4.7 Article

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

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 75-80

出版社

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

关键词

genetic testing; breast cancer; risk; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.7
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