 |
 |
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
6 September 2005 | Volume 143 Issue 5 | Pages 362-379
Background: Clinically significant mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are associated with increased susceptibility for breast and ovarian cancer. Although these mutations are uncommon, public interest in testing for them is growing.
Purpose: To determine benefits and harms of screening for inherited breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility in the general population of women without cancer presenting for primary health care in the United States.
Data Sources: MEDLINE (1966 to 1 October 2004), Cochrane Library databases, reference lists, reviews, Web sites, and experts.
Study Selection: Eligibility was determined by inclusion criteria specific to key questions about risk assessment, genetic counseling, mutation testing, prevention interventions, and potential adverse effects.
Data Extraction: After review of studies, data were extracted, entered into evidence tables, and summarized by using descriptive or statistical methods. Study quality was rated by using predefined criteria.
Data Synthesis: Tools assessing risks for mutations and referral guidelines have been developed; their accuracy, effectiveness, and adverse effects in primary care settings are unknown. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and mutation testing did not cause adverse psychological outcomes, and counseling improved distress and risk perception in the highly selected populations studied. Intensive cancer screening studies are inconclusive. Chemoprevention trials indicate risk reduction for breast cancer in women with varying levels of risk, as well as increased adverse effects. Observational studies of prophylactic surgeries report reduced risks for breast and ovarian cancer in mutation carriers.
Limitations: No data describe the range of risk associated with BRCA mutations, genetic heterogeneity, and moderating factors; studies conducted in highly selected populations contain biases; and information on adverse effects is incomplete.
Conclusions: A primary care approach to screening for inherited breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility has not been evaluated, and evidence is lacking to determine benefits and harms for the general population.
Author and Article Information
From Oregon Health & Science University and Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Miranda Walker, BA; Christina Bougatsos, BS; Andrew Hamilton, MLS, MS; Mark Helfand, MD, MPH; Wylie Burke, MD, PhD; Gurvaneet Randhawa, MD, MPH; members of the USPSTF; and reviewers for their contributions to this project.
Grant Support: This study was conducted by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, contract 290-02-0024, Task Order no. 2, Rockville, Maryland.
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.
Requests for Single Reprints: Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, Oregon Health & Science University, Mail Code BICC 504, 3181 Southwest Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239; e-mail, nelsonh{at}ohsu.edu.
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Nelson and Ms. Hoyt Huffman: Oregon Health & Science University, Mail Code BICC, 3181 Southwest Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Dr. Fu: Oregon Health & Science University, Mail Code CB 669, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Dr. Harris: Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 North Interstate Avenue, Portland, OR 97227. CLINICAL GUIDELINES
Genetic Risk Assessment and BRCA Mutation Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility: Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. D. Palma, S. M. Domchek, J. Stopfer, J. Erlichman, J. D. Siegfried, J. Tigges-Cardwell, B. A. Mason, T. R. Rebbeck, and K. L. Nathanson The Relative Contribution of Point Mutations and Genomic Rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in High-Risk Breast Cancer Families Cancer Res., September 1, 2008; 68(17): 7006 - 7014. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E Wood, A. Stockdale, and B. S Flynn Interviews with primary care physicians regarding taking and interpreting the cancer family history Fam. Pract., September 1, 2008; (2008) cmn053v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Fatouros, G. Baltoyiannis, and D. H. Roukos The Predominant Role of Surgery in the Prevention and New Trends in the Surgical Treatment of Women With BRCA1/2 Mutations Ann. Surg. Oncol., January 1, 2008; 15(1): 21 - 33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Parmigiani, S. Chen, E. S. Iversen Jr, T. M. Friebel, D. M. Finkelstein, H. Anton-Culver, A. Ziogas, B. L. Weber, A. Eisen, K. E. Malone, et al. Validity of Models for Predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations Ann Intern Med, October 2, 2007; 147(7): 441 - 450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. L. Edlefsen, J. F. Tait, M. H. Wener, and M. Astion Utilization and Diagnostic Yield of Neurogenetic Testing at a Tertiary Care Facility Clin. Chem., June 1, 2007; 53(6): 1016 - 1022. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Qaseem, V. Snow, K. Sherif, M. Aronson, K. B. Weiss, D. K. Owens, and for the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee Screening Mammography for Women 40 to 49 Years of Age: A Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians Ann Intern Med, April 3, 2007; 146(7): 511 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. V. Lacey Jr, M. H. Greene, S. S. Buys, D. Reding, T. L. Riley, C. D. Berg, R. M. Fagerstrom, and P. Hartge Ovarian Cancer Screening in Women With a Family History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer. Obstet. Gynecol., November 1, 2006; 108(5): 1176 - 1184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. I.J. Wildschut, T.J. Peters, and C. P. Weiner Screening in women's health, with emphasis on fetal Down's syndrome, breast cancer and osteoporosis Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2006; 12(5): 499 - 512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. McPherson Genetic diagnosis and testing in clinical practice. Clin. Med. Res., June 1, 2006; 4(2): 123 - 129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Hall and O. I. Olopade Disparities in Genetic Testing: Thinking Outside the BRCA Box J. Clin. Oncol., May 10, 2006; 24(14): 2197 - 2203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 ADDITIONAL ARTICLES ABSTRACTED IN ACP JOURNAL CLUB Evid. Based Med., April 1, 2006; 11(2): 62 - 62. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Walsh, S. Casadei, K. H. Coats, E. Swisher, S. M. Stray, J. Higgins, K. C. Roach, J. Mandell, M. K. Lee, S. Ciernikova, et al. Spectrum of Mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and TP53 in Families at High Risk of Breast Cancer JAMA, March 22, 2006; 295(12): 1379 - 1388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Eisinger and D. E. Horsman Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing. Ann Intern Med, March 7, 2006; 144(5): 376 - 376. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 USPSTF: Recommendations for BRCA Testing Journal Watch Women's Health, November 22, 2005; 2005(1122): 6 - 6. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 USPSTF Recommends Against Routine BRCA Testing Journal Watch (General), September 27, 2005; 2005(927): 1 - 1. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Burke Taking Family History Seriously Ann Intern Med, September 6, 2005; 143(5): 388 - 389. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Read all Rapid Responses
Article
