4.7 Article

Prophylactic surgery decisions and surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 testing

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 75-80

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0684

Keywords

genetic testing; breast cancer; risk; screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Although genetic testing for breast cancer risk is clinically available, its impact on health-related behaviors is unknown. This study examined prophylactic surgery and surveillance behavior during the year following BRCA1/2 gene testing, Methods, Participants were female members (n = 216) of hereditary breast-ovarian cancer families (84 mutation carriers, 83 noncarriers and 49 test decliners). In this prospective observational study, utilization of prophylactic surgery and surveillance behavior were assessed 1-year following BRCA1/2 testing. Results. Only 3% of the unaffected carriers obtained prophylactic mastectomy during the 1-year follow-up period. Among the remaining females, carriers had significantly higher rates of mammography (68%) than noncarriers (44%); (OR = 7.1; C.I = 1.36-37.1; P = 0.02), However, the adherence rate in carriers was unchanged from baseline, suggesting that this difference is attributable to a reduction in screening among noncarriers. Women ages 25-39 years were significantly less likely to obtain mammograms than those aged 40 years and older. Cancer-related distress had a positive but nonsignificant (P < 0.07) association with adherence in bivariate but not multivariate analysis. With regard to ovarian risk, only 13% of carriers obtained prophylactic oophorectomy; of the remaining female carriers, only 21% reported a CA125 and 15% reported a transvaginal ultrasound. Conclusion. The vast majority of BRCA1/2 carriers may not opt for prophylactic surgery, and many do not adhere to surveillance recommendations. Greater attention to risk communication and medical decisionmaking is warranted, (C) 2000 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available