Literature DB >> 16144895

Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Heidi D Nelson1, Laurie Hoyt Huffman, Rongwei Fu, Emily L Harris.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are associated with increased susceptibility for breast and ovarian cancer. Although these mutations are uncommon, public interest in testing for them is growing.
PURPOSE: To determine benefits and harms of screening for inherited breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility in the general population of women without cancer presenting for primary health care in the United States. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 to 1 October 2004), Cochrane Library databases, reference lists, reviews, Web sites, and experts. STUDY SELECTION: Eligibility was determined by inclusion criteria specific to key questions about risk assessment, genetic counseling, mutation testing, prevention interventions, and potential adverse effects. DATA EXTRACTION: After review of studies, data were extracted, entered into evidence tables, and summarized by using descriptive or statistical methods. Study quality was rated by using predefined criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Tools assessing risks for mutations and referral guidelines have been developed; their accuracy, effectiveness, and adverse effects in primary care settings are unknown. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and mutation testing did not cause adverse psychological outcomes, and counseling improved distress and risk perception in the highly selected populations studied. Intensive cancer screening studies are inconclusive. Chemoprevention trials indicate risk reduction for breast cancer in women with varying levels of risk, as well as increased adverse effects. Observational studies of prophylactic surgeries report reduced risks for breast and ovarian cancer in mutation carriers. LIMITATIONS: No data describe the range of risk associated with BRCA mutations, genetic heterogeneity, and moderating factors; studies conducted in highly selected populations contain biases; and information on adverse effects is incomplete.
CONCLUSIONS: A primary care approach to screening for inherited breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility has not been evaluated, and evidence is lacking to determine benefits and harms for the general population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16144895     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-143-5-200509060-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  114 in total

Review 1.  The long tail and rare disease research: the impact of next-generation sequencing for rare Mendelian disorders.

Authors:  Tony Shen; Ariel Lee; Carol Shen; C Jimmy Lin
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  Educating physician assistants as agents in cancer control: issues and opportunities.

Authors:  Quentin W Smith; Carl E Fasser; Laurel R Spence; Robert J McLaughlin; J David Holcomb
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.037

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

Review 4.  The LIVESTRONG Survivorship Center of Excellence Network.

Authors:  Charles L Shapiro; Mary S McCabe; Karen L Syrjala; Debra Friedman; Linda A Jacobs; Patricia A Ganz; Lisa Diller; Marci Campell; Kathryn Orcena; Alfred C Marcus
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2009-01-24       Impact factor: 4.442

5.  Cancer genetic risk assessment and referral patterns in primary care.

Authors:  Hetal S Vig; Joanne Armstrong; Brian L Egleston; Carla Mazar; Michele Toscano; Angela R Bradbury; Mary B Daly; Neal J Meropol
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2009-12

6.  Too many referrals of low-risk women for BRCA1/2 genetic services by family physicians.

Authors:  Della Brown White; Vence L Bonham; Jean Jenkins; Nancy Stevens; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Predicting breast cancer risk: implications of a "weak" family history.

Authors:  Elaine Anderson; Jonathan Berg; Roger Black; Nicola Bradshaw; Joyce Campbell; Roseanne Cetnarskyj; Sarah Drummond; Rosemarie Davidson; Jacqueline Dunlop; Alison Fordyce; Barbara Gibbons; David Goudie; Helen Gregory; Kirstie Hanning; Susan Holloway; Mark Longmuir; Lorna McLeish; Vicky Murday; Zosia Miedzybrodska; Donna Nicholson; Pauline Pearson; Mary Porteous; Marta Reis; Sheila Slater; Karen Smith; Elizabeth Smyth; Lesley Snadden; Michael Steel; Diane Stirling; Cathy Watt; Catriona Whyte; Dorothy Young
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2008-06-17       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Personalized medicine and genomics: challenges and opportunities in assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and future research priorities.

Authors:  Rena Conti; David L Veenstra; Katrina Armstrong; Lawrence J Lesko; Scott D Grosse
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 9.  Study of apoptosis-related interactions in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Himanshu Arora; Rehana Qureshi; M A Rizvi; Sharad Shrivastava; Mordhwaj S Parihar
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2016-09-15

Review 10.  [Value of breast MRI as supplement to mammography and sonography for high risk breast cancer patients].

Authors:  T Schlossbauer; K Hellerhoff; M Reiser
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 0.635

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.