
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Short Communications |
Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007 [B. N. P., M. D. S., C. I., D. M.], and Cancer Center and Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [C. H., C. L.]
We conducted a prospective, observational study to determine breast cancer screening practices among self-referred high-risk women who pursued genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Of the 107 unaffected women included in this study, 41 were BRCA1/2 carriers and 66 women tested negative for a mutation previously identified in their family. All of the women underwent comprehensive pre- and posttest genetic counseling, and completed baseline and 12-month follow-up telephone interviews. The baseline (pretest) interview assessed potential predictors of mammography use, including demographics and psychosocial variables. During the year after the receipt of BRCA1/2 test results, 47% of the noncarriers and 59% of the carriers reported that they had had a mammogram [
2 (1, n = 107) = 1.35; P = 0.24]. Only 39% of carriers ages 2539 reported having a mammogram, versus 74% of carriers age
40 [
2 (1, n = 41) = 5.10; P = 0.02]. Among noncarriers ages 50 and older, 83% had an annual mammogram. Factors independently associated with mammography use included age (<40,
40; odds ratio, 7.5; confidence interval, 2.621.5) and test result (odds ratio, 4.6; confidence interval, 1.118.7). The effects of perceived likelihood of having a BRCA1/2 gene alteration and the interaction between test result and perceived likelihood were not significant. As expected, most carriers (95%) and noncarriers (77%) obtained a clinical breast exam within the year after the receipt of test results. These data suggest that in carriers, overall, the use of breast cancer screening including mammography is good, although there was a relatively low uptake rate of mammography in younger carriers. Noncarriers had very good adherence to general population screening guidelines.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
S.-J. Dawson, M. A. Price, M. A. Jenkins, J. M. McKinley, P. N. Butow, S.-A. McLachlan, G. J. Lindeman, P. Weideman, M. L. Friedlander, J. L. Hopper, et al. Cancer Risk Management Practices of Noncarriers Within BRCA1/2 Mutation-Positive Families in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research Into Familial Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2008; 26(2): 225 - 232. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. M. Ashour and A. El-Sharif Microbial Spectrum and Antibiotic Susceptibility Profile of Gram-Positive Aerobic Bacteria Isolated From Cancer Patients J. Clin. Oncol., December 20, 2007; 25(36): 5763 - 5769. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Wainberg and J. Husted Utilization of Screening and Preventive Surgery Among Unaffected Carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Gene Mutation Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2004; 13(12): 1989 - 1995. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. W. Hadley, J. F. Jenkins, E. Dimond, M. de Carvalho, I. Kirsch, and C. G.S. Palmer Colon Cancer Screening Practices After Genetic Counseling and Testing for Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2004; 22(1): 39 - 44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. D. Schwartz, E. Kaufman, B. N. Peshkin, C. Isaacs, C. Hughes, T. DeMarco, C. Finch, and C. Lerman Bilateral Prophylactic Oophorectomy and Ovarian Cancer Screening Following BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Testing J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2003; 21(21): 4034 - 4041. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |