scholarly journals GEMO, a National Resource to Study Genetic Modifiers of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabienne Lesueur ◽  
Noura Mebirouk ◽  
Yue Jiao ◽  
Laure Barjhoux ◽  
Muriel Belotti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Pathogenic Variant ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Genetic Modifiers ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 ◽  
National Resource

scholarly journals Candidate Genetic Modifiers for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 308-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Peterlongo ◽  
Jenny Chang-Claude ◽  
Kirsten B. Moysich ◽  
Anja Rudolph ◽  
Rita K. Schmutzler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Brca2 Mutation ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Genetic Modifiers ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 ◽  
Mutation Carriers

scholarly journals Evaluation of copy-number variants as modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 432-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Logan C Walker ◽  
◽  
Louise Marquart ◽  
John F Pearson ◽  
George A R Wiggins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Copy Number ◽  
Copy Number Variants ◽  
Pathogenic Variant ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer

scholarly journals Association of the Variants CASP8 D302H and CASP10 V410I with Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (11) ◽  
pp. 2859-2868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Engel ◽  
Beatrix Versmold ◽  
Barbara Wappenschmidt ◽  
Jacques Simard ◽  
Douglas F. Easton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Brca2 Mutation ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 ◽  
Mutation Carriers

scholarly journals Predictors of risk-reducing surgery intentions following genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Kathleen Ladd ◽  
Beth N Peshkin ◽  
Leigha Senter ◽  
Shari Baldinger ◽  
Claudine Isaacs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Counseling ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Prophylactic Surgery ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Affective Factors ◽  
Risk Reducing

Abstract Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) are increasingly used to reduce breast and ovarian cancer risk following BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. However, little is known about how genetic counseling influences decisions about these surgeries. Although previous studies have examined intentions prior to counseling, few have examined RRM and RRSO intentions in the critical window between genetic counseling and test result disclosure. Previous research has indicated that intentions at this time point predict subsequent uptake of surgery, suggesting that much decision-making has taken place prior to result disclosure. This period may be a critical time to better understand the drivers of prophylactic surgery intentions. The aim of this study was to examine predictors of RRM and RRSO intentions. We hypothesized that variables from the Health Belief Model would predict intentions, and we also examined the role of affective factors. Participants were 187 women, age 21–75, who received genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We utilized multiple logistic regression to identify independent predictors of intentions. 49.2% and 61.3% of participants reported intentions for RRM and RRSO, respectively. Variables associated with RRM intentions include: newly diagnosed with breast cancer (OR = 3.63, 95% CI = 1.20–11.04), perceived breast cancer risk (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17–1.81), perceived pros (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.38–2.32) and cons of RRM (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.65–0.996), and decision conflict (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66–0.98). Variables associated with RRSO intentions include: proband status (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09–0.89), perceived pros (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.11–1.63) and cons of RRSO (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.59–0.89), and ambiguity aversion (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.65–0.95). These data provide support for the role of genetic counseling in fostering informed decisions about risk management, and suggest that the role of uncertainty should be explored further.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document