Literature DB >> 24854227

Comparison of risk management strategies between women testing positive for a BRCA variant of unknown significance and women with known BRCA deleterious mutations.

Christine Garcia1, Liisa Lyon2, Ramey D Littell1, C Bethan Powell1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this article is to describe cancer risk-reducing behaviors of women with BRCA variants of unknown significance.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review from 1995 to 2012 identified women with BRCA mutations in a northern California community system. Exclusion criteria included loss of membership/death within 1 year of testing, prior ovarian cancer, or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Primary outcomes were rate of risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.
RESULTS: The mean age of the 69 variant of unknown significance carriers was 50 vs. 47 years for the 305 women with a deleterious mutation. Women with a variant of unknown significance were followed for a median of 69 months. Among women with a variant of unknown significance, 30% underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and 11% underwent risk-reducing mastectomy, as compared with 74 and 44%, respectively, for women with a deleterious mutation. Women with a deleterious mutation were more likely to undergo surveillance in the first year after testing. The odds ratios are as follows: 2.1 for mammogram, 6.0 for magnetic resonance imaging, 7.7 for Ca-125, and 5.0 for transvaginal ultrasound. Fifty-six percent of women with a variant of unknown significance were reclassified after a median of 39 months, longer than the median time to risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (18.6 months) or risk-reducing mastectomy (20.1 months).
CONCLUSION: Uptake of risk-reducing strategies among women with a variant of unknown significance is lower than among women with a deleterious mutation. Given the prognostic uncertainty and high rate of reclassification for women with a variant of unknown significance, individualizing counseling and directing efforts toward surveillance, chemoprevention, or salpingectomy are recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24854227     DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.48

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  15 in total

1.  Analysis of BRCA1/2 mutation spectrum and prevalence in unselected Chinese breast cancer patients by next-generation sequencing.

Authors:  Guoli Li; Xinwu Guo; Lili Tang; Ming Chen; Xipeng Luo; Limin Peng; Xunxun Xu; Shouman Wang; Zhi Xiao; Wenjun Yi; Lizhong Dai; Jun Wang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 4.553

2.  Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance.

Authors:  Sarah K Macklin; Jessica L Jackson; Paldeep S Atwal; Stephanie L Hines
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Quantification of Discordant Variant Interpretations in a Large Family-Based Study of Li-Fraumeni Syndrome.

Authors:  Megan N Frone; Douglas R Stewart; Sharon A Savage; Payal P Khincha
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2021-11-10

Review 4.  Experiences of individuals with a variant of uncertain significance on genetic testing for hereditary cancer risks: a mixed method systematic review.

Authors:  Danielle Gould; Rachel Walker; Grace Makari-Judson; Memnun Seven
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-07-12

5.  Impact of Genetic Testing on Risk-Management Behavior of Black Breast Cancer Survivors: A Longitudinal, Observational Study.

Authors:  Claire C Conley; Monica L Kasting; Bianca M Augusto; Jennifer D Garcia; Deborah Cragun; Brian D Gonzalez; Jongphil Kim; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Cheryl L Knott; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Tuya Pal; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Clinical management among individuals with variant of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sukh Makhnoon; Erica M Bednar; Kate J Krause; Susan K Peterson; Maria A Lopez-Olivo
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 4.438

7.  Implementing rapid, robust, cost-effective, patient-centred, routine genetic testing in ovarian cancer patients.

Authors:  Angela George; Daniel Riddell; Sheila Seal; Sabrina Talukdar; Shazia Mahamdallie; Elise Ruark; Victoria Cloke; Ingrid Slade; Zoe Kemp; Martin Gore; Ann Strydom; Susana Banerjee; Helen Hanson; Nazneen Rahman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Observed frequency and challenges of variant reclassification in a hereditary cancer clinic.

Authors:  Sarah Macklin; Nisha Durand; Paldeep Atwal; Stephanie Hines
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Uptake of cancer risk management strategies among women who undergo cascade genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility genes.

Authors:  Sukh Makhnoon; Grace Tran; Brooke Levin; Kristin D Mattie; Brian Dreyer; Robert J Volk; Generosa Grana; Banu K Arun; Susan K Peterson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 10.  Ovarian Cancer: The Fallopian Tube as the Site of Origin and Opportunities for Prevention.

Authors:  Sophia H L George; Ruslan Garcia; Brian M Slomovitz
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.