Variation in Rates of Uptake of Preventive Options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutation have several options for cancer prevention, including prophylactic surgery, chemoprevention and screening. In this study we report on preventive practices used by women with and without breast cancer and examine differences in their selection of preventive practices according to geographic area in Canada. Methods: Canadian women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation were followed after genetic testing and questioned about their preventive practices. Women reported on uptake of prophylactic mastectomy, prophylactic oophorectomy, tamoxifen or raloxifene usage and screening practices. We analyzed the uptake of each preventive option and completed a subanalysis according to the geographic area in Canada where genetic testing was provided. Results: The study included 672 women. Follow-up questionnaires were completed after a mean of 4.0 years (range 1.6–9.1 years). Of the 342 women without breast cancer, 72 (21%) had had a prophylactic bilateral mastectomy. Three hundred and sixty-three women (54%) had had a bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy. Seventeen (6%) of the 270 women without breast cancer who had not had a prophylactic mastectomy took tamoxifen, and 12 (4%) reported taking raloxifene. Of the 342 women without breast cancer, 157 (46%) had not undertaken any cancer prevention option (mastectomy, oophorectomy or treatment with tamoxifen or raloxifene). Sixty-five (39%) of the 167 women from Ontario, 19 (34%) of the 56 women from Western Canada and 73 (62%) of the 119 women from Quebec had not undertaken any preventive procedure. Conclusion: Significant differences in the uptake of preventive options by women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation were observed across 3 regions of Canada. Future research is needed to explain why these differences exist.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".