Literature DB >> 27554086

Do women change their breast cancer mammogram screening behaviour after BRCA1/2 testing?

Geneviève Larouche1,2,3, Jocelyne Chiquette2,3,4,5, Sylvie Pelletier2,3, Jacques Simard2,3,5,6, Michel Dorval7,8,9,10.   

Abstract

Little is known about the change in mammograms use by women after BRCA1/2 genetic testing. We compared the rate of bilateral mammograms after and prior to BRCA1/2 testing, according to test result. Information from the Quebec Health Insurance Board database was used to identify all registered mammograms delivered between May 1, 1998 and March 31, 2012 to a cohort of 396 unaffected French Canadian women tested for BRCA1/2 mutations. Mammograms incidence density ratios were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model for repeated events. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and women with an inconclusive result had more mammograms after, than prior to, genetic testing. Non-carriers did not receive more mammograms. The observed increase in mammography screening in BRCA1/2 carriers is consistent with the high risk of developing breast cancer in this group. The estimation of the cancer risk associated with an inconclusive result is based on familial cancer history, and women who received this result appear to have received follow-up as if at high risk. The fact that non-carriers did not change their use of mammograms after genetic testing may possibly reflect a 'defensive medicine' approach by some physicians or the women's preference.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer genetic testing; Breast cancer screening; Genes BRCA 1; Genes BRCA 2; Mammography

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27554086     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-016-9920-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  8 in total

1.  Breast cancer risks in individuals testing negative for a known family mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2.

Authors:  S M Domchek; M M Gaudet; J E Stopfer; M H Fleischaut; J Powers; N Kauff; K Offit; K L Nathanson; M Robson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Can Medicare billing claims data be used to assess mammography utilization among women ages 65 and older?

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Chris Quale; Philip W Chu; Robert Rosenberg; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Self-reported mammography use following BRCA1/2 genetic testing may be overestimated.

Authors:  Geneviève Larouche; Karine Bouchard; Jocelyne Chiquette; Christine Desbiens; Jacques Simard; Michel Dorval
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Making decisions about cancer screening when the guidelines are unclear or conflicting.

Authors:  F Tudiver; J B Brown; W Medved; C Herbert; P Ritvo; R Guibert; J Haggerty; V Goel; P Smith; M O'Beirne; A Katz; P Moliner; A Ciampi; J I Williams
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 0.493

5.  Clinical management recommendations for surveillance and risk-reduction strategies for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer among individuals carrying a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Authors:  Doug Horsman; Brenda J Wilson; Denise Avard; Wendy S Meschino; Charmaine Kim Sing; Marie Plante; Andrea Eisen; Heather E Howley; Jacques Simard
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2007-01

Review 6.  A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing.

Authors:  Jodi T Heshka; Crystal Palleschi; Heather Howley; Brenda Wilson; Philip S Wells
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Clinical follow-up and breast and ovarian cancer screening of true BRCA1/2 noncarriers: a qualitative investigation.

Authors:  Sylvie Pelletier; Nora Wong; Zaki El Haffaf; William D Foulkes; Jocelyne Chiquette; Pavel Hamet; Jacques Simard; Michel Dorval
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Predictive genetic testing for BRCA1/2 in a UK clinical cohort: three-year follow-up.

Authors:  C Foster; M Watson; R Eeles; D Eccles; S Ashley; R Davidson; J Mackay; P J Morrison; P Hopwood; D G R Evans
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-02-06       Impact factor: 7.640

  8 in total
  4 in total

1.  A primer in genomics for social and behavioral investigators.

Authors:  Erin Turbitt; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Social and behavioral science priorities for genomic translation.

Authors:  Laura M Koehly; Susan Persky; Erica Spotts; Gillian Acca
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Patient Perspectives Regarding Genetic Testing for Familial Hypercholesterolemia.

Authors:  Miles Marchand; Victoria Chen; Mark Trinder; Lubomira Cermakova; Liam R Brunham
Journal:  CJC Open       Date:  2021-04-08

4.  Anticipated health behaviour changes and perceived control in response to disclosure of genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancer: a quantitative survey study among women in the UK.

Authors:  Susanne F Meisel; Lindsay Sarah Macduff Fraser; Lucy Side; Sue Gessler; Katie E J Hann; Jane Wardle; Anne Lanceley
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.