4.2 Article

Uptake of genetic testing for germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in a predominantly Hispanic population

期刊

CANCER GENETICS
卷 235, 期 -, 页码 72-76

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cancergen.2019.04.063

关键词

Family history; Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer; BRCA1/ BRCA2 genetic testing; Racial/ethnic minorities

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA177995-01A1, P30 CA013696]
  2. National Institutes of Health [U01HG008680, UL1 TR000040]
  3. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [KL2TR001874-03]
  4. American Cancer Society [RSG-17-103-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic counseling is under-utilized in women who meet family history criteria for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) testing, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities. We evaluated the uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among women presenting for screening mammography in a predominantly Hispanic, low-income population of Washington Heights in New York City. We administered the Six-Point Scale (SPS) to women presenting for screening mammography at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York, NY. The SPS is a family history screener to determine eligibility for BRCA1/2 genetic testing based upon U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines that has been validated in low-income, multiethnic populations. Among women who underwent screening mammography at CUIMC between November 2014 and June 2016, 3,055 completed the SPS family history screener. Participants were predominantly Hispanic (76.7%), and 12% met family history criteria for BRCA1/2 testing, of whom <5% had previously undergone testing. In a multiethnic population, a significant proportion met family history criteria for BRCA1/2 testing, but uptake of genetic testing was low. Such underutilization of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among minorities further underscores the need to develop programs to engage high-risk women from underrepresented populations in genetic testing services.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据