Francys C Verdial1, Matthew A Bartek1, Benjamin O Anderson1,2, Sara H Javid1. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer has implications for breast cancer decision-making. We examined genetic testing rates, factors associated with testing, and the relationship between genetic testing and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). METHODS: Patients with breast cancer (2000-2015) from The Health of Women Study were identified and categorized as low, moderate, or high-likelihood of the genetic mutation using a previously published scale based on period-relevant national guidelines incorporating age and family history. Genetic testing and CPM rates were compared using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 4170 patients (median age 56-years), 38% were categorized as high-likelihood of having a genetic mutation. Among high-likelihood women, 67% underwent genetic testing, the odds of which were increased among women of higher-education and White-race (p < .001). Among 2028 patients reporting surgical treatment, 385 (19%) chose CPM. CPM rate was highest among mutation-positive women (41%), but 26% of women with negative tests still underwent CPM. Independent of test result, genetic testing increased the odds of CPM on multivariate analysis (adjusted-OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.29-2.22). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing rates were higher among women at high-likelihood of mutation carriage, but one-third of these women were not tested. Racial disparities persisted, highlighting the need to improve testing in non-White populations. CPM rates were associated with mutation-carriage and genetic testing, but many women chose CPM despite negative testing, suggesting that well-educated women consider factors other than cancer mortality in selecting CPM.
BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer has implications for breast cancer decision-making. We examined genetic testing rates, factors associated with testing, and the relationship between genetic testing and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). METHODS: Patients with breast cancer (2000-2015) from The Health of Women Study were identified and categorized as low, moderate, or high-likelihood of the genetic mutation using a previously published scale based on period-relevant national guidelines incorporating age and family history. Genetic testing and CPM rates were compared using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 4170 patients (median age 56-years), 38% were categorized as high-likelihood of having a genetic mutation. Among high-likelihood women, 67% underwent genetic testing, the odds of which were increased among women of higher-education and White-race (p < .001). Among 2028 patients reporting surgical treatment, 385 (19%) chose CPM. CPM rate was highest among mutation-positive women (41%), but 26% of women with negative tests still underwent CPM. Independent of test result, genetic testing increased the odds of CPM on multivariate analysis (adjusted-OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.29-2.22). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing rates were higher among women at high-likelihood of mutation carriage, but one-third of these women were not tested. Racial disparities persisted, highlighting the need to improve testing in non-White populations. CPM rates were associated with mutation-carriage and genetic testing, but many women chose CPM despite negative testing, suggesting that well-educated women consider factors other than cancer mortality in selecting CPM.
Authors: Stephanie M Wong; Rachel A Freedman; Yasuaki Sagara; Fatih Aydogan; William T Barry; Mehra Golshan Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Mirar Bristol; Tracey Fredricks; Lache Wilkins; Irene Roelfsema; Kaijun Liao; Judy A Shea; Peter Groeneveld; Susan M Domchek; Katrina Armstrong Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael J Hall; Julia E Reid; Lynn A Burbidge; Dmitry Pruss; Amie M Deffenbaugh; Cynthia Frye; Richard J Wenstrup; Brian E Ward; Thomas A Scholl; Walter W Noll Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Sarah T Hawley; Kent A Griffith; Nancy K Janz; Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Monica Morrow; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Lydia E Pace; John Z Ayanian; Robert E Wolf; Richard Knowlton; Susan T Gershman; Summer Sherburne Hawkins; Nancy L Keating Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 4.711