Implementing Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast Cancer Prevention: a Feasibility Study
NCT ID: NCT06922708
Last Updated: 2025-06-03
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
100 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2025-06-09
Study Completion Date
2026-05-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The goal of this single-arm interventional study is to learn whether integrating a polygenic risk score (PRS) into the CanRisk model can help improve breast cancer risk prediction and prevention in adult women with or without a family history of breast cancer and in women diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer. The main questions it aims to answer are:
1. Is it feasible and acceptable to add PRS testing into standard breast cancer risk assessment for healthcare professionals and patients?
2. Does PRS testing change the way individuals are categorized into low, moderate, or high-risk groups?
3. What practical barriers or facilitators do participants and healthcare staff identify when using PRS in a routine clinical setting?
Participants will:
* Provide a blood sample for PRS testing and for pathogenetic variants for breast cancer risk (if they have not already had genetic testing).
* Complete a questionnaire on their experience and acceptance of PRS.
Because this is a single-arm study, there is no separate comparison group. The study team will use the results to see how well PRS can be integrated into clinical care and whether it offers any improvements in prevention strategies for breast cancer.
1. Is it feasible and acceptable to add PRS testing into standard breast cancer risk assessment for healthcare professionals and patients?
2. Does PRS testing change the way individuals are categorized into low, moderate, or high-risk groups?
3. What practical barriers or facilitators do participants and healthcare staff identify when using PRS in a routine clinical setting?
Participants will:
* Provide a blood sample for PRS testing and for pathogenetic variants for breast cancer risk (if they have not already had genetic testing).
* Complete a questionnaire on their experience and acceptance of PRS.
Because this is a single-arm study, there is no separate comparison group. The study team will use the results to see how well PRS can be integrated into clinical care and whether it offers any improvements in prevention strategies for breast cancer.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Clinical Implementation of a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) for Breast Cancer
NCT03688204
Breast Cancer Risk
COMPLETED
Combined Breast Cancer Risk Study
NCT03067389
Hereditary Cancer
COMPLETED
Genetic Risk Estimations for Influencing Decision Making in Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer, GENRE 2 Study
NCT04474834
Breast Cancer
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
Studying Breast Cancer Risk in Women Who Are BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Carriers
NCT00897455
brca1 Mutation Carrier
brca2 Mutation Carrier
Breast Cancer
UNKNOWN
Identification of Novel Genetic Factors That Contribute to Risk for Breast Cancer
NCT00276120
Invasive Breast Cancer
COMPLETED
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
This single-arm feasibility study will integrate polygenic risk scores (PRS) into the CanRisk breast cancer risk model and evaluate the logistical and organizational aspects of its use in an established clinical setting. By embedding PRS testing into routine patient visits at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, the study aims to examine how well these genomic data can be incorporated into existing workflows for breast cancer risk assessment.
Enrolled participants (both healthy individuals with a familial predisposition and those with unilateral breast cancer) will receive standard genetic counseling, including testing for known high-penetrance mutations if not already completed. In addition, they will be offered PRS testing using a SNP-based assay, which aggregates multiple low-penetrance genetic variants to refine the risk estimate provided by CanRisk. All molecular analyses will be performed under standardized laboratory protocols to ensure consistent quality control (QC), including genotyping and imputation steps.
Key technical procedures include:
Blood sample collection (≥0.5 mL) for DNA extraction and SNP genotyping using a commercially available array.
Genetic data management and QC, encompassing alignment to reference panels, imputation of missing genotypes, and filtering out low-frequency variants or those failing QC thresholds.
Integration of PRS results into the patient's risk profile alongside clinical, familial, and lifestyle factors already captured by CanRisk.
Study staff will document any changes (such as shifts in risk category) that occur once PRS results are factored in, as well as any modifications to the care pathway. Feasibility will be assessed using process metrics (e.g., number of participants offered PRS and acceptance rates, time from sample collection to result communication) and through structured questionnaires to both patients and healthcare professionals. These questionnaires capture impressions of risk communication clarity, perceived utility of the PRS, and any challenges or facilitators identified when introducing this genomic tool into routine practice.
Questionnaire to patients:
* Communication with Patients and Families:
1. Adequate time is allocated to explain PRS tests to patients and their families.
2. Dedicated time is scheduled for genetic counseling sessions.
3. Sufficient time is provided to explain the combined genetic and PRS results.
4. The patients are well informed about their personalized risk assessment.
* Collaboration with Territorial Services:
4\. General practitioners are informed about the implementation of PRS. 5. There is good coordination between the genetics clinic and primary care. 6. There are clear communication channels between specialists and general practitioners.
Questionnaire to healthcare professionals.
\- Patient-centred organization:
1. There is a patient-centered vision for genetic risk assessment within the organization.
2. The quality of genetic counseling and PRS testing is a priority within the organization.
3. The genetic counseling coordinator has a patient-centered vision.
4. The communication of genetic test results and PRS scores is considered important.
5. The organizational structure supports integrated genetic testing services.
6. There is a clear vision of the genetic testing policy throughout the hospital.
\- Care process coordination:
7. The agreements regarding the PRS test workflow are respected.
8. All team members understand the stages of genetic testing and PRS evaluation.
9. There is an optimal timeline between genetic testing and PRS analysis.
10. There are clear protocols for the management of biological samples for PRS testing.
11. Team members are involved in the coordination of genetic and PRS testing.
12. Patients receive clear information about the results of both the genetic tests and the PRS.
13. Follow-up appointments (if applicable) are scheduled appropriately after the communication of results.
\- Monitoring and follow-up
14. The quality indicators for PRS implementation are clearly defined.
15. Patients' needs are systematically monitored during the testing process.
16. Patient satisfaction with combined genetic and PRS testing is monitored.
17. The objectives of the integrated risk assessment are explicitly described.
18. There is a monitoring system in place to verify the completion of all testing phases.
19. The results of the combined risk assessment are systematically tracked.
20. Variations in PRS results are monitored and documented.
21. Risk communication processes are systematically evaluated.
22. The entire testing process is continuously monitored and adjusted.
Enrolled participants (both healthy individuals with a familial predisposition and those with unilateral breast cancer) will receive standard genetic counseling, including testing for known high-penetrance mutations if not already completed. In addition, they will be offered PRS testing using a SNP-based assay, which aggregates multiple low-penetrance genetic variants to refine the risk estimate provided by CanRisk. All molecular analyses will be performed under standardized laboratory protocols to ensure consistent quality control (QC), including genotyping and imputation steps.
Key technical procedures include:
Blood sample collection (≥0.5 mL) for DNA extraction and SNP genotyping using a commercially available array.
Genetic data management and QC, encompassing alignment to reference panels, imputation of missing genotypes, and filtering out low-frequency variants or those failing QC thresholds.
Integration of PRS results into the patient's risk profile alongside clinical, familial, and lifestyle factors already captured by CanRisk.
Study staff will document any changes (such as shifts in risk category) that occur once PRS results are factored in, as well as any modifications to the care pathway. Feasibility will be assessed using process metrics (e.g., number of participants offered PRS and acceptance rates, time from sample collection to result communication) and through structured questionnaires to both patients and healthcare professionals. These questionnaires capture impressions of risk communication clarity, perceived utility of the PRS, and any challenges or facilitators identified when introducing this genomic tool into routine practice.
Questionnaire to patients:
* Communication with Patients and Families:
1. Adequate time is allocated to explain PRS tests to patients and their families.
2. Dedicated time is scheduled for genetic counseling sessions.
3. Sufficient time is provided to explain the combined genetic and PRS results.
4. The patients are well informed about their personalized risk assessment.
* Collaboration with Territorial Services:
4\. General practitioners are informed about the implementation of PRS. 5. There is good coordination between the genetics clinic and primary care. 6. There are clear communication channels between specialists and general practitioners.
Questionnaire to healthcare professionals.
\- Patient-centred organization:
1. There is a patient-centered vision for genetic risk assessment within the organization.
2. The quality of genetic counseling and PRS testing is a priority within the organization.
3. The genetic counseling coordinator has a patient-centered vision.
4. The communication of genetic test results and PRS scores is considered important.
5. The organizational structure supports integrated genetic testing services.
6. There is a clear vision of the genetic testing policy throughout the hospital.
\- Care process coordination:
7. The agreements regarding the PRS test workflow are respected.
8. All team members understand the stages of genetic testing and PRS evaluation.
9. There is an optimal timeline between genetic testing and PRS analysis.
10. There are clear protocols for the management of biological samples for PRS testing.
11. Team members are involved in the coordination of genetic and PRS testing.
12. Patients receive clear information about the results of both the genetic tests and the PRS.
13. Follow-up appointments (if applicable) are scheduled appropriately after the communication of results.
\- Monitoring and follow-up
14. The quality indicators for PRS implementation are clearly defined.
15. Patients' needs are systematically monitored during the testing process.
16. Patient satisfaction with combined genetic and PRS testing is monitored.
17. The objectives of the integrated risk assessment are explicitly described.
18. There is a monitoring system in place to verify the completion of all testing phases.
19. The results of the combined risk assessment are systematically tracked.
20. Variations in PRS results are monitored and documented.
21. Risk communication processes are systematically evaluated.
22. The entire testing process is continuously monitored and adjusted.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Breast Cancer
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
NA
Intervention Model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary Study Purpose
PREVENTION
Blinding Strategy
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Integrated PRS-enhanced breast cancer risk assessment arm
Participants in this experimental (signle) arm will undergo an integrated breast cancer risk assessment combining the CanRisk model with polygenic risk score (PRS) testing. The intervention includes genetic counseling, blood collection for PRS analysis, and a comprehensive risk evaluation. Additionally, participants will complete a questionnaire to gather their feedback on the integrated PRS clinical pathway.
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Integrated PRS-Enhanced Breast Cancer Risk Assessment (CanRisk model)
Intervention Type
DIAGNOSTIC_TEST
Standard genetic counseling followed by a blood draw (0.5 mL) for DNA extraction. The sample is processed using a high-throughput SNP genotyping platform, and the PRS, based on 313 SNPs, is calculated and integrated into the CanRisk model for refined breast cancer risk stratification.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Integrated PRS-Enhanced Breast Cancer Risk Assessment (CanRisk model)
Standard genetic counseling followed by a blood draw (0.5 mL) for DNA extraction. The sample is processed using a high-throughput SNP genotyping platform, and the PRS, based on 313 SNPs, is calculated and integrated into the CanRisk model for refined breast cancer risk stratification.
Intervention Type
DIAGNOSTIC_TEST
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Ability to provide informed consent
* Voluntary consent to participate
* CanRisk score (without PRS) \> 5% (calculated on www.canrisk.org)
* Healthy women with:
1. Known family history of breast cancer, or
2. Known family history of genetic conditions associated with increased breast cancer risk, or
3. Known carriers of pathogenic variants (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, PTEN, TP53, CDH1)
* Affected women with:
1. Diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer
2. Personal history of ovarian cancer
* Voluntary consent to participate
* CanRisk score (without PRS) \> 5% (calculated on www.canrisk.org)
* Healthy women with:
1. Known family history of breast cancer, or
2. Known family history of genetic conditions associated with increased breast cancer risk, or
3. Known carriers of pathogenic variants (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, PTEN, TP53, CDH1)
* Affected women with:
1. Diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer
2. Personal history of ovarian cancer
Exclusion Criteria
* CanRisk score (without PRS) \< 5% (calculated on www.canrisk.org)
* Diagnosis or history of bilateral breast cancer
* Previous bilateral mastectomy
* Life expectancy \< 12 months due to other medical conditions
* Participation in interventional clinical trials for breast cancer prevention in the last 12 months
* Inability to provide informed consent
* Diagnosis or history of bilateral breast cancer
* Previous bilateral mastectomy
* Life expectancy \< 12 months due to other medical conditions
* Participation in interventional clinical trials for breast cancer prevention in the last 12 months
* Inability to provide informed consent
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
FEMALE
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Boccia Stefania
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Boccia Stefania
Professor of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Stefania Boccia, Phd
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Vanhaecht K, De Witte K, Depreitere R, Van Zelm R, De Bleser L, Proost K, Sermeus W. Development and validation of a care process self-evaluation tool. Health Serv Manage Res. 2007 Aug;20(3):189-202. doi: 10.1258/095148407781395964.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Du Z, Gao G, Adedokun B, Ahearn T, Lunetta KL, Zirpoli G, Troester MA, Ruiz-Narvaez EA, Haddad SA, PalChoudhury P, Figueroa J, John EM, Bernstein L, Zheng W, Hu JJ, Ziegler RG, Nyante S, Bandera EV, Ingles SA, Mancuso N, Press MF, Deming SL, Rodriguez-Gil JL, Yao S, Ogundiran TO, Ojengbe O, Bolla MK, Dennis J, Dunning AM, Easton DF, Michailidou K, Pharoah PDP, Sandler DP, Taylor JA, Wang Q, Weinberg CR, Kitahara CM, Blot W, Nathanson KL, Hennis A, Nemesure B, Ambs S, Sucheston-Campbell LE, Bensen JT, Chanock SJ, Olshan AF, Ambrosone CB, Olopade OI, Yarney J, Awuah B, Wiafe-Addai B, Conti DV; GBHS Study Team; Palmer JR, Garcia-Closas M, Huo D, Haiman CA. Evaluating Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast Cancer in Women of African Ancestry. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 Sep 4;113(9):1168-1176. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab050.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lakeman IMM, Rodriguez-Girondo M, Lee A, Ruiter R, Stricker BH, Wijnant SRA, Kavousi M, Antoniou AC, Schmidt MK, Uitterlinden AG, van Rooij J, Devilee P. Validation of the BOADICEA model and a 313-variant polygenic risk score for breast cancer risk prediction in a Dutch prospective cohort. Genet Med. 2020 Nov;22(11):1803-1811. doi: 10.1038/s41436-020-0884-4. Epub 2020 Jul 6.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Archer S, Donoso FS, Carver T, Yue A, Cunningham AP, Ficorella L, Tischkowitz M, Easton DF, Antoniou AC, Emery J, Usher-Smith J, Walter FM. Exploring the barriers to and facilitators of implementing CanRisk in primary care: a qualitative thematic framework analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2023 Jul 27;73(733):e586-e596. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2022.0643. Print 2023 Aug.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Vassy JL, Brunette CA, Lebo MS, MacIsaac K, Yi T, Danowski ME, Alexander NVJ, Cardellino MP, Christensen KD, Gala M, Green RC, Harris E, Jones NE, Kerman BJ, Kraft P, Kulkarni P, Lewis ACF, Lubitz SA, Natarajan P, Antwi AA. The GenoVA study: Equitable implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial of polygenic-risk scoring in primary care. Am J Hum Genet. 2023 Nov 2;110(11):1841-1852. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2023.10.001.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Tsoulaki O, Tischkowitz M, Antoniou AC, Musgrave H, Rea G, Gandhi A, Cox K, Irvine T, Holcombe S, Eccles D, Turnbull C, Cutress R; Meeting Attendees; Archer S, Hanson H. Joint ABS-UKCGG-CanGene-CanVar consensus regarding the use of CanRisk in clinical practice. Br J Cancer. 2024 Jun;130(12):2027-2036. doi: 10.1038/s41416-024-02733-4. Epub 2024 Jun 4.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Mbuya-Bienge C, Pashayan N, Kazemali CD, Lapointe J, Simard J, Nabi H. A Systematic Review and Critical Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Tools Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score for the General Population. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Nov 12;15(22):5380. doi: 10.3390/cancers15225380.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Hovhannisyan M, Zemankova P, Nehasil P, Matejkova K, Borecka M, Cerna M, Dolezalova T, Dvorakova L, Foretova L, Horackova K, Jelinkova S, Just P, Kalousova M, Kral J, Machackova E, Nemcova B, Safarikova M, Springer D, Stastna B, Tavandzis S, Vocka M, Zima T, Soukupova J, Kleiblova P, Ernst C, Kleibl Z, Janatova M. Population-specific validation and comparison of the performance of 77- and 313-variant polygenic risk scores for breast cancer risk prediction. Cancer. 2024 Sep 1;130(17):2978-2987. doi: 10.1002/cncr.35337. Epub 2024 May 8.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Yang X, Eriksson M, Czene K, Lee A, Leslie G, Lush M, Wang J, Dennis J, Dorling L, Carvalho S, Mavaddat N, Simard J, Schmidt MK, Easton DF, Hall P, Antoniou AC. Prospective validation of the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk prediction model in a large prospective cohort study. J Med Genet. 2022 Dec;59(12):1196-1205. doi: 10.1136/jmg-2022-108806. Epub 2022 Sep 26.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lee A, Mavaddat N, Wilcox AN, Cunningham AP, Carver T, Hartley S, Babb de Villiers C, Izquierdo A, Simard J, Schmidt MK, Walter FM, Chatterjee N, Garcia-Closas M, Tischkowitz M, Pharoah P, Easton DF, Antoniou AC. BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genet Med. 2019 Aug;21(8):1708-1718. doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9. Epub 2019 Jan 15.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Qaseem A, Lin JS, Mustafa RA, Horwitch CA, Wilt TJ; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians; Forciea MA, Fitterman N, Iorio A, Kansagara D, Maroto M, McLean RM, Tufte JE, Vijan S. Screening for Breast Cancer in Average-Risk Women: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 16;170(8):547-560. doi: 10.7326/M18-2147. Epub 2019 Apr 9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Canelo-Aybar C, Posso M, Montero N, Sola I, Saz-Parkinson Z, Duffy SW, Follmann M, Grawingholt A, Giorgi Rossi P, Alonso-Coello P. Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC). Br J Cancer. 2022 Mar;126(4):673-688. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01521-8. Epub 2021 Nov 26.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. Epub 2021 Feb 4.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Visvanathan K. USPSTF recommends biennial mammography for breast cancer screening in women aged 40 to 74 y. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Oct;177(10):JC110. doi: 10.7326/ANNALS-24-02229-JC. Epub 2024 Oct 1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
https://www.canrisk.org/
This website provides the calculator of the CanRisk score
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
No. D.D. 931
Identifier Type: OTHER_GRANT
Identifier Source: secondary_id
7310
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Factors Associated With Breast Cancer Risks and Outcomes
NCT07294703
RECRUITING
Development of a Genetic Counseling Patient Preference Intervention for Women at Elevated Risk for Breast Cancer
NCT05158452
COMPLETED
Breast Cancer Risk in Women Who Are BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Carriers
NCT00899145
WITHDRAWN
Is it Feasible?: Self-Affirmation for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Genetic Counseling
NCT03225170
COMPLETED
NA
Comprehensive Screening for Women at High Genetic Risk for Developing Breast Cancer
NCT00255060
COMPLETED
Feasibility of Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation in Women From the General Population
NCT02997384
UNKNOWN
Biomarkers for Breast Cancer Risk in African American Women
NCT01736306
COMPLETED
Adding a Genetic Risk Evaluation to Standard Breast Cancer Risk Assessment for African American and Hispanic Women
NCT05755269
RECRUITING
Genes and Other Risk Factors for Second Primary Breast Cancer in Women With Breast Cancer and Their Female Family Members and Friends
NCT00896818
UNKNOWN
Identification and Referral of Women at Risk for Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer
NCT02786147
COMPLETED
High Risk Breast Clinic: Protocol for Women at Increased Risk for Developing Breast Cancer
NCT00291096
RECRUITING
Identification of Biomarkers in Women at High Risk or Average Risk of Breast Cancer
NCT00897416
COMPLETED
Cancer Prevention in Women With a BRCA Mutation
NCT02225015
UNKNOWN
PHASE1
Screening Tool Artificial Intelligence-based for Predicting the Genetic Risk of BREAST Cancer
NCT07070128
RECRUITING
The Influence of Breast Cancer Risk and Risk Perception on Lifestyle Behaviors Among Women With a Family History: A Mixed Method Approach
NCT00393406
COMPLETED
Integrating Molecular Pathology, Radiology, and Genetics to Improve Breast Cancer Risk
NCT07207564
RECRUITING
Long-Term Follow-Up in Women With Early Breast Cancer Three Years of More Post Primary Treatment
NCT05926024
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Evaluating an Evidence-Based Family History Screening Program Adapted to Increase Reach and Uptake of Screening for BRCA-Associated Cancers in Rural Public Health Clinics
NCT06760507
RECRUITING
NA
Breast Cancer Screening Adherence for Women at Moderate Risk for Breast Cancer
NCT07076147
RECRUITING
Insulin Resistance and Breast Cancer
NCT00304941
COMPLETED
Nutrition-Related Biomarkers in Predicting Breast Cancer Risk in Women
NCT00900367
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Molecular Signature for Breast Cancer
NCT05724407
UNKNOWN
Understanding Decision Making Processes for Undergoing Genetic Testing Among Women With Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer
NCT01386411
COMPLETED
Study of Genes and Environment in Patients With Breast Cancer in the East Anglia Region of the United Kingdom
NCT00757211
UNKNOWN
Genetic Counseling Patient Preference Intervention Versus Conventional Genetic Counseling for Women at Elevated Risk for Breast Cancer
NCT05325151
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA