Literature DB >> 24366442

Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: a systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation.

Heidi D Nelson, Miranda Pappas, Bernadette Zakher, Jennifer Priest Mitchell, Leila Okinaka-Hu, Rongwei Fu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) are associated with increased risks for breast, ovarian, and other types of cancer.
PURPOSE: To review new evidence on the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PsycINFO between 2004 and 30 July 2013, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2004 through the second quarter of 2013, Health Technology Assessment during the fourth quarter of 2012, Scopus, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies about accuracy of risk assessment and benefits and harms of genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions to reduce cancer incidence and mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual investigators extracted data on participants, study design, analysis, follow-up, and results, and a second investigator confirmed key data. Investigators independently dual-rated study quality and applicability by using established criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Five referral models accurately estimated individual risk for BRCA mutations. Genetic counseling increased the accuracy of risk perception and decreases the intention for genetic testing among unlikely carriers and cancer-related worry, anxiety, and depression. No trials evaluated the effectiveness of intensive screening or risk-reducing medications in mutation carriers, although false-positive rates, unneeded imaging, and unneeded surgeries were higher with screening. Among high-risk women and mutation carriers, risk-reducing mastectomy decreased breast cancer by 85% to 100% and breast cancer mortality by 81% to 100% compared with women without surgery; risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy decreased breast cancer incidence by 37% to 100%, ovarian cancer by 69% to 100%, and all-cause mortality by 55% to 100%. LIMITATION: The analysis included only English-language articles;efficacy trials in mutation carriers were lacking.
CONCLUSION: Studies of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions to reduce cancer and mortality indicate potential benefits and harms that vary according to risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24366442     DOI: 10.7326/M13-1684

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


  89 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness evaluation of pre-counseling telephone interviews before face-to-face genetic counseling in cancer genetics.

Authors:  Gaëlle Collet; Nathalie Parodi; Kevin Cassinari; Zoe Neviere; Fanny Cohen; Céline Gasnier; Afane Brahimi; François Lecoquierre; Jean-Christophe Thery; Isabelle Tennevet; Elodie Lacaze; Pascaline Berthet; Thierry Frebourg
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  Health Care Segregation, Physician Recommendation, and Racial Disparities in BRCA1/2 Testing Among Women With Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Mirar Bristol; Susan M Domchek; Peter W Groeneveld; Younji Kim; U Nkiru Motanya; Judy A Shea; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Promoting guideline-based cancer genetic risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in ethnically and geographically diverse cancer survivors: Rationale and design of a 3-arm randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Anita Y Kinney; Rachel Howell; Rachel Ruckman; Jean A McDougall; Tawny W Boyce; Belinda Vicuña; Ji-Hyun Lee; Dolores D Guest; Randi Rycroft; Patricia A Valverde; Kristina M Gallegos; Angela Meisner; Charles L Wiggins; Antoinette Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Scott T Walters
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 2.226

4.  Genetic Testing and Post-Testing Decision Making among BRCA-Positive Mutation Women: A Psychosocial Approach.

Authors:  Sharlene Hesse-Biber; Chen An
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Ellen S O'Meara; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven Balch; Diana Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  The role of testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in cancer prevention.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 21.873

7.  Physician Risk Assessment Knowledge Regarding BRCA Genetics Testing.

Authors:  Jason Cohn; William Blazey; David Tegay; Brian Harper; Sharon Koehler; Brookshield Laurent; Vivian Chan; Min-Kyung Jung; Bhuma Krishnamachari
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.037

8.  BRCA testing in unaffected young women in the United States, 2006-2017.

Authors:  Fangjian Guo; Matthew Scholl; Erika L Fuchs; Abbey B Berenson; Yong-Fang Kuo
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Use of BRCA Mutation Test in the U.S., 2004-2014.

Authors:  Fangjian Guo; Jacqueline M Hirth; Yu-Li Lin; Gwyn Richardson; Lyuba Levine; Abbey B Berenson; Yong-Fang Kuo
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  BRCA population screening for predicting breast cancer: for or against?

Authors:  Giuseppe Lippi; Camilla Mattiuzzi; Martina Montagnana
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.