Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.


Journal

JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 08 2019
Historique:
entrez: 21 8 2019
pubmed: 21 8 2019
medline: 7 9 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Potentially harmful mutations of the breast cancer susceptibility 1 and 2 genes (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk for breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. For women in the United States, breast cancer is the most common cancer after nonmelanoma skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. In the general population, BRCA1/2 mutations occur in an estimated 1 in 300 to 500 women and account for 5% to 10% of breast cancer cases and 15% of ovarian cancer cases. To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer. The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations in asymptomatic women who have never been diagnosed with BRCA-related cancer, as well as those with a previous diagnosis of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer who have completed treatment and are considered cancer free. In addition, the USPSTF reviewed interventions to reduce the risk for breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer in women with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations, including intensive cancer screening, medications, and risk-reducing surgery. For women whose family or personal history is associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are moderate. For women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to none. Regardless of family or personal history, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that the overall harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to moderate. The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation).

Identifiants

pubmed: 31429903
pii: 2748515
doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

652-665

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : SummaryForPatientsIn
Type : ErratumIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Auteurs

Douglas K Owens (DK)

Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California.
Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Karina W Davidson (KW)

Feinstein Institute for Medical Research at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York.

Alex H Krist (AH)

Fairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia.
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Michael J Barry (MJ)

Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Michael Cabana (M)

University of California, San Francisco.

Aaron B Caughey (AB)

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Chyke A Doubeni (CA)

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York.

John W Epling (JW)

Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke.

Martha Kubik (M)

Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

C Seth Landefeld (CS)

University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Carol M Mangione (CM)

University of California, Los Angeles.

Lori Pbert (L)

University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.

Michael Silverstein (M)

Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.

Melissa A Simon (MA)

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

Chien-Wen Tseng (CW)

University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Pacific Health Research and Education Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii.

John B Wong (JB)

Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH