Bilateral Oophorectomy and Breast Cancer Risk in<i>BRCA1</i>and<i>BRCA2</i>Mutation Carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Whether oophorectomy reduces breast cancer risk among BRCA mutation carriers is a matter of debate. We undertook a prospective analysis of bilateral oophorectomy and breast cancer risk in BRCA mutation carriers. Methods: Subjects had no history of cancer, had both breasts intact, and had information on oophorectomy status (n = 3722). Women were followed until breast cancer diagnosis, prophylactic bilateral mastectomy, or death. A Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of breast cancer associated with oophorectomy (coded as a time-dependent variable). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 5.6 years, 350 new breast cancers were diagnosed. Among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, oophorectomy was not associated with breast cancer risk compared with women who did not undergo an oophorectomy. The age-adjusted hazard ratio associated with oophorectomy was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.73 to 1.26, P = 76) for BRCA1 and was 0.65 (95% CI = 0.37 to 1.16, P = 14) for BRCA2 mutation carriers. In stratified analyses, the effect of oophorectomy was statistically significant for breast cancer in BRCA2 mutation carriers diagnosed prior to age 50 years (age-adjusted HR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.63, P = 007). Oophorectomy was not associated with risk of breast cancer prior to age 50 years among BRCA1 mutation carriers (age-adjusted HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.13, P = 51). Conclusions: Findings from this large prospective study support a role of oophorectomy for the prevention of premenopausal breast cancer in BRCA2, but not BRCA1 mutation carriers. These findings warrant further evaluation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".