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC), and employed two independent studies for replications. Overall 3,610 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 133 genes were genotyped as part of the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study, in which phenotype and clinical data were collected and harmonized. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess genetic associations with overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Heterogeneity according to chemotherapy or ER status was evaluated with the log-likelihood ratio test. Results: Three independent SNPs in TGFBR2 and IL12B were associated with OS (P < 10(-3)) solely in ER-negative patients after chemotherapy (267 events). Poorer OS associated with TGFBR2 rs1367610 (G > C) (per allele hazard ratio (HR) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.95), P = 3.08 x 10(-4)) was not found in ER-negative patients without chemotherapy or ER-positive patients with chemotherapy (P for interaction < 10-3). Two SNPs in IL12B (r(2) = 0.20) showed different associations with ER-negative disease after chemotherapy: rs2546892 (G > A) with poorer OS (HR 1.50 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.86), P = 1.81 x 10(-4)), and rs2853694 (A > C) with improved OS (HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.87), P = 3.67 x 10(-4)). Similar associations were observed with BCSS. Association with TGFBR2 rs1367610 but not IL12B variants replicated using BCAC Asian samples and the independent Prospective Study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary Breast Cancer Study and yielded a combined HR of 1.57 ((95% CI 1.28 to 1.94), P = 2.05 x 10(-5)) without study heterogeneity. Conclusions: TGFBR2 variants may have prognostic and predictive value in ER-negative breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Our findings provide further insights into the development of immunotherapeutic targets for ER-negative breast cancer.
    Breast cancer research: BCR 02/2015; 17. DOI:10.1186/s13058-015-0522-2 · 5.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To capitalise on advances in breast cancer prevention, all women would need to have their breast cancer risk formally assessed. With ~85% of Australians attending primary care clinics at least once a year, primary care is an opportune location for formal breast cancer risk assessment and management. This study assessed the current practice and needs of primary care clinicians regarding assessment and management of breast cancer risk. Two facilitated focus group discussions were held with 17 primary care clinicians (12 GPs and 5 practice nurses (PNs)) as part of a larger needs assessment. Primary care clinicians viewed assessment and management of cardiovascular risk as an intrinsic, expected part of their role, often triggered by practice software prompts and facilitated by use of an online tool. Conversely, assessment of breast cancer risk was not routine and was generally patient- (not clinician-) initiated, and risk management (apart from routine screening) was considered outside the primary care domain. Clinicians suggested that routine assessment and management of breast cancer risk might be achieved if it were widely endorsed as within the remit of primary care and supported by an online risk-assessment and decision aid tool that was integrated into primary care software. This study identified several key issues that would need to be addressed to facilitate the transition to routine assessment and management of breast cancer risk in primary care, based largely on the model used for cardiovascular disease.
    Australian Journal of Primary Health 02/2015; DOI:10.1071/PY14156 · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • Melanie Wuttke · Kelly-Anne Phillips
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article reviews the evidence that underpins breast cancer screening and prevention strategies for women at high risk of the disease, with a particular focus on evidence published in the last 18 months. The review is timely because the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have recently updated relevant guidelines that inform practice. In the recently published literature, there have been several important findings. A meta-analysis of randomized trials of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), along with the first results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II trial, further support the use of SERMs and aromatase inhibitors in the primary prevention of breast cancer. A large observational study has provided evidence that the SERM tamoxifen may be efficacious for breast cancer prevention in women who carry mutations in the breast cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Several observational studies have suggested that contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, following a diagnosis of breast cancer, may reduce mortality. Evidence regarding the optimal management of women at high risk of breast cancer continues to evolve and needs to be rapidly implemented into clinical practice.
    Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 12/2014; 27(1). DOI:10.1097/GCO.0000000000000140 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • Kelly-Anne Phillips · Fiona J Bruinsma · Roger L Milne
    The Medical journal of Australia 10/2014; 201(7):381. DOI:10.5694/mja14.01203 · 3.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Decision support tools for the assessment and management of breast cancer risk may improve uptake of prevention strategies. End-user input in the design of such tools is critical to increase clinical use. Before developing such a computerized tool, we examined clinicians' practice and future needs. Twelve breast surgeons, 12 primary care physicians and 5 practice nurses participated in 4 focus groups. These were recorded, coded, and analyzed to identify key themes. Participants identified difficulties assessing risk, including a lack of available tools to standardize practice. Most expressed confidence identifying women at potentially high risk, but not moderate risk. Participants felt a tool could especially reassure young women at average risk. Desirable features included: evidence-based, accessible (e.g. web-based), and displaying absolute (not relative) risks in multiple formats. The potential to create anxiety was a concern. Development of future tools should address these issues to optimize translation of knowledge into clinical practice.
    Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 07/2014; 23(5). DOI:10.1016/j.breast.2014.06.014 · 2.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) reduce breast cancer risk by 38%. However, uptake is low and the reasons are not well understood. This study applied Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) to determine factors associated with intention to take SERMs. Methods Women at increased risk of breast cancer (N = 107), recruited from two familial cancer clinics in Australia, completed a questionnaire containing measures of PMT constructs. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyze the data. Results Forty-five percent of women said they would be likely or very likely to take SERMs in the future. PMT components accounted for 40% of variance in intention to take SERMs. Perceived vulnerability, severity and response efficacy appeared the most influential in women's decisions to take or not take SERMs. Conclusion Many women are interested in SERMs as a risk management option. Accurate risk estimation and an understanding of the benefits of SERMs are critical to women's decision making. Practice Implications: Health professionals need to explore women's perceptions of their risk and its consequences, as well as providing clear evidence-based information about the efficacy of SERMs. Exploring the source and strength of beliefs about SERMs may allow more effective, tailored counseling.
    Patient Education and Counseling 07/2014; 96(1). DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2014.04.011 · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Large population-based registry studies have shown that breast cancer prognosis is inherited. Here we analyse single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of genes implicated in human immunology and inflammation as candidates for prognostic markers of breast cancer survival involving 1,804 oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative patients treated with chemotherapy (279 events) from 14 European studies in a prior large-scale genotyping experiment, which is part of the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (COGS) initiative. We carry out replication using Asian COGS samples (n=522, 53 events) and the Prospective Study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH) study (n=315, 108 events). Rs4458204_A near CCL20 (2q36.3) is found to be associated with breast cancer-specific death at a genome-wide significant level (n=2,641, 440 events, combined allelic hazard ratio (HR)=1.81 (1.49-2.19); P for trend=1.90 × 10(-9)). Such survival-associated variants can represent ideal targets for tailored therapeutics, and may also enhance our current prognostic prediction capabilities.
    Nature Communications 06/2014; 5:4051. DOI:10.1038/ncomms5051 · 10.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) reduce the risk of breast cancer for women at increased risk by 38%. However, uptake is extremely low and the reasons for this are not completely understood. The aims of this study were to utilize time trade-off methods to determine the degree of risk reduction required to make taking SERMs worthwhile to women, and the factors associated with requiring greater risk reduction to take SERMs. Women at increased risk of breast cancer (N = 107) were recruited from two familial cancer clinics in Australia. Participants completed a questionnaire either online or in pen and paper format. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyze the data. Overall, there was considerable heterogeneity in the degree of risk reduction required to make taking SERMs worthwhile. Women with higher perceived breast cancer risk and those with stronger intentions to undergo (or who had undergone) an oophorectomy required a smaller degree of risk reduction to consider taking SERMs worthwhile. Women at increased familial risk appear motivated to consider SERMs for prevention. A tailored approach to communicating about medical prevention is essential. Health professionals could usefully highlight the absolute (rather than relative) probability of side effects and take into account an individual's perceived (rather than objective) risk of breast cancer.
    SpringerPlus 05/2014; 3(264). DOI:10.1186/2193-1801-3-264
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study assessed the sociodemographic, medical and psychological predictors of accuracy of perceived risk in women at increased genetic risk for ovarian cancer. Women participating in a large cohort study who were at increased risk of ovarian and fallopian tube cancer, had no personal history of cancer and had ≥1 ovary in situ at cohort enrolment, were eligible. Women completed self-administered questionnaires and attended an interview at enrolment. Of 2,868 women unaffected with cancer at cohort enrolment, 561 were eligible. 335 women (59.8 %) overestimated their ovarian cancer risk, while 215 women (38.4 %) accurately estimated their risk, and 10 (1.8 %) underestimated it. Women who did not know their mutation status were more likely to overestimate their risk (OR 1.74, 95 % CI 1.10, 2.77, p = 0.018), as were those with higher cancer-specific anxiety (OR 1.05, 95 % CI 1.02, 1.08, p < 0.001) and/or a mother who had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer (OR 1.98, 95 % CI 1.23, 3.18, p = 0.005). Amongst the group of women who did not know their mutation status, 63.3 % overestimated their risk and the mean perceived lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer was 42.1 %, compared to a mean objective risk of 6.4 %. A large number of women at increased risk for ovarian cancer overestimate their risk. This is of concern especially in women who are at moderately increased risk only; for this sub-group of women, interventions are needed to reduce potentially unnecessary psychological distress and minimise engagement in unnecessary surgery or screening.
    Familial Cancer 10/2013; DOI:10.1007/s10689-013-9687-y · 1.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Limited data suggest that germline BRCA1 mutations are associated with occult primary ovarian insufficiency and that BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers might have earlier natural menopause (NM) than their noncarrier relatives. Eligible women were mutation carriers and noncarriers from families segregating a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Data were self-reported using uniform questionnaires at cohort entry and every 3 years thereafter. NM was defined as the cessation of menses for 12 months without another cause. Cox proportional hazards analysis modeled time from birth to NM, adjusting for multiple potential confounders. Analysis time was censored at the earliest of the following: last follow-up, bilateral oophorectomy, hysterectomy, commencement of hormone therapy, insertion of intrauterine device, or any cancer diagnosis. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated as a measure of how likely mutation carriers are, relative to noncarriers, to reach NM at a given age. A total of 1,840 women were eligible for analysis. Overall only 19% reached NM. A lower proportion of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers reached NM compared with noncarriers. Conversely, a higher proportion of mutation carriers were censored at cancer diagnosis or oophorectomy than noncarriers. The adjusted HR estimates for NM were 1.03 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.40; P = .9) for 445 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 559 noncarrier relatives and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.42; P = .9) for 374 BRCA2 mutation carriers and 462 noncarrier relatives. We found no evidence that BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are at higher risk of NM at a given age than their noncarrier relatives.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 09/2013; 31(31). DOI:10.1200/JCO.2013.49.3007 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSETo determine whether adjuvant tamoxifen treatment for breast cancer (BC) is associated with reduced contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriers. METHODS Analysis of pooled observational cohort data, self-reported at enrollment and at follow-up from the International BRCA1, and BRCA2 Carrier Cohort Study, Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer, and Breast Cancer Family Registry. Eligible women were BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers diagnosed with unilateral BC since 1970 and no other invasive cancer or tamoxifen use before first BC. Hazard ratios (HRs) for CBC associated with tamoxifen use were estimated using Cox regression, adjusting for year and age of diagnosis, country, and bilateral oophorectomy and censoring at contralateral mastectomy, death, or loss to follow-up.ResultsOf 1,583 BRCA1 and 881 BRCA2 mutation carriers, 383 (24%) and 454 (52%), respectively, took tamoxifen after first BC diagnosis. There were 520 CBCs over 20,104 person-years of observation. The adjusted HR estimates were 0.38 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.55) and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.50) for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. After left truncating at recruitment to the cohort, adjusted HR estimates were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.29 to 1.13) and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.22 to 1.05) based on 657 BRCA1 and 426 BRCA2 mutation carriers with 100 CBCs over 4,392 person-years of prospective follow-up. HRs did not differ by estrogen receptor status of the first BC (missing for 56% of cases). CONCLUSION This study provides evidence that tamoxifen use is associated with a reduction in CBC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Further follow-up of these cohorts will provide increased statistical power for future prospective analyses.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 08/2013; 31(25). DOI:10.1200/JCO.2012.47.8313 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has been shown that, for women aged 50 years or older, the discriminatory accuracy of the Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Tool (BCRAT) can be modestly improved by the inclusion of information on common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are associated with increased breast cancer risk. We aimed to determine whether a similar improvement is seen for earlier onset disease. We used the Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry to study a population-based sample of 962 cases aged 35-59 years, and 463 controls frequency matched for age and for whom genotyping data was available. Overall, the inclusion of data on seven SNPs improved the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) from 0.58 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.61) for BCRAT alone to 0.61 (95 % CI 0.58-0.64) for BCRAT and SNP data combined (p < 0.001). For women aged 35-39 years at interview, the corresponding improvement in AUC was from 0.61 (95 % CI 0.56-0.66) to 0.65 (95 % CI 0.60-0.70; p = 0.03), while for women aged 40-49 years at diagnosis, the AUC improved from 0.61 (95 % CI 0.55-0.66) to 0.63 (95 % CI 0.57-0.69; p = 0.04). Using previously used classifications of low, intermediate and high risk, 2.1 % of cases and none of the controls aged 35-39 years, and 10.9 % of cases and 4.0 % of controls aged 40-49 years were classified into a higher risk group. Including information on seven SNPs associated with breast cancer risk, improves the discriminatory accuracy of BCRAT for women aged 35-39 years and 40-49 years. Given, the low absolute risk for women in these age groups, only a small proportion are reclassified into a higher category for predicted 5-year risk of breast cancer.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 06/2013; 139(3). DOI:10.1007/s10549-013-2610-2 · 4.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:End user input into the design of decision support tools is critical to enhance integration and future routine use in clinical practice. As part of the development of an evidence-based, tailored, computerised breast cancer (BC) risk assessment and management tool, we examined clinicians' requirements. Methods:Australian breast surgeons (BSs) and primary care clinicians (PCCs) were recruited through local professional networks. Facilitated focus group discussions about current practice of assessing and managing BC risk and perceptions of the proposed tool were audiotaped, transcribed and managed using QSR NVivo. A coding framework was developed based on the transcripts. Data were coded and analysed to identify key themes. Results:Four focus groups, involving 12 BSs and 17 PCCs (12 doctors, 5 practice nurses) were conducted. 55% were male, mean age 45 years (range 25–67), mean of 14 years in practice. Clinicians reported difficulties assessing and managing BC risk and lack of available tools to standardise their current approach to risk assessment and management. Most considered themselves confident in identifying potentially high risk women (women with multiple affected relatives and therefore potentially carrying high-risk mutations), but not in identifying women at moderately increased risk. They thought a tool would help reassure anxious women at lower risk and so avoid unnecessary referral or investigations. They thought desirable tool features would include: evidence-based, accessible (web-based), visual, simple data entry process, displays of absolute risk (not relative) and risk estimates in multiple formats (words, pictographs, graphs) to improve comprehension. Clinicians considered that women would be able to input risk factors before the clinic visit but that joint user and clinician data entry was preferable. Conclusions:Development of tools for BC risk assessment and management could benefit from addressing these needs of clinicians in order to optimise translation of current and future knowledge into clinical practice.
    Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology 01/2013; 9:35-40. · 1.06 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

1k Citations
569.18 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2010–2015
    • University of Melbourne
      • • Department of Medicine
      • • Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory
      Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • 2003–2014
    • Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
      • • Department of Cancer Medicine
      • • Division of Haematology and Medical Oncology
      Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • 2012
    • Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
      • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Midwifery
      Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany
    • University of Cambridge
      • Department of Public Health and Primary Care
      Cambridge, England, United Kingdom
  • 2008
    • Saint Vincent Hospital
      Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
  • 2006
    • Philipps University of Marburg
      Marburg, Hesse, Germany
  • 2004–2005
    • University of Otago
      Taieri, Otago, New Zealand
  • 2001
    • The Princess Margaret Hospital
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada