Order Now

Genetics of hereditary breast cancer

Genetics of hereditary breast cancer

  1. SHORT ABSTRACT
  2. INTRODUCTION
  • Address the points that don’t require much detail
  • General introduction for breast cancer that then quickly focuses on hereditary breast cancer (mention that BRCA 1 and 2 are the focus, family history)
 
  1. Differences of hereditary vs sporadic breast cancer (mention common treatments and then focus on hereditary breast cancer)
  • how to recognise hereditary breast cancer and sporadic breast cancer
 
  1. Epidemiology
  • find information (statistical info) for hereditary breast cancer vs sporadic
  • focus on the UK and Europe (info 2010 latest)
  • figures
 
  1. BRCA 1-2 Section
  • Explain what BRCA does (i.e. their normal function)
  • The structure of the genes in term of domains
  • Most common mutations (cluster regions)
  • What gives hereditary predisposition to BRCA 1-2
  • Once BRCA 1-2 are mutated how do they give genetic predisposition to breast cancer (possible compare and contrast table on normal BRCA 1-2 genes vs mutated BRCA 1-2 genes)
  • ***Table to mention the other genes
  • Look for the key elements of hereditary breast cancer
  • ***Look for the histogram in cancer lectures that links ovarian cancer with breast cancer (must be referenced so keep the link)
 
  1. Diagnosis
  • GP counselling (i.e. patient should consult their GP firstly to prepare the patient regarding what the tests might show, if they want to go ahead with testing, family history etc)
  • What tests are done? (e.g. gene sequencing)(look for the most common methods of diagnosis)
  • What happens if the tests are positive (e.g. may lead to mastectomy) or negative? Link with ovarian cancer and hormone replacement therapy. Mention preventative drug treatments.
  • If high risk or low risk of breast cancer, what happens in either case.
  • *** mention the “23 and me” home test / positives and negatives. Mention that it was shut down by FDA in America (look up in internet)
  • How to diagnose an individual with a family history of breast cancer (gene sequencing?)
   
  1. Treatments
  • Will hereditary breast cancer be treated in the same way as sporadic breast cancer?
  • PARP inhibitors, names of drugs that are PARP inhibitors that may be in clinical trials or that are looking optimistic in being used as treatment.
  • The association of PARPS with ovarian cancer
  • Briefly mention info on PARPS (regarding the USA and FDA) on how they may introduce PARPS earlier than the USA because of the PARPS having issues in the UK with the NHS.
  • OLAPARIB drug in clinical trials (PARP inhibitor) (look up if its relevant
  • HECEPTIN drug. Look up if it’s only for metastatic breast cancer patients, expensive drug, not all people may benefit.
  • Targeted therapy (see if its linked with drugs)
 
  1. Conclusion
      Standard Marking criteria for Level 5
Content Poster presentation
95 Upper 1st Outstanding communication of sophisticated ideas in a novel and insightful way, including evidence of critical analysis. Consistent style throughout, clear organisation and flow, appropriate text and font selection, balance of text and graphics about 50:50, clear and appropriate diagrams which facilitate explanation. Author(s) clearly identified, sections clearly identified and contain relevant material and links to one another.
90 Excellent communication of sophisticated ideas in a novel and insightful way.
85 1st An excellent poster with all of the required content presented in a logical and insightful way.
80 A good poster which contains clear explanations of all the required content, showing good understanding.
75 As for 80, but may lack some detail or clarity in some explanations of content.
68 2.1 As for 65, but with fewer omissions, or better clarity. Mostly consistent style, mostly clear organisation and flow, balance of text and graphics about right, maybe a few small typographical errors or inconsistencies.
65 A good poster which explains the content well. Most of the content required is covered and is clearly explained, a small amount may be missing or covered less well.
62 As for 65, but may contain more omissions, or may contain some small parts which are explained less clearly.
58 2.2 As for 55, but may be slightly better explained, more clearly presented, or contain fewer omissions. Ratio of text and graphics rather imbalanced, font size may be too small, and there may be too much extraneous information. May lack a very clear visual organisation and flow, or sufficient clear and appropriate diagrams which facilitate explanation.
55 A reasonable poster. Evidence of ability to communicate information in such a way as to demonstrate understanding. Most of the content required in the poster is covered, though with some omissions or irrelevant material. Evidence of ability to sort and order information in a reasonably logical way.  Ideas are communicated quite clearly.
52 As for 55 but may not be as well presented, clearly explained, or may contain more omissions in content.
48 3rd As for 45, but may be better and more clearly presented, or contain fewer omissions. Ratio of text and graphics very imbalanced, font size may be too small, and there may be too much extraneous information. Lacks a clear visual organisation and flow. Contains inappropriate and visually un-aesthetic material. May be difficult to identify the poster’s focus.
45 An acceptable poster. Limited evidence of ability to clearly communicate information in such a way as to demonstrate understanding – contains some evidence of understanding of a few of the fundamental concepts surrounding the subject, but with many omissions. Limited evidence of ability to sort and order information into a logical way.
42 As for 45 but poster may not be as well presented or explained, or may contain more omissions or misunderstandings. 
38 Just fail Poster fails to communicate the most important ideas surrounding the topic, although some less important material is covered. Lacks a clear visual organisation and flow. Contains inappropriate and visually un-aesthetic material. Difficult to identify the poster’s focus.
35 fail Poster fails to communicate the most important ideas effectively. Some slightly relevant material presented. Lacks a clear visual organisation and flow. Contains a large amount of unnecessary or irrelevant material and visually un-aesthetic material. Difficult to identify the poster’s focus. No clear sections.
25 Some slightly relevant material presented but mostly serious misunderstandings badly communicated. Poster fails to communicate the most important ideas effectively.
15 Little of value. Poster fails to communicate any of the most important ideas effectively.
5 Virtually nothing of value- maybe one or two very minor points that are barely relevant.
0 No poster.
]]>

Open chat