Fangjian Guo1, Jacqueline M Hirth2, Yu-Li Lin3, Gwyn Richardson2, Lyuba Levine2, Abbey B Berenson2, Yong-Fang Kuo4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Women's Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. Electronic address: faguo@utmb.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Women's Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. 3. Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Women's Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Office of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. 4. Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Women's Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Office of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Departments of Internal Medicine and Sealy Center on Aging, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Institute for Translational Science, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: BRCA mutation testing has been used for screening women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer and for selecting the best treatment for those with breast cancer. To optimize the infrastructure and medical resources allocation for genetic testing, it is important to understand the use of BRCA mutation testing in the U.S. health system. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 53,254 adult women with insurance claims for BRCA mutation testing between 2004 and 2014 from ClinformaticsTM Data Mart Database. Data analysis was performed in 2016. This study assessed trends in the use of BRCA mutation testing in women with previously diagnosed breast or ovarian cancer and those without (unaffected women). RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2014, of those receiving BRCA testing, the proportion of BRCA tests performed in unaffected women increased significantly (p<0.001), from 24.3% in 2004 to 61.5% in 2014. An increase in the proportion of BRCA tests used in unaffected women was found in each characteristic subgroup. In 2014, most subgroups had a proportion surpassing 50%, except for those aged 51-65 years and those without a family history of breast cancer. There was a much lower proportion of those aged 20-40 years among tested women with previously diagnosed breast or ovarian cancer than in unaffected women (17.6% vs 41.7%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During the past decade, the role of BRCA testing has gradually shifted from being used primarily in cancer patients to being used in unaffected women in the U.S.
INTRODUCTION:BRCA mutation testing has been used for screening women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer and for selecting the best treatment for those with breast cancer. To optimize the infrastructure and medical resources allocation for genetic testing, it is important to understand the use of BRCA mutation testing in the U.S. health system. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 53,254 adult women with insurance claims for BRCA mutation testing between 2004 and 2014 from ClinformaticsTM Data Mart Database. Data analysis was performed in 2016. This study assessed trends in the use of BRCA mutation testing in women with previously diagnosed breast or ovarian cancer and those without (unaffected women). RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2014, of those receiving BRCA testing, the proportion of BRCA tests performed in unaffected women increased significantly (p<0.001), from 24.3% in 2004 to 61.5% in 2014. An increase in the proportion of BRCA tests used in unaffected women was found in each characteristic subgroup. In 2014, most subgroups had a proportion surpassing 50%, except for those aged 51-65 years and those without a family history of breast cancer. There was a much lower proportion of those aged 20-40 years among tested women with previously diagnosed breast or ovarian cancer than in unaffected women (17.6% vs 41.7%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During the past decade, the role of BRCA testing has gradually shifted from being used primarily in cancerpatients to being used in unaffected women in the U.S.
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Kathryn J Ruddy; Rulla M Tamimi; Shari Gelber; Lidia Schapira; Steven Come; Virginia F Borges; Bryce Larsen; Judy E Garber; Ann H Partridge Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
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: Jeffrey N Weitzel; Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J MacDonald; Julie O Culver; Kenneth Offit Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 508.702
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: Kathryn Alsop; Sian Fereday; Cliff Meldrum; Anna deFazio; Catherine Emmanuel; Joshy George; Alexander Dobrovic; Michael J Birrer; Penelope M Webb; Colin Stewart; Michael Friedlander; Stephen Fox; David Bowtell; Gillian Mitchell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea Eisen; Jan Lubinski; Jan Klijn; Pal Moller; Henry T Lynch; Kenneth Offit; Barbara Weber; Tim Rebbeck; Susan L Neuhausen; Parviz Ghadirian; William D Foulkes; Ruth Gershoni-Baruch; Eitan Friedman; Gadi Rennert; Teresa Wagner; Claudine Isaacs; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Peter Ainsworth; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kelly A Metcalfe; Aletta Poll; Robert Royer; Marcia Llacuachaqui; Anna Tulman; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Christina D Williams; Alyssa Jasmine Bullard; Meghan O'Leary; Reana Thomas; Thomas S Redding; Karen Goldstein Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2019-04-08
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
Authors: Lydia E Pace; Nadine Tung; Yeonsoo S Lee; Jada G Hamilton; Camila Gabriel; Anna Revette; Sahitya Raja; Colby Jenkins; Anthony Braswell; Kelly Morgan; Jeffrey Levin; Jeremy Block; Susan M Domchek; Katherine Nathanson; Heather Symecko; Kelsey Spielman; Beth Karlan; Daniella Kamara; Jenny Lester; Kenneth Offit; Judy E Garber; Nancy L Keating Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Katherine Kolor; Zhuo Chen; Scott D Grosse; Juan L Rodriguez; Ridgely Fisk Green; W David Dotson; M Scott Bowen; Julie A Lynch; Muin J Khoury Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2017-09-08