Literature DB >> 12011131

Effect of prevention strategies on survival and quality-adjusted survival of women with BRCA1/2 mutations: an updated decision analysis.

Victor R Grann1, Judith S Jacobson, Dustin Thomason, Dawn Hershman, Daniel F Heitjan, Alfred I Neugut.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study updates findings regarding the effects of prophylactic surgery, chemoprevention, and surveillance on the survival and quality-adjusted survival of women who test positive for BRCA1/2 mutations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Markov modeling of outcomes was performed in a simulated cohort of 30-year-old women who tested positive for BRCA1/2 mutations. The model incorporated breast and ovarian cancer incidence rates from the literature and mortality rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Quality adjustment of survival estimates were obtained from a survey of women aged 33 to 50 years. Sensitivity analyses were performed of varied assumptions regarding timing and effects of preventive measures on cancer incidence and adverse effects.
RESULTS: A 30-year-old woman could prolong her survival beyond that associated with surveillance alone by use of preventive measures: 1.8 years with tamoxifen, 2.6 years with prophylactic oophorectomy, 4.6 years with both tamoxifen and prophylactic oophorectomy, 3.5 years with prophylactic mastectomy, and 4.9 years with both surgeries. She could prolong her quality-adjusted survival by 2.8 years with tamoxifen, 4.4 years with prophylactic oophorectomy, 6.3 years with tamoxifen and oophorectomy, and 2.6 years with mastectomy, or with both surgeries. The benefits of all of these strategies would decrease if they were initiated at later ages.
CONCLUSION: Women who test positive for BRCA1/2 mutations may derive greater survival and quality adjusted survival benefits than previously reported from chemoprevention, prophylactic surgery, or a combination. Observational studies and clinical trials are needed to verify the results of this analysis of the long-term benefits of preventive strategies among BRCA1/2-positive women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12011131     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.10.101

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  42 in total

1.  Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers.

Authors:  Victor R Grann; Priya R Patel; Judith S Jacobson; Ellen Warner; Daniel F Heitjan; Maxine Ashby-Thompson; Dawn L Hershman; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-07-20       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Ashkenazi Jews and breast cancer: the consequences of linking ethnic identity to genetic disease.

Authors:  Sherry I Brandt-Rauf; Victoria H Raveis; Nathan F Drummond; Jill A Conte; Sheila M Rothman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-10-03       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Uptake, time course, and predictors of risk-reducing surgeries in BRCA carriers.

Authors:  Mary S Beattie; Beth Crawford; Feng Lin; Eric Vittinghoff; John Ziegler
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2009-02

4.  Implications for cancer genetics practice of pro-actively assessing family history in a General Practice cohort in North West London.

Authors:  Kelly Kohut; Lucia D'Mello; Elizabeth K Bancroft; Sarah Thomas; Mary-Anne Young; Kathryn Myhill; Susan Shanley; Brian H J Briggs; Michelle Newman; Ifthikhar M Saraf; Penny Cox; Sarah Scambler; Lyndon Wagman; Michael T Wyndham; Rosalind A Eeles; Michelle Ferris
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 5.  Methods in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Factors affecting the decision to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among women with BRCA gene mutation.

Authors:  Dongwon Kim; Eunyoung Kang; Euijun Hwang; Young Sun; Yoonsun Hwang; Cha Kyong Yom; Kidong Kim; Jae Hong No; Yong-Beom Kim; Sung-Won Kim
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 7.  How Far Do We Go With Genetic Evaluation? Gene, Panel, and Tumor Testing.

Authors:  Filipa Lynce; Claudine Isaacs
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2016

8.  "Why take it if you don't have anything?" breast cancer risk perceptions and prevention choices at a public hospital.

Authors:  Talya Salant; Pamela S Ganschow; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Diane S Lauderdale
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 9.  Genetic risk and gynecologic cancers.

Authors:  Laura L Holman; Karen H Lu
Journal:  Hematol Oncol Clin North Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.722

10.  Uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among female BRCA mutation carriers: experience at the National Cancer Center of Korea.

Authors:  Se Ik Kim; Myong Cheol Lim; Dong Ock Lee; Sun-Young Kong; Sang-Soo Seo; Sokbom Kang; Eun Sook Lee; Sang-Yoon Park
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 4.553

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.