Differences among a Portuguese cohort of BRCA pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants carriers choosing risk-reducing mastectomy or intensive breast surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants have a higher risk to develop breast and ovarian cancer. In structured high-risk clinics, risk-reducing measures are adopted. This study aimed at characterizing these women and identify factors that may have influenced their choice between risk reduction mastectomy (RRM) and intensive breast surveillance (IBS). METHODS: This study reviewed retrospectively 187 clinical records of affected and unaffected women with P/LP variants of the BRCA1/2 genes, from 2007 to 2022, of which 50 chose RRM, while 137 chose IBS. The research focused on personal and family history and tumor characteristics and their relation with the preventive option chosen. RESULTS: Among women with personal history of breast cancer, a higher proportion opted for RRM compared to those asymptomatic (34.2% vs 21.3%, p = 0.049), with younger age determining the option for RRM (38.5 years vs 44.0 years, p < 0.001). Among women with personal history of ovarian cancer, a higher proportion opted for RRM compared to those without that history (62.5% vs 25.1%, p = 0.033), with younger age determining the option for RRM (42.6 years vs 62.7 years, p = 0.009). Women who had bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were more likely to choose RRM than those who did not (37.3% vs 18.3%, p = 0.003). Family history was not associated with preventive option (33.3% vs 25.3, p = 0.346). CONCLUSIONS: The decision for the preventive option is multifactorial. In our study, personal history of breast or ovarian cancer, younger age at diagnosis, and previous bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were associated with the choice of RRM. Family history was not associated with the preventive option.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".