Literature DB >> 14574172

Comparison of physicians' and cancer prone women's attitudes about breast/ovarian prophylactic surgery. Results from two national surveys.

F Eisinger1, D Stoppa-Lyonnet, C Lasset, P Vennin, F Chabal, C Noguès, J P Moatti, H Sobol, C Julian-Reynier.   

Abstract

Prophylactic surgery is a major issue for breast/ovarian cancer prone women. Bio-clinical data to help in the decision-making are not sufficient. In this context of uncertainty, physicians' and women's attitudes to prophylactic surgery is information of great value. The physicians' attitudes were assessed by a randomised national sample of practitioners involved in breast and ovarian cancer management. The patients' attitudes were appraised with a pre-consultation self- administered questionnaire presented during a one-year period to all women in five cancer genetic clinics chosen, for their representative geographical locations and their activity level. Consent to prophylactic surgery is higher among physicians than among patients (p < 0.0001). Acceptability of mastectomy is lower than that of oophorectomy in both patients and physicians (p < 0.0001 in both groups). In addition, age at which the intervention is proposed to be performed is a key determinant for both mastectomy and oophorectomy acceptability, in both physicians and patients (p < 0.001 for each comparison). Particularly, the age of 40 years seems to be a critical threshold for the acceptability of prophylactic oophorectomy. In contrast, respondents' age at the time of the survey has no significant effect on the acceptability rate. The higher acceptability rate of prophylactic oophorectomy compared to that of mastectomy observed in the physicians' survey is paradoxical because a more substantial medical impact on life expectancy was expected from the latter. Our results indicate that assumed reduced mortality is not the main criterion steering acceptability. It was anticipated that prophylactic mastectomy should be rarely performed in France.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 14574172     DOI: 10.1023/a:1021113715998

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  29 in total

1.  Mammography in Asian patients with BRCA1 mutations.

Authors:  J Chang; W T Yang; H F Choo
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-06-12       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. II. BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium.

Authors:  W Burke; M Daly; J Garber; J Botkin; M J Kahn; P Lynch; A McTiernan; K Offit; J Perlman; G Petersen; E Thomson; C Varricchio
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-03-26       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Breast cancer induction due to mammographic screening in hereditarily affected women.

Authors:  W Den Otter; T E Merchant; D Beijerinck; J W Koten
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.480

Review 4.  Genetic testing for susceptibility to adult-onset cancer. The process and content of informed consent.

Authors:  G Geller; J R Botkin; M J Green; N Press; B B Biesecker; B Wilfond; G Grana; M B Daly; K Schneider; M J Kahn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews.

Authors:  J P Struewing; P Hartge; S Wacholder; S M Baker; M Berlin; M McAdams; M M Timmerman; L C Brody; M A Tucker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  D Ford; D F Easton; M Stratton; S Narod; D Goldgar; P Devilee; D T Bishop; B Weber; G Lenoir; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; M D Teare; J Struewing; A Arason; S Scherneck; J Peto; T R Rebbeck; P Tonin; S Neuhausen; R Barkardottir; J Eyfjord; H Lynch; B A Ponder; S A Gayther; M Zelada-Hedman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Tamoxifen and breast cancer risk in women harboring a BRCA1 germline mutation: computed efficacy, effectiveness and impact.

Authors:  F Eisinger; E Charafe-Jauffret; J Jacquemier; D Birnbaum; C Julian-Reynier; H Sobol
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.650

8.  Breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Authors:  T R Rebbeck; A M Levin; A Eisen; C Snyder; P Watson; L Cannon-Albright; C Isaacs; O Olopade; J E Garber; A K Godwin; M B Daly; S A Narod; S L Neuhausen; H T Lynch; B L Weber
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  D F Easton; D Ford; D T Bishop
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  Prevention of breast cancer with tamoxifen: preliminary findings from the Italian randomised trial among hysterectomised women. Italian Tamoxifen Prevention Study.

Authors:  U Veronesi; P Maisonneuve; A Costa; V Sacchini; C Maltoni; C Robertson; N Rotmensz; P Boyle
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-07-11       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  2 in total

1.  Significant differences among physician specialties in management recommendations of BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Authors:  S U Dhar; H P Cooper; T Wang; B Parks; S A Staggs; S Hilsenbeck; S E Plon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 2.  Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer.

Authors:  Nora E Carbine; Liz Lostumbo; Judi Wallace; Henry Ko
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-04-05
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.