Breast CancerNCT05570266
Genetic and Non-Genetic Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Evaluation in Indonesian Samples
An observational study of Breast Cancer, run by Nalagenetics Pte Ltd at 1 site in Indonesia.
Trial summary
Breast cancer is the most common cancer and cause of cancer- related deaths among women, accounting for 1.67 million (25.2%) new cases and 521,907 (14.7%) deaths worldwide. The prevalence and survival rates of breast cancer differ per country. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 35 to 75 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Breast Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Software
- How many people
- 322 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIndonesia
- Study dates
- 13 Oct 2020to 25 May 2023
- How long will I take part?
- 3 Months
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 35 to 75 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Controls are taken from clients who visited Breast Cancer Care Alliance (BCCA) We will not impose any selection to age at diagnosis for both cases and controls
Who may be able to join
- For case group
- Had been diagnosed with primary breast cancer or tested positive for high penetrance genes (e.g. BRCA 1/2)
- Menarche age >12 years old
- Premenopausal
- For control group
- Premenopausal
Show all 9Show fewer
- Menarche age >12 years old
- Asymptomatic
- Consented for the study and follow up
Who cannot join
- For case group:
- First degree family history of breast or ovarian cancer
- For control group:
- Family history of breast or ovarian cancer
- First-degree relationship with the cases
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Indonesia1 site
MRCC Siloam Hospitals Semanggi
Jakarta, Jakarta Special Capital Region, 12930
About this study
Breast cancer is the most common cancer and cause of cancer- related deaths among women, accounting for 1.67 million (25.2%) new cases and 521,907 (14.7%) deaths worldwide. The prevalence and survival rates of breast cancer differ per country. In Indonesia, majority of patients (70.9%) go to the clinic with advanced stages of breast cancer. Five-year survival rate is 51.07%. One of the most important determinants of survival is education level and stage of breast cancer.
Current screening methods include mammography and radiology assessments, both of which have disadvantages specifically in Asian population. Mammography is less useful in Asian population because the population has denser breast, resulting to failure to diagnose cases of breast cancer in this population in 37-70% of cases. Moreover, screening methods provide binary answers, and therefore does not inform risk profile of the patients.
The investigators aim to implement PRS into the breast cancer screening process while observing the differences of genetic and non-genetic risk factor in patients with breast cancer and patients without any medical/family history of breast cancer in Indonesian population.
Read the detailed description
Breast cancer is the most common cancer and cause of cancer- related deaths among women, accounting for 1.67 million (25.2%) new cases and 521,907 (14.7%) deaths worldwide. The prevalence and survival rates of breast cancer differ per country. In Indonesia, majority of patients (70.9%) go to the clinic with advanced stages of breast cancer. Five-year survival rate is 51.07%. One of the most important determinants of survival is education level and stage of breast cancer.
Current screening methods include mammography and radiology assessments, both of which have disadvantages specifically in Asian population. Mammography is less useful in Asian population because the population has denser breast, resulting to failure to diagnose cases of breast cancer in this population in 37-70% of cases. Moreover, screening methods provide binary answers, and therefore does not inform risk profile of the patients.
Traditionally, risk prediction algorithms such as the GAIL model, BODACIEA, and Tyler-Cuzick use medical history and clinical factors of patients. However recently, genetics have grown in importance due to the heritability nature of cancer and availability of testing services and guidelines. About 10-30% of all cases are attributed to familial breast cancers, and of these, only 5%-10% correlate with hereditary factors linked with high penetrance. The most common genetic test to screen today is BRCA 1 and 2, and then other 22 genes curated by expert opinions on NCCN and other guidelines.
The prevalences estimated for carriers of mutations in BRCA1/2 are, respectively, 0.11% and 0.12% in the general population, and between 12.8%-16% in high risk families with three or more cases of breast or ovarian cancer. Approximately 10-15% of ovarian cancer cases are believed to be due to a BRCA1/2 mutation, however ~50% of individuals with a pathogenic BRCA mutation may not report a strong family history of cancer. NCCN, ASCO, St Gallen and has established guidelines to screen patients, but the low awareness in patients to go screening in the first place is hard.
Genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PRS) combines the effects of low penetrance genes that together creates predictive value as strong as high-penetrance genes, but is much more common than high-penetrance gene testing. A PRS is most commonly calculated as a weighted sum of the number of risk alleles carried by an individual, where the risk alleles and their weights are defined by the loci and their measured effects as detected by genome wide association studies.
For some common adult-onset diseases, the polygenic risk conveyed to a substantial segment (10-20%) of the population whose genomes are enriched in risk alleles is comparable to the risk conveyed by commonly used clinical risk factors. A recent large-scale comprehensive GWAS for breast cancer found that 45% of familial relative risk of breast cancer can be explained by genetic variants captured by genotyping and imputation. As genotyping technologies advance, and consortia build algorithms on more samples, the predictive values of PRS algorithms are maturing. After analysis of 120,000 patients and optimizing for highest predictability, a PRS score combining 313 SNPs and clinical factors have a predictive value of 68%, compared to only 58% using clinical risk factors. A study conducted in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium showed that PRS combined with environmental risk factors can be used to distinguish women at different levels of breast cancer risk in the general population.
This score gives providers the opportunity to stratify the patients may result in some people with higher risk profile to start risk-reducing therapy earlier, start screening at a younger age, and modify their lifestyles with the aim of reducing their risk. For example, those who are at the top 1.5% of polygenic risk score have an odds ratio of 3 or more compared to the general population.
Polygenic risk scores have been applied in leading institutions in the world as clinical trials and in the commercial settings. However, there has been little application in developing countries to use polygenic risk score to increase awareness of risk-reducing strategies of breast cancer in patients.
One of the main concerns about the clinical implementation of population-based genetic screening is experts' availability post-test. A study in the UK for physicians' attitude towards risk stratification of ovarian cancer showed that 70% oncologists and 50% of GPs would be willing to offer genetic testing to their patients. About 60% believe that the test would give patients a sense of control, and over 80% of providers are willing to personalize recommendations based on risk stratification.
The investigators aim to implement PRS into the breast cancer screening process while observing the differences of genetic and non-genetic risk factor in patients with breast cancer and patients without any medical/family history of breast cancer in Indonesian population.
- Conditions
- Breast Cancer
- Being tested
- Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Software
- Keywords
- Breast Cancer, Polygenic Risk Score
- Medical subject headings
- Breast Neoplasms, Genetic Risk Score
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Breast Cancer Risk Prediction SoftwareDiagnostic test
Genotyping of known breast cancer-related markers (313 variants) will be conducted using a microarray genotyping chip (Genetic Risk). Survey answers will determine Gail Model scores and thus Clinical Risk Score.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | Cases are taken by recruiting women who:
* have no first degree family history of breast or ovarian cancer
* are or had been diagnosed with primary breast cancer or tested positive for high penetrance genes (e.g. BRCA 1/2)
* menarche age >12 years old
* premenopausal Receives: Diagnostic Test: Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Software | |
| Cohort | Controls are taken from clients who visited Breast Cancer Care Alliance (BCCA) and:
* have no family history of breast or ovarian cancer
* premenopausal
* menarche age >12 years old
* asymptomatic
* do not have any first-degree relationship with the cases
* consented for the study and follow up Receives: Diagnostic Test: Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Software |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Absolute risk difference between breast cancer patients and non-breast cancer patients in terms of their non-genetic risk
Absolute non-genetic risk is calculated using the MDCalc Gail Model
Measured: First quarter of 2023
Absolute risk difference between breast cancer patients and non-breast cancer patients in terms of their genetic risk
Genetic risk is derived from polygenic risk score acquired from running a microarray sample result through an algorithm (see Mavaddat et al 2019)
Measured: First quarter of 2023
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Oct 2022
- Study start13 Oct 2020
- Primary completion10 Jan 2023
- Study completion25 May 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Breast CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Case-control
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 322 participants (actual)
- Target duration
- 3 Months
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Nalagenetics Pte Ltd
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- SJH Initiatives, MRCCC Siloam Hospitals Semanggi
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Samuel Haryono, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, SJH Initiatives
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05570266
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ID-RPSBC-01-20201012
- Status last verified
- Sep 2023
- First submitted
- 4 Oct 2022
- Last updated
- 13 Sep 2023
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Costa M, Saldanha P. Risk Reduction Strategies in Breast Cancer Prevention. Eur J Breast Health. 2017 Jul 1;13(3):103-112. doi: 10.5152/ejbh.2017.3583. eCollection 2017 Jul.
PubMed 28894848Mavaddat N, Michailidou K, Dennis J, Lush M, Fachal L, Lee A, Tyrer JP, Chen TH, Wang Q, Bolla MK, Yang X, Adank MA, Ahearn T, Aittomaki K, Allen J, Andrulis IL, Anton-Culver H, Antonenkova NN, Arndt V, Aronson KJ, Auer PL, Auvinen P, Barrdahl M, Beane Freeman LE, Beckmann MW, Behrens S, Benitez J, Bermisheva M, Bernstein L, Blomqvist C, Bogdanova NV, Bojesen SE, Bonanni B, Borresen-Dale AL, Brauch H, Bremer M, Brenner H, Brentnall A, Brock IW, Brooks-Wilson A, Brucker SY, Bruning T, Burwinkel B, Campa D, Carter BD, Castelao JE, Chanock SJ, Chlebowski R, Christiansen H, Clarke CL, Collee JM, Cordina-Duverger E, Cornelissen S, Couch FJ, Cox A, Cross SS, Czene K, Daly MB, Devilee P, Dork T, Dos-Santos-Silva I, Dumont M, Durcan L, Dwek M, Eccles DM, Ekici AB, Eliassen AH, Ellberg C, Engel C, Eriksson M, Evans DG, Fasching PA, Figueroa J, Fletcher O, Flyger H, Forsti A, Fritschi L, Gabrielson M, Gago-Dominguez M, Gapstur SM, Garcia-Saenz JA, Gaudet MM, Georgoulias V, Giles GG, Gilyazova IR, Glendon G, Goldberg MS, Goldgar DE, Gonzalez-Neira A, Grenaker Alnaes GI, Grip M, Gronwald J, Grundy A, Guenel P, Haeberle L, Hahnen E, Haiman CA, Hakansson N, Hamann U, Hankinson SE, Harkness EF, Hart SN, He W, Hein A, Heyworth J, Hillemanns P, Hollestelle A, Hooning MJ, Hoover RN, Hopper JL, Howell A, Huang G, Humphreys K, Hunter DJ, Jakimovska M, Jakubowska A, Janni W, John EM, Johnson N, Jones ME, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Jung A, Kaaks R, Kaczmarek K, Kataja V, Keeman R, Kerin MJ, Khusnutdinova E, Kiiski JI, Knight JA, Ko YD, Kosma VM, Koutros S, Kristensen VN, Kruger U, Kuhl T, Lambrechts D, Le Marchand L, Lee E, Lejbkowicz F, Lilyquist J, Lindblom A, Lindstrom S, Lissowska J, Lo WY, Loibl S, Long J, Lubinski J, Lux MP, MacInnis RJ, Maishman T, Makalic E, Maleva Kostovska I, Mannermaa A, Manoukian S, Margolin S, Martens JWM, Martinez ME, Mavroudis D, McLean C, Meindl A, Menon U, Middha P, Miller N, Moreno F, Mulligan AM, Mulot C, Munoz-Garzon VM, Neuhausen SL, Nevanlinna H, Neven P, Newman WG, Nielsen SF, Nordestgaard BG, Norman A, Offit K, Olson JE, Olsson H, Orr N, Pankratz VS, Park-Simon TW, Perez JIA, Perez-Barrios C, Peterlongo P, Peto J, Pinchev M, Plaseska-Karanfilska D, Polley EC, Prentice R, Presneau N, Prokofyeva D, Purrington K, Pylkas K, Rack B, Radice P, Rau-Murthy R, Rennert G, Rennert HS, Rhenius V, Robson M, Romero A, Ruddy KJ, Ruebner M, Saloustros E, Sandler DP, Sawyer EJ, Schmidt DF, Schmutzler RK, Schneeweiss A, Schoemaker MJ, Schumacher F, Schurmann P, Schwentner L, Scott C, Scott RJ, Seynaeve C, Shah M, Sherman ME, Shrubsole MJ, Shu XO, Slager S, Smeets A, Sohn C, Soucy P, Southey MC, Spinelli JJ, Stegmaier C, Stone J, Swerdlow AJ, Tamimi RM, Tapper WJ, Taylor JA, Terry MB, Thone K, Tollenaar RAEM, Tomlinson I, Truong T, Tzardi M, Ulmer HU, Untch M, Vachon CM, van Veen EM, Vijai J, Weinberg CR, Wendt C, Whittemore AS, Wildiers H, Willett W, Winqvist R, Wolk A, Yang XR, Yannoukakos D, Zhang Y, Zheng W, Ziogas A; ABCTB Investigators; kConFab/AOCS Investigators; NBCS Collaborators; Dunning AM, Thompson DJ, Chenevix-Trench G, Chang-Claude J, Schmidt MK, Hall P, Milne RL, Pharoah PDP, Antoniou AC, Chatterjee N, Kraft P, Garcia-Closas M, Simard J, Easton DF. Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes. Am J Hum Genet. 2019 Jan 3;104(1):21-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.002. Epub 2018 Dec 13.
PubMed 30554720Sinaga ES, Ahmad RA, Shivalli S, Hutajulu SH. Age at diagnosis predicted survival outcome of female patients with breast cancer at a tertiary hospital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Pan Afr Med J. 2018 Nov 7;31:163. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2018.31.163.17284. eCollection 2018.
PubMed 31086616
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Sep 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Genetic and Non-Genetic Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Evaluation in Indonesian Samples
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05570266
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ID-RPSBC-01-20201012
- Conditions
- Breast Cancer
- Keywords
- Breast Cancer, Polygenic Risk Score
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 322 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Nalagenetics Pte LtdIndustry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- SJH Initiatives, MRCCC Siloam Hospitals Semanggi
- Study start
- 13 Oct 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 10 Jan 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 25 May 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Oct 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer and cause of cancer- related deaths among women, accounting for 1.67 million (25.2%) new cases and 521,907 (14.7%) deaths worldwide. The prevalence and survival rates of breast cancer differ per country. In Indonesia, majority of patients (70.9%) go to the clinic with advanced stages of breast cancer. Five-year survival rate is 51.07%. One of the most important determinants of survival is education level and stage of breast cancer.
Current screening methods include mammography and radiology assessments, both of which have disadvantages specifically in Asian population. Mammography is less useful in Asian population because the population has denser breast, resulting to failure to diagnose cases of breast cancer in this population in 37-70% of cases. Moreover, screening methods provide binary answers, and therefore does not inform risk profile of the patients.
The investigators aim to implement PRS into the breast cancer screening process while observing the differences of genetic and non-genetic risk factor in patients with breast cancer and patients without any medical/family history of breast cancer in Indonesian population.
Detailed description
Breast cancer is the most common cancer and cause of cancer- related deaths among women, accounting for 1.67 million (25.2%) new cases and 521,907 (14.7%) deaths worldwide. The prevalence and survival rates of breast cancer differ per country. In Indonesia, majority of patients (70.9%) go to the clinic with advanced stages of breast cancer. Five-year survival rate is 51.07%. One of the most important determinants of survival is education level and stage of breast cancer.
Current screening methods include mammography and radiology assessments, both of which have disadvantages specifically in Asian population. Mammography is less useful in Asian population because the population has denser breast, resulting to failure to diagnose cases of breast cancer in this population in 37-70% of cases. Moreover, screening methods provide binary answers, and therefore does not inform risk profile of the patients.
Traditionally, risk prediction algorithms such as the GAIL model, BODACIEA, and Tyler-Cuzick use medical history and clinical factors of patients. However recently, genetics have grown in importance due to the heritability nature of cancer and availability of testing services and guidelines. About 10-30% of all cases are attributed to familial breast cancers, and of these, only 5%-10% correlate with hereditary factors linked with high penetrance. The most common genetic test to screen today is BRCA 1 and 2, and then other 22 genes curated by expert opinions on NCCN and other guidelines.
The prevalences estimated for carriers of mutations in BRCA1/2 are, respectively, 0.11% and 0.12% in the general population, and between 12.8%-16% in high risk families with three or more cases of breast or ovarian cancer. Approximately 10-15% of ovarian cancer cases are believed to be due to a BRCA1/2 mutation, however ~50% of individuals with a pathogenic BRCA mutation may not report a strong family history of cancer. NCCN, ASCO, St Gallen and has established guidelines to screen patients, but the low awareness in patients to go screening in the first place is hard.
Genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PRS) combines the effects of low penetrance genes that together creates predictive value as strong as high-penetrance genes, but is much more common than high-penetrance gene testing. A PRS is most commonly calculated as a weighted sum of the number of risk alleles carried by an individual, where the risk alleles and their weights are defined by the loci and their measured effects as detected by genome wide association studies.
For some common adult-onset diseases, the polygenic risk conveyed to a substantial segment (10-20%) of the population whose genomes are enriched in risk alleles is comparable to the risk conveyed by commonly used clinical risk factors. A recent large-scale comprehensive GWAS for breast cancer found that 45% of familial relative risk of breast cancer can be explained by genetic variants captured by genotyping and imputation. As genotyping technologies advance, and consortia build algorithms on more samples, the predictive values of PRS algorithms are maturing. After analysis of 120,000 patients and optimizing for highest predictability, a PRS score combining 313 SNPs and clinical factors have a predictive value of 68%, compared to only 58% using clinical risk factors. A study conducted in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium showed that PRS combined with environmental risk factors can be used to distinguish women at different levels of breast cancer risk in the general population.
This score gives providers the opportunity to stratify the patients may result in some people with higher risk profile to start risk-reducing therapy earlier, start screening at a younger age, and modify their lifestyles with the aim of reducing their risk. For example, those who are at the top 1.5% of polygenic risk score have an odds ratio of 3 or more compared to the general population.
Polygenic risk scores have been applied in leading institutions in the world as clinical trials and in the commercial settings. However, there has been little application in developing countries to use polygenic risk score to increase awareness of risk-reducing strategies of breast cancer in patients.
One of the main concerns about the clinical implementation of population-based genetic screening is experts' availability post-test. A study in the UK for physicians' attitude towards risk stratification of ovarian cancer showed that 70% oncologists and 50% of GPs would be willing to offer genetic testing to their patients. About 60% believe that the test would give patients a sense of control, and over 80% of providers are willing to personalize recommendations based on risk stratification.
The investigators aim to implement PRS into the breast cancer screening process while observing the differences of genetic and non-genetic risk factor in patients with breast cancer and patients without any medical/family history of breast cancer in Indonesian population.
Study design
- Observational model
- Case-control
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Target follow-up
- 3 Months
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | – | Diagnostic Test: Breast Cancer Risk Prediction SoftwareCases are taken by recruiting women who: * have no first degree family history of breast or ovarian cancer * are or had been diagnosed with primary breast cancer or tested positive for high penetrance genes (e.g. BRCA 1/2) * menarche age >12 years old * premenopausal |
| Cohort | – | Diagnostic Test: Breast Cancer Risk Prediction SoftwareControls are taken from clients who visited Breast Cancer Care Alliance (BCCA) and: * have no family history of breast or ovarian cancer * premenopausal * menarche age >12 years old * asymptomatic * do not have any first-degree relationship with the cases * consented for the study and follow up |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 35 to 75 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Controls are taken from clients who visited Breast Cancer Care Alliance (BCCA) We will not impose any selection to age at diagnosis for both cases and controls
Key inclusion criteria (9 listed)
- For case group
- For control group
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- For case group:
- First degree family history of breast or ovarian cancer
- For control group:
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Breast Cancer Risk Prediction SoftwareGenotyping of known breast cancer-related markers (313 variants) will be conducted using a microarray genotyping chip (Genetic Risk). Survey answers will determine Gail Model scores and thus Clinical Risk Score. | Diagnostic test | Cases, Cohort |
Primary outcome
Absolute risk difference between breast cancer patients and non-breast cancer patients in terms of their non-genetic risk
Time frame: First quarter of 2023
Absolute non-genetic risk is calculated using the MDCalc Gail Model
Absolute risk difference between breast cancer patients and non-breast cancer patients in terms of their genetic risk
Time frame: First quarter of 2023
Genetic risk is derived from polygenic risk score acquired from running a microarray sample result through an algorithm (see Mavaddat et al 2019)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Sep 2023.
- Background: PubMed 28894848Costa M, Saldanha P. Risk Reduction Strategies in Breast Cancer Prevention. Eur J Breast Health. 2017 Jul 1;13(3):103-112. doi: 10.5152/ejbh.2017.3583. eCollection 2017 Jul.
- Background: PubMed 30554720Mavaddat N, Michailidou K, Dennis J, Lush M, Fachal L, Lee A, Tyrer JP, Chen TH, Wang Q, Bolla MK, Yang X, Adank MA, Ahearn T, Aittomaki K, Allen J, Andrulis IL, Anton-Culver H, Antonenkova NN, Arndt V, Aronson KJ, Auer PL, Auvinen P, Barrdahl M, Beane Freeman LE, Beckmann MW, Behrens S, Benitez J, Bermisheva M, Bernstein L, Blomqvist C, Bogdanova NV, Bojesen SE, Bonanni B, Borresen-Dale AL, Brauch H, Bremer M, Brenner H, Brentnall A, Brock IW, Brooks-Wilson A, Brucker SY, Bruning T, Burwinkel B, Campa D, Carter BD, Castelao JE, Chanock SJ, Chlebowski R, Christiansen H, Clarke CL, Collee JM, Cordina-Duverger E, Cornelissen S, Couch FJ, Cox A, Cross SS, Czene K, Daly MB, Devilee P, Dork T, Dos-Santos-Silva I, Dumont M, Durcan L, Dwek M, Eccles DM, Ekici AB, Eliassen AH, Ellberg C, Engel C, Eriksson M, Evans DG, Fasching PA, Figueroa J, Fletcher O, Flyger H, Forsti A, Fritschi L, Gabrielson M, Gago-Dominguez M, Gapstur SM, Garcia-Saenz JA, Gaudet MM, Georgoulias V, Giles GG, Gilyazova IR, Glendon G, Goldberg MS, Goldgar DE, Gonzalez-Neira A, Grenaker Alnaes GI, Grip M, Gronwald J, Grundy A, Guenel P, Haeberle L, Hahnen E, Haiman CA, Hakansson N, Hamann U, Hankinson SE, Harkness EF, Hart SN, He W, Hein A, Heyworth J, Hillemanns P, Hollestelle A, Hooning MJ, Hoover RN, Hopper JL, Howell A, Huang G, Humphreys K, Hunter DJ, Jakimovska M, Jakubowska A, Janni W, John EM, Johnson N, Jones ME, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Jung A, Kaaks R, Kaczmarek K, Kataja V, Keeman R, Kerin MJ, Khusnutdinova E, Kiiski JI, Knight JA, Ko YD, Kosma VM, Koutros S, Kristensen VN, Kruger U, Kuhl T, Lambrechts D, Le Marchand L, Lee E, Lejbkowicz F, Lilyquist J, Lindblom A, Lindstrom S, Lissowska J, Lo WY, Loibl S, Long J, Lubinski J, Lux MP, MacInnis RJ, Maishman T, Makalic E, Maleva Kostovska I, Mannermaa A, Manoukian S, Margolin S, Martens JWM, Martinez ME, Mavroudis D, McLean C, Meindl A, Menon U, Middha P, Miller N, Moreno F, Mulligan AM, Mulot C, Munoz-Garzon VM, Neuhausen SL, Nevanlinna H, Neven P, Newman WG, Nielsen SF, Nordestgaard BG, Norman A, Offit K, Olson JE, Olsson H, Orr N, Pankratz VS, Park-Simon TW, Perez JIA, Perez-Barrios C, Peterlongo P, Peto J, Pinchev M, Plaseska-Karanfilska D, Polley EC, Prentice R, Presneau N, Prokofyeva D, Purrington K, Pylkas K, Rack B, Radice P, Rau-Murthy R, Rennert G, Rennert HS, Rhenius V, Robson M, Romero A, Ruddy KJ, Ruebner M, Saloustros E, Sandler DP, Sawyer EJ, Schmidt DF, Schmutzler RK, Schneeweiss A, Schoemaker MJ, Schumacher F, Schurmann P, Schwentner L, Scott C, Scott RJ, Seynaeve C, Shah M, Sherman ME, Shrubsole MJ, Shu XO, Slager S, Smeets A, Sohn C, Soucy P, Southey MC, Spinelli JJ, Stegmaier C, Stone J, Swerdlow AJ, Tamimi RM, Tapper WJ, Taylor JA, Terry MB, Thone K, Tollenaar RAEM, Tomlinson I, Truong T, Tzardi M, Ulmer HU, Untch M, Vachon CM, van Veen EM, Vijai J, Weinberg CR, Wendt C, Whittemore AS, Wildiers H, Willett W, Winqvist R, Wolk A, Yang XR, Yannoukakos D, Zhang Y, Zheng W, Ziogas A; ABCTB Investigators; kConFab/AOCS Investigators; NBCS Collaborators; Dunning AM, Thompson DJ, Chenevix-Trench G, Chang-Claude J, Schmidt MK, Hall P, Milne RL, Pharoah PDP, Antoniou AC, Chatterjee N, Kraft P, Garcia-Closas M, Simard J, Easton DF. Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes. Am J Hum Genet. 2019 Jan 3;104(1):21-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.002. Epub 2018 Dec 13.
- Background: PubMed 31086616Sinaga ES, Ahmad RA, Shivalli S, Hutajulu SH. Age at diagnosis predicted survival outcome of female patients with breast cancer at a tertiary hospital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Pan Afr Med J. 2018 Nov 7;31:163. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2018.31.163.17284. eCollection 2018.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Breast Cancer
Active, not recruiting
Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological Evaluation Based On IC Technology
Breast Cancer, Comorbidities and Coexisting Conditions
RecruitingPhase 2
Gene Signatures to Guide HR+MBC Therapy in a Diverse Cohort
Invasive Mammary Carcinoma, Metastatic Breast Cancer
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Comparison of Reliability, Time Cost, and Participant Comfort of Lymphedema Assessments in Upper Extremity
Lymphedema, Upper Extremity Lymphedema
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study of Camrelizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Combination With or Without Famitinib as Neoadjuvant Therapy in Participants With Triple Negative Breast Cancer (BCTOP-T-N01)
TNBC - Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
RecruitingPhase 3
Testing Whether Hormone Therapy With Ribociclib is as Effective as Chemotherapy Followed by Hormone Therapy With Ribociclib for the Treatment of High Anatomic Stage Breast Cancer With Low Recurrence Risk, The RxFINE-Low Trial
Anatomic Stage II Breast Cancer AJCC v8, Anatomic Stage IIIA Breast Cancer AJCC v8
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Samuel Haryono, MD, PhD principal investigator
SJH Initiatives
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Breast Cancer, run by Nalagenetics Pte Ltd at 1 site in Indonesia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 9 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Sep 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Indonesia. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Absolute risk difference between breast cancer patients and non-breast cancer patients in terms of their non-genetic risk (time frame: First quarter of 2023). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05570266, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 Sep 2023.