Literature DB >> 31429903

Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Douglas K Owens1,2, Karina W Davidson3, Alex H Krist4,5, Michael J Barry6, Michael Cabana7, Aaron B Caughey8, Chyke A Doubeni9, John W Epling10, Martha Kubik11, C Seth Landefeld12, Carol M Mangione13, Lori Pbert14, Michael Silverstein15, Melissa A Simon16, Chien-Wen Tseng17,18, John B Wong19.   

Abstract

Importance: Potentially harmful mutations of the breast cancer susceptibility 1 and 2 genes (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk for breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. For women in the United States, breast cancer is the most common cancer after nonmelanoma skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. In the general population, BRCA1/2 mutations occur in an estimated 1 in 300 to 500 women and account for 5% to 10% of breast cancer cases and 15% of ovarian cancer cases. Objective: To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations in asymptomatic women who have never been diagnosed with BRCA-related cancer, as well as those with a previous diagnosis of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer who have completed treatment and are considered cancer free. In addition, the USPSTF reviewed interventions to reduce the risk for breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer in women with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations, including intensive cancer screening, medications, and risk-reducing surgery. Findings: For women whose family or personal history is associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are moderate. For women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to none. Regardless of family or personal history, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that the overall harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to moderate. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31429903     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  87 in total

1.  Current status and future directions of U.S. genomic nursing health care policy.

Authors:  Emma Kurnat-Thoma; Mei R Fu; Wendy A Henderson; Joachim G Voss; Marilyn J Hammer; Janet K Williams; Kathleen Calzone; Yvette P Conley; Angela Starkweather; Michael T Weaver; S Pamela K Shiao; Bernice Coleman
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 3.250

2.  The Need to Improve the Clinical Utility of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Either Too Narrow or Too Broad.

Authors:  Madison K Kilbride; Angela R Bradbury
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Mental Illness and BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing Intention Among Multiethnic Women Undergoing Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Tarsha Jones; Katherine Freeman; Marra Ackerman; Meghna S Trivedi; Thomas Silverman; Peter Shapiro; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 2.172

4.  Association of Rare Pathogenic DNA Variants for Familial Hypercholesterolemia, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome, and Lynch Syndrome With Disease Risk in Adults According to Family History.

Authors:  Aniruddh P Patel; Minxian Wang; Akl C Fahed; Heather Mason-Suares; Deanna Brockman; Renee Pelletier; Sami Amr; Kalotina Machini; Megan Hawley; Leora Witkowski; Christopher Koch; Anthony Philippakis; Christopher A Cassa; Patrick T Ellinor; Sekar Kathiresan; Kenney Ng; Matthew Lebo; Amit V Khera
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-04-01

5.  Incorrect Word Affecting Meaning of Sentence.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  The Implementation Chasm Hindering Genome-informed Health Care.

Authors:  Kevin B Johnson; Ellen Wright Clayton; Justin Starren; Josh Peterson
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  Implications of the evidence for breast conservation therapy in BRCA-gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  Mona P Tan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  NCCN Guidelines Insights: Survivorship, Version 2.2020.

Authors:  Crystal S Denlinger; Tara Sanft; Javid J Moslehi; Linda Overholser; Saro Armenian; K Scott Baker; Gregory Broderick; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Debra L Friedman; Mindy Goldman; Norah Lynn Henry; Christine Hill-Kayser; Melissa Hudson; Nazanin Khakpour; Divya Koura; Allison L McDonough; Michelle Melisko; Kathi Mooney; Halle C F Moore; Natalie Moryl; Tracey O'Connor; Electra D Paskett; Chirayu Patel; Lindsay Peterson; William Pirl; M Alma Rodriguez; Kathryn J Ruddy; Lillie Shockney; Sophia Smith; Karen L Syrjala; Amye Tevaarwerk; Phyllis Zee; Nicole R McMillian; Deborah A Freedman-Cass
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 11.908

9.  Use of an Online Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Patient Decision Aid in Primary Care Practices.

Authors:  Karen B Eden; Ilya Ivlev; Katherine L Bensching; Gabriel Franta; Alyssa R Hersh; James Case; Rongwei Fu; Heidi D Nelson
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Strategies to enhance identification of hereditary breast cancer gene carriers.

Authors:  Sonya Reid; Lucy B Spalluto; Tuya Pal
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2020-09-11       Impact factor: 5.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.