Prophylactic Surgery Decisions and Surveillance Practices One Year Following BRCA1/2 Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although genetic testing for breast cancer risk is clinically available, its impact on health-related behaviors is unknown. This study examined prophylactic surgery and surveillance behavior during the year following BRCA1/2 gene testing. METHODS: Participants were female members (n = 216) of hereditary breast-ovarian cancer families (84 mutation carriers, 83 noncarriers and 49 test decliners). In this prospective observational study, utilization of prophylactic surgery and surveillance behavior were assessed 1-year following BRCA1/2 testing. RESULTS: Only 3% of the unaffected carriers obtained prophylactic mastectomy during the 1-year follow-up period. Among the remaining females, carriers had significantly higher rates of mammography (68%) than noncarriers (44%); (OR = 7.1; C.I. = 1.36-37.1; P = 0.02). However, the adherence rate in carriers was unchanged from baseline, suggesting that this difference is attributable to a reduction in screening among noncarriers. Women ages 25-39 years were significantly less likely to obtain mammograms than those aged 40 years and older. Cancer-related distress had a positive but nonsignificant (P < 0.07) association with adherence in bivariate but not multivariate analysis. With regard to ovarian risk, only 13% of carriers obtained prophylactic oophorectomy; of the remaining female carriers, only 21% reported a CA125 and 15% reported a transvaginal ultrasound. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of BRCA1/2 carriers may not opt for prophylactic surgery, and many do not adhere to surveillance recommendations. Greater attention to risk communication and medical decision-making is warranted.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".