Selected Medical Interventions in Women With a Deleterious Brca Mutation: A Population-Based Study in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We examined the uptake of risk-reducing interventions, including bilateral mastectomy, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, oral contraceptive pills, tamoxifen, and raloxifene, for the entire population of women with a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Methods: This retrospective population-based study used data available in British Columbia for all women who, between 1996 and 2014, were tested and found to have a BRCA mutation. Rates of risk-reducing interventions stratified according to the type of BRCA mutation and prior history of breast or gynecologic cancer (ovary, fallopian tube, peritoneal) are presented. Cancers diagnosed in women with a BRCA mutation after disclosure of their mutation status are also presented. Results: The final study cohort consisted of 885 patients with a deleterious BRCA1 (n = 474) or BRCA2 (n = 411) mutation. Of the women with no prior breast cancer, 30.8% carrying a BRCA1 mutation and 28.3% carrying a BRCA2 mutation underwent bilateral mastectomy. Of women with no prior gynecologic cancer, 64.7% carrying a BRCA1 mutation and 62.2% carrying a BRCA2 mutation underwent risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Rates of chemoprevention with oral contraceptive pills and tamoxifen or raloxifene were low in all groups. In this cohort, 23 gynecologic and 70 breast cancers were diagnosed after disclosure of BRCA mutation status. Conclusions: Our results suggest reasonable uptake of risk-reducing interventions in high-risk women. To minimize the occurrence of breast and ovarian cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, more attention could be paid to ensuring that affected women receive proper counselling and follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".