OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether prophylactic oophorectomy rates changed after the introduction of a 2007 health plan clinical guideline recommending systematic referral to a genetic counselor for women with a personal or family history suggestive of an inherited susceptibility to breast/ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of female members of Group Health, an integrated delivery system in Washington State. Subjects were women aged ≥ 35 years during 2004-2009 who reported a personal or family history consistent with an inherited susceptibility to breast/ovarian cancer. Personal and family history information was collected on a questionnaire completed when the women had a mammogram. We ascertained oophorectomies from automated claims data and determined whether surgeries were prophylactic by medical chart review. Rates were age-adjusted and age-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Prophylactic oophorectomy rates were relatively unchanged after compared to before the guideline change, 1.0 versus 0.8/1000 person-years, (IRR=1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-2.0), whereas bilateral oophorectomy rates for other indications decreased. Genetic counseling receipt rates doubled after the guideline change (95% CI: 1.7-2.4) from 5.1 to 10.2/1000 person-years. During the study, bilateral oophorectomy rates were appreciably greater in women who saw a genetic counselor compared to those who did not regardless of whether they received genetic testing as part of their counseling. CONCLUSION: A doubling in genetic counseling receipt rates lends support to the idea that the guideline issuance contributed to sustained rates of prophylactic oophorectomies in more recent years.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether prophylactic oophorectomy rates changed after the introduction of a 2007 health plan clinical guideline recommending systematic referral to a genetic counselor for women with a personal or family history suggestive of an inherited susceptibility to breast/ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of female members of Group Health, an integrated delivery system in Washington State. Subjects were women aged ≥ 35 years during 2004-2009 who reported a personal or family history consistent with an inherited susceptibility to breast/ovarian cancer. Personal and family history information was collected on a questionnaire completed when the women had a mammogram. We ascertained oophorectomies from automated claims data and determined whether surgeries were prophylactic by medical chart review. Rates were age-adjusted and age-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Prophylactic oophorectomy rates were relatively unchanged after compared to before the guideline change, 1.0 versus 0.8/1000 person-years, (IRR=1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-2.0), whereas bilateral oophorectomy rates for other indications decreased. Genetic counseling receipt rates doubled after the guideline change (95% CI: 1.7-2.4) from 5.1 to 10.2/1000 person-years. During the study, bilateral oophorectomy rates were appreciably greater in women who saw a genetic counselor compared to those who did not regardless of whether they received genetic testing as part of their counseling. CONCLUSION: A doubling in genetic counseling receipt rates lends support to the idea that the guideline issuance contributed to sustained rates of prophylactic oophorectomies in more recent years.
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Diana S M Buist; Deborah Seger; Emily White Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Mary B Daly; Jennifer E Axilbund; Eileen Bryant; Saundra Buys; Charis Eng; Susan Friedman; Laura J Esserman; Carolyn D Farrell; James M Ford; Judy E Garber; Joanne M Jeter; Wendy Kohlmann; Patrick M Lynch; P Kelly Marcom; Lisle M Nabell; Kenneth Offit; Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Boris Pasche; Gwen Reiser; Rebecca Sutphen; Jeffrey N Weitzel Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 11.908
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: Katrina F Trivers; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Jacqueline W Miller; Barbara Matthews; C Holly A Andrilla; Denise M Lishner; Barbara A Goff Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Emily A Peterson; Kara J Milliron; Karen E Lewis; Susan D Goold; Sofia D Merajver Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sarah Knerr; Erin J A Bowles; Kathleen A Leppig; Diana S M Buist; Hongyuan Gao; Karen J Wernli Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506