BACKGROUND: Women at a high risk for breast cancer are offered choices for screening or prophylactic surgeries. The aim of this study was to evaluate opinions regarding screening and surgical strategies in high-risk women. METHODS: Women at the authors' institution who received BRCA1 of 2 testing before July 2005 were sent a follow-up patient survey. The authors compared responses of women who tested positive for a deleterious mutation with those who tested negative. For those who expressed an opinion (agree vs disagree), a 2-sided Fisher exact test was used to compare responses. RESULTS: A total of 540 surveys were sent, and 312 were returned (58%). Of these, 217 had breast cancer, and 86 women tested positive for a mutation. No BRCA+ women felt mammograms were difficult to get because of discomfort, whereas 5.4% of the BRCA- group did (P = .039). Seventy percent of BRCA+ women agreed that prophylactic mastectomy (PM) is the most effective means for reducing risk, compared with 40% of BRCA- women (P < .001). PM was felt to be the only way to reduce worry in 64.7% of BRCA+ and in 34.4% of BRCA- women (P < .001). PM was felt to be too drastic for 36.1% of BRCA+ and 40.5% of BRCA- women (P = .562). Difficulty in deciding between screening and PM occurred in 23.9% of BRCA+ and 12.5% of BRCA- women (P = .046). After excluding women with bilateral breast cancers, 81.0% of women who agreed that PM was best to reduce risk underwent a PM versus 19.1% of those who disagreed (P < .001). Of women who felt PM was the only way to reduce worry, 84.2% underwent PM. Only 15.8% of women who did not believe that it was the only way to decrease worry underwent PM (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: BRCA mutation carriers were more likely to believe PM to be the best way to reduce both risk and worry of breast cancer. High-risk women who agreed that PM was more likely to reduce risk and worry of breast cancer were more likely to proceed with this intervention.
BACKGROUND:Women at a high risk for breast cancer are offered choices for screening or prophylactic surgeries. The aim of this study was to evaluate opinions regarding screening and surgical strategies in high-risk women. METHODS:Women at the authors' institution who received BRCA1 of 2 testing before July 2005 were sent a follow-up patient survey. The authors compared responses of women who tested positive for a deleterious mutation with those who tested negative. For those who expressed an opinion (agree vs disagree), a 2-sided Fisher exact test was used to compare responses. RESULTS: A total of 540 surveys were sent, and 312 were returned (58%). Of these, 217 had breast cancer, and 86 women tested positive for a mutation. No BRCA+women felt mammograms were difficult to get because of discomfort, whereas 5.4% of the BRCA- group did (P = .039). Seventy percent of BRCA+women agreed that prophylactic mastectomy (PM) is the most effective means for reducing risk, compared with 40% of BRCA- women (P < .001). PM was felt to be the only way to reduce worry in 64.7% of BRCA+ and in 34.4% of BRCA- women (P < .001). PM was felt to be too drastic for 36.1% of BRCA+ and 40.5% of BRCA- women (P = .562). Difficulty in deciding between screening and PM occurred in 23.9% of BRCA+ and 12.5% of BRCA- women (P = .046). After excluding women with bilateral breast cancers, 81.0% of women who agreed that PM was best to reduce risk underwent a PM versus 19.1% of those who disagreed (P < .001). Of women who felt PM was the only way to reduce worry, 84.2% underwent PM. Only 15.8% of women who did not believe that it was the only way to decrease worry underwent PM (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:BRCA mutation carriers were more likely to believe PM to be the best way to reduce both risk and worry of breast cancer. High-risk women who agreed that PM was more likely to reduce risk and worry of breast cancer were more likely to proceed with this intervention.
Authors: M C King; S Wieand; K Hale; M Lee; T Walsh; K Owens; J Tait; L Ford; B K Dunn; J Costantino; L Wickerham; N Wolmark; B Fisher Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-11-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A Antoniou; P D P Pharoah; S Narod; H A Risch; J E Eyfjord; J L Hopper; N Loman; H Olsson; O Johannsson; A Borg; B Pasini; P Radice; S Manoukian; D M Eccles; N Tang; E Olah; H Anton-Culver; E Warner; J Lubinski; J Gronwald; B Gorski; H Tulinius; S Thorlacius; H Eerola; H Nevanlinna; K Syrjäkoski; O-P Kallioniemi; D Thompson; C Evans; J Peto; F Lalloo; D G Evans; D F Easton Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2003-04-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: R Wooster; S L Neuhausen; J Mangion; Y Quirk; D Ford; N Collins; K Nguyen; S Seal; T Tran; D Averill Journal: Science Date: 1994-09-30 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: L C Hartmann; T A Sellers; D J Schaid; T S Frank; C L Soderberg; D L Sitta; M H Frost; C S Grant; J H Donohue; J E Woods; S K McDonnell; C W Vockley; A Deffenbaugh; F J Couch; R B Jenkins Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-11-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kelly Metcalfe; Henry T Lynch; Parviz Ghadirian; Nadine Tung; Ivo Olivotto; Ellen Warner; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Andrea Eisen; Barbara Weber; Jane McLennan; Ping Sun; William D Foulkes; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Timothy R Rebbeck; Tara Friebel; Henry T Lynch; Susan L Neuhausen; Laura van 't Veer; Judy E Garber; Gareth R Evans; Steven A Narod; Claudine Isaacs; Ellen Matloff; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Barbara L Weber Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sharon L Bober; Christopher J Recklitis; Jennifer Bakan; Judy E Garber; Andrea F Patenaude Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Tiffani A Demarco; Beth N Peshkin; Kristi D Graves; Karen Brown; Karen E Hurley; Claudine Isaacs; Sharon Hecker; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Nisreen Elsayegh; Henry M Kuerer; Heather Lin; Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera; Michelle Jackson; Kimberly I Muse; Jennifer K Litton; Constance Albarracin; Aimaz Afrough; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Banu K Arun Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Aimee S James; Isaac M Lipkus; Helen I Meissner; Michael Stefanek; Jamie L Studts; John F P Bridges; David R Close; Deborah O Erwin; Resa M Jones; Karen Kaiser; Kathryn M Kash; Kimberly M Kelly; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jason Q Purnell; Laura A Siminoff; Susan T Vadaparampil; Catharine Wang Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Margaux Genoff Garzon; Ibrahim H Shah; Kechna Cadet; Elyse Shuk; Joy S Westerman; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 2.000