© 1999 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 91, No. 17, 1475-1479,
September 1, 1999
© 1999 Oxford University Press
REPORTS |
Breast Cancer Risk After Bilateral Prophylactic Oophorectomy in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers
Affiliations of authors: T. R. Rebbeck, A. Eisen, B. L. Weber, Departments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Medicine, and Genetics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia; A. M. Levin, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; C. Snyder, P. Watson, H. T. Lynch, Department of Preventive Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, NE; L. Cannon-Albright, S. L. Neuhausen, Department of Genetic Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City; C. Isaacs, Department of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; O. Olopade, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, IL; J. E. Garber, Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Control, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; A. K. Godwin, M. B. Daly, Divisions of Basic and Population Science, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; S. A. Narod, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Correspondence to: Timothy R. Rebbeck, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 904 Blockley Hall, 23 Guardian Dr., Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021 (e-mail: trebbeck{at}cceb.med.upenn.edu).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionNotesReferences |
|---|
BACKGROUND: The availability of genetic testing for inherited mutations in the BRCA1 gene provides potentially valuable information to women at high risk of breast or ovarian cancer; however, carriers of BRCA1 mutations have few clinical management options to reduce their cancer risk. Decreases in ovarian hormone exposure following bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy (i.e., surgical removal of the ovaries) may alter cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers. This study was undertaken to evaluate whether bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy is associated with a reduction in breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers. METHODS: We studied a cohort of women with disease-associated germline BRCA1 mutations who were assembled from five North American centers. Surgery subjects (n = 43) included women with BRCA1 mutations who underwent bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy but had no history of breast or ovarian cancer and had not had a prophylactic mastectomy. Control subjects included women with BRCA1 mutations who had no history of oophorectomy and no history of breast or ovarian cancer (n = 79). Control subjects were matched to the surgery subjects according to center and year of birth. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.33-0.84). This risk reduction was even greater in women who were followed 5-10 (HR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.08-0.94) or at least 10 (HR = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.12-0.91) years after surgery. Use of hormone replacement therapy did not negate the reduction in breast cancer risk after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy is associated with a reduced breast cancer risk in women who carry a BRCA1 mutation. The likely mechanism is reduction of ovarian hormone exposure. These findings have implications for the management of breast cancer risk in women who carry BRCA1 mutations.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionNotesReferences |
|---|
Women who carry germline BRCA1 mutations have a greatly increased risk of breast and ovarian cancers when compared with the general population. The clinical management of women with BRCA1 mutations may include bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy (i.e., the surgical removal of both ovaries). The rationale for this surgery is that removing ovarian epithelium reduces ovarian cancer risk. In premenopausal women, an additional benefit from this surgery is a decrease in ovarian hormone exposure, which could in turn reduce breast cancer risk. However, limited data are available to guide specific recommendations regarding the use of this surgery to reduce cancer risk in women with a germline BRCA1 mutation (1). Some evidence suggests that ovarian cancer risk may be reduced in high-risk women who have undergone this surgery (2,3). Other reports (4-7) have shown a decreased breast cancer risk among oophorectomized women, and oophorectomy has been used to treat breast cancer. To evaluate whether bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy alters the risk of developing breast cancer in women who have BRCA1 mutations, we compared the incidence of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers who had and had not undergone this surgery.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionNotesReferences |
|---|
Study Participants
All women with germline, disease-causing BRCA1 mutations who reported having undergone an oophorectomy were identified as potential study subjects from the registry databases of five participating institutions: Creighton University (Omaha, NE), the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, MA), the Fox Chase Cancer Center (Philadelphia, PA), the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), and the University of Utah (Salt Lake City). While these represent geographically distinct groups, all of these centers ascertained study participants through similar clinical and research programs involving genetic screening for women at increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancers. The population of inference, therefore, reflects a relatively homogeneous set of high-risk women. Women were included in the study sample if they had undergone bilateral oophorectomy prior to or at the time of enrollment in these registries or if they reported having had this procedure during periodic follow-up by the collaborating institutions. Women were excluded from the study sample if they had only unilateral oophorectomies, if they had undergone mastectomy prior to their oophorectomy, or if they had a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer at or before the time of their oophorectomy. Surgical subjects were, therefore, included only if their surgery was not performed to treat ovarian or related peritoneal cancers.
After a set of eligible surgical subjects was identified, a matched set of control subjects was selected from women in the registries at each of the five collaborating centers. Potential control subjects were eligible if they had inherited a confirmed disease-causing BRCA1 mutation, were alive and had both ovaries (i.e., no history of oophorectomy), had no history of breast or ovarian cancer, and had no history of prophylactic mastectomy at or before the time of the surgical subject's surgery. Control subjects were matched to surgical subjects on year of birth (±5 years) and on the collaborative institution from which they were ascertained. Women who had inherited germline BRCA2 mutation were excluded as control subjects. All eligible control subjects that could be matched to a surgical subject were selected for analysis. While at least one matched control subject was selected for each surgical subject, we selected more than one matched control subject per surgical subject whenever possible. Criteria for entry into registries, data collection, and follow-up were undertaken at each collaborating center without regard to surgical status.
By use of these criteria, we identified 43 surgical subjects and 79 control subjects. Of these subjects, 44 were ascertained at Creighton University, 26 at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 18 at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, 16 at the University of Pennsylvania, and 18 at the University of Utah. Fifty (41%) study subjects were unrelated to one another. The remainder consisted of individuals who were related to at least one other person in the sample. Related subjects consisted of two (n = 24 individuals in 12 families, 20%), three (n = 9 individuals in three families, 7%), or four or more (n = 39 individuals in five families, 32%) women from the same family.
All BRCA1 mutations were disease causing. Mutation testing was undertaken by use of a variety of methods at each of the participating institutions, but the majority of mutations were determined for the purpose of clinical testing and therefore reflect the relatively consistent and high-quality standards used in a clinical setting. The BRCA1 mutation status of all of the subjects was confirmed by direct mutation testing with full written informed consent under research protocols approved by the human subjects review boards at each participating institution. Carriers of missense variants of unknown functional significance were excluded from the study sample. The identified mutations spanned the majority of the gene's coding region, ranging from Met1Ile (methionine to isoleucine at amino acid position 1) to 5438insC (an insertion of cytosine at nucleotide position 5438). Mutations included deletions (including large genomic deletions), nonsense mutations, insertions, and disease-associated missense mutations. Among the commonly identified mutations in this sample were 185delAG (n = 19; 16%) and 5382insC (an insertion of cytosine at position 5382; n = 6; 5%). Women with BRCA2 mutations were not included in this study because of relatively small numbers available in our study population and because their risk of breast and ovarian cancers (and possibly patterns of surgery use) may differ from BRCA1 mutation carriers. Women were included who had surgery and were later identified as having BRCA1 mutations and who were first identified as having BRCA1 mutations and later underwent this surgery.
Data Collection and Statistical Analysis
Vital status and cancer occurrence information were obtained by use of the ongoing follow-up records for each study subject from existing clinical research programs and from follow-up telephone interviews and/or self-administered questionnaires. For women who were deceased based on records maintained for each family, we reviewed medical records and family history reports to establish date of death and whether any malignancy had been diagnosed in that subject. Living women were interviewed by telephone to assess current vital status and occurrences of cancer. We obtained a self-reported reproductive history and history of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use by interview. Occurrences of postsurgery cancer were verified by review of medical records, operative notes, and/or pathology reports.
Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate breast cancer incidence by surgical status using SAS (v.6.11; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary NC). Only confounders that were statistically significant in any analysis were used to adjust the effect of surgery. Age at menarche was the only such variable identified in any analysis. Therefore, the only confounder variable considered was age at menarche. To correct for nonindependence of observations among subjects from the same family, we used the robust variance-covariance estimation method of Lin and Wei (8), as implemented in the software STATA (release 5) (Stata Corp., College Station, TX). The widths of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from the robust models were not uniformly changed compared with those of the standard models: some 95% CIs were narrower and some were wider than the standard models. Furthermore, the inferences from both the robust and nonrobust analyses were identical. Therefore, only the standard model results are presented. Both surgical subjects and control subjects were followed retrospectively from birth until the occurrence of the first event of interest. First, the first diagnosis of a primary invasive breast cancer was considered to be the primary event of interest. Second, the subjects were censored if they developed ovarian cancer or peritoneal carcinomatosis, had a prophylactic mastectomy, died, or were lost to follow-up; they were censored at the date of each subject's last contact for follow-up if none of these events occurred. Our follow-up strategy was chosen to provide an estimate of lifetime breast cancer risk reduction, as measured by an adjusted hazard ratio (HR). Because our study design did not allow inclusion of any women who developed cancer prior to the time of surgery, the risk reduction estimates presented here are conditional on surviving cancer free until the time of surgery. Analysis of breast cancer risk over various periods of follow-up after surgery was undertaken by use of a "landmark analysis" in which women were analyzed after 0-5 years of follow-up (with cancer-free women censored at 5 years of follow-up), between 5 and 10 years of follow-up (with cancer-free women censored at 10 years of follow-up), and more than 10 years of follow-up. All reported statistical inferences were based on two-sided hypothesis tests.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionNotesReferences |
|---|
Surgical subjects who underwent bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy were followed for an average of 9.6 years after surgery (range, <1-36 years) and control subjects were followed for an average of 8.1 years (range, <1-43 years) after the time of the matched subject's surgery. Forty-nine percent of all subjects were followed for at least 5 years after the surgical subject's surgery. The mean length of follow-up did not differ statistically significantly between surgical subjects and control subjects (FANOVA = .766; P = .384). However, the statistically nonsignificant difference in mean follow-up between the two groups supported our choice to use survival analysis models. No statistically significant differences overall were noted in the distribution of parity, age at first live birth, age at menarche, mean year of birth, age at time of the surgical subject's surgery, or ascertainment location between those who did and did not have bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy (Table 1
).
|
Approximately one third of the women developed breast cancer during the postsurgery follow-up period. Fig. 1
shows the cumulative incidence of breast cancer
in women with and without surgery. These incidences do not represent lifetime breast cancer risks
in BRCA1 mutation carriers because most subjects were followed only until the time of censoring
or the diagnosis of breast cancer and, therefore, had not passed through their entire period of
breast cancer risk.
|
Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy was associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk of developing breast cancer in the total sample (HR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.33-0.84; Table 2
). While complete information about menopausal status
on all participants was not available, six surgical subjects had surgery after 50 years of age and
were likely to be perimenopausal or postmenopausal (mean age at time of surgery, 56.7 years;
range, 52-63 years). When these six women and their 10 matched control subjects were removed
from the sample, we estimated the HR to be 0.57 (95% CI = 0.36-0.92), a value
similar to that in the total sample. While the sample of surgical subjects older than age 50 years
and their matched control subjects was very small (n = 16), the HR estimate in this group
(0.93; 95% CI = 0.22-3.92) suggested that surgery after age 50 years was not
associated with a substantial breast cancer risk reduction. Because many women elect to undergo
surgery after childbearing, we also evaluated the effect of surgery among parous women (n
= 104). In this group, reduction in breast cancer risk by surgery was of similar magnitude
to that estimated in the whole sample (HR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.30-0.79).
|
Reduction in breast cancer risk after surgery may also depend on duration of postsurgery follow-up. When we limited our analyses to women who had been followed for less than 5, 5-10, and 10 or more years after the surgical subject's surgery (Table 2
),
risk reduction was estimated to be HR = 0.55 (95% CI = 0.36-0.85), HR
= 0.28 (95% CI = 0.08-0.94), and HR = 0.33 (95% CI
= 0.12-0.91), respectively. Subjects who were followed at least 10 years after surgery and
were parous (HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.13-0.95) or had surgery before age 50
years (HR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.12-0.96) also experienced a substantial
reduction in breast cancer risk. HRT has been used after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy to ameliorate the symptoms of surgically induced menopause. Because HRT may also increase breast cancer risk (9), we evaluated whether HRT use affected postsurgery breast cancer risk. Sufficient information about dose, preparation, timing, or duration of HRT use was not available on the majority of study subjects. Self-reported ever/never use of HRT was available on 91 of 122 subjects. We also assumed that eight women younger than age 50 years without surgery did not receive HRT, although data were not available regarding HRT use in these women. Therefore, we had or inferred HRT use information on 32 (74%) of 43 surgical subjects and on 67 (85%) of 79 control subjects. Of these women, 22 (69%) of 32 who had undergone surgery had any HRT exposure, while only four (6%) of 67 control subjects had any HRT exposure.
HRT use was not a statistically significant independent predictor of breast cancer outcome in
a multivariate Cox model that included surgery (
2 = 1.40; P = .237). After we excluded women who had used HRT or who had no HRT data
available, we found that the effect of surgery on subsequent breast cancer risk was lower (HR
= 0.42; 95% CI = 0.22-0.81) than estimated in the total sample (HR
= 0.53). The HRs among parous women who had no HRT exposure (HR = 0.35;
95% CI = 0.17-0.71) or who underwent surgery before age 50 years (HR =
0.46; 95% CI = 0.23-0.90) were lower than those estimated in the total sample.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionNotesReferences |
|---|
We report that women who carry a germline BRCA1 mutation who have had bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy may experience a substantial reduction in breast cancer risk. Our observations suggest that decreased exposure to ovarian hormones after surgery may alter breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Our results have clinical relevance for women who have inherited a germline mutation in BRCA1 and want to decrease their breast cancer risk.
To our knowledge, our study is the first to show an association between surgery and a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer risk among BRCA1 mutation carriers. Brinton et al. (4) reported that women who underwent this surgery before the age of 40 years had a 45% reduction in breast cancer risk compared with women who underwent natural menopause. Meijer and van Lindert (5) reported that surgery performed before the age of natural menopause statistically significantly reduced breast cancer risk, even with HRT use. Parazzini et al. (6) reported a 20% reduction in breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy done at the time of hysterectomy in Italian premenopausal women and that this protection increased from the date of surgery. Schairer et al. (7) reported that Swedish women less than 50 years of age experienced a 50% reduction in breast cancer risk within 10 years of bilateral oophorectomy. Surgery after age 50 years conferred no risk reduction. Finally, Struewing et al. (3) suggested that bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy may reduce breast cancer risk in genetically high-risk women, but their sample size was not large enough to achieve statistical significance. On the basis of our results, women who carry germline BRCA1 mutations and who undergo bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy may experience a reduction in breast cancer risk that is as large as or larger than that reported in women who were not characterized with respect to BRCA1 mutation status (4-7).
Limitations of this study include a relatively small sample size and a lack of data on some confounder variables. With the use of 122 study participants, we had sufficient statistical power to identify a statistically significant association between bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and breast cancer risk reduction. However, our CIs remain relatively wide, and some may wish to interpret the upper bound of the CIs as the most conservative estimate of risk reduction. Similarly, we did not have sufficient statistical power to evaluate the effect of some potentially important factors including reproductive history. As would be the case in a randomized clinical trial or a case-control study, competing mortality that may have excluded some study subjects from analysis could not be assessed. Survival bias could produce an apparent decrease in the protective effect of surgery (i.e., bias toward the null hypothesis because fewer breast cancer cases among control subjects might be recorded), while a similar bias in surgical subjects could result in an apparent increase in the protective effect of surgery (i.e., bias away from the null hypothesis). The matching criteria used here may have minimized these effects to some degree. However, survivor bias is more likely to have underestimated rather than overestimated the true breast cancer risk reduction associated with surgery. Larger prospective studies, now being undertaken by our group, are required to address potential survival biases, to address the effects of surgery in specific substrata, and to refine CIs.
Confounding by indication may also have influenced our results if breast cancer risk was lower in women from families with a history of ovarian cancer, and this pattern of breast and ovarian cancer risk affected who chose to undergo surgery. Mutations occurring in the ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR) of BRCA2 confer higher ovarian versus breast cancer risk than mutations in other parts of BRCA2 (10). Thus, women carrying OCCR mutations may have a greater family history of ovarian cancer, may have preferentially sought out surgery, and may be at decreased breast cancer risk. However, only BRCA1 mutation carriers were studied here, and no OCCR region has been identified in BRCA1. Mutations in the 3` region of BRCA1 confer a deficit of ovarian cancer risk (11). Women carrying these mutations may have less ovarian cancer in their family, may have been less likely to seek out surgery, and may be at increased breast cancer risk. Thus, our analyses may have underestimated risk reduction by surgery. This study provides limited opportunities to directly address the potential for confounding by indication. Analyses stratified by ovarian cancer family history are infeasible because more than 80% of our families have at least one ovarian cancer. An analysis of breast cancer-only families would consist of fewer than 10 eligible surgical subjects and 15 control subjects. These are insufficient data to evaluate bias in the point estimates of risk. Further stratification by HRT use or other factors will result in even smaller sample sizes. Finally, it is unlikely that a randomized clinical trial of this surgery could be undertaken to address this issue, since randomization to surgery or no surgery is unlikely to be accepted by women who carry BRCA1 mutations.
The use of HRT may increase breast cancer risk even in the absence of endogenous ovarian
hormones. However, risk of breast cancer after HRT use has not been evaluated in BRCA1
mutation carriers (9). In this study, complete information about
postsurgery HRT was not available. We were able to obtain or infer HRT use data from
81% of our sample subjects and inferred that any increase in breast cancer risk in women
with HRT exposure is moderate at best: HR estimates in the total sample were only marginally
higher than those in women without HRT exposure (Table 2). We
conclude that HRT use did not negate the finding that bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy is
associated with a reduction in breast cancer risk. However, the data available in this study were
limited, and additional analyses with more complete HRT data will be required to confirm and
extend these observations.
Despite the potential benefits of bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in breast cancer risk reduction in BRCA1 mutation carriers, the costs and benefits of this surgery must be weighed. For example, the surgery itself may cause some risk of morbidity and mortality (12). The appropriate choice of surgical technique (e.g., laparotomy versus laparoscopy) is not clear (13). The primary negative side effect of surgery is the induction of premature menopause, which is associated with increased risks of osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease (14,15). Hot flashes, vaginal dryness, sexual dysfunction, sleep disturbances, and cognitive changes associated with menopause may also substantially affect quality of life. Although HRT moderates the risk of developing osteoporosis or cardiovascular disease, there is some concern that this therapy may be contraindicated after surgery if HRT increases the risk of breast cancer. Finally, other nonsurgical options for breast or ovarian cancer prevention should be considered. These options include the use of compounds that ablate the production of ovarian hormones and may provide a nonsurgical alternative to oophorectomy for breast cancer risk reduction. However, most women who carry germline BRCA1 mutations undergo surgery to reduce ovarian cancer risk. It is not clear whether nonsurgical ovarian hormone ablation will reduce ovarian cancer risk to the same degree as surgery.
Aside from the medical consequences of bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy, very little is known about the psychosocial effect prophylactic surgery has on women. Lerman et al. (16) reported that, among women who have undergone appropriate genetic counseling and are members of families with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, 48% were considering surgery 1 month after counseling; however, only 2% had actually undergone this surgery 6 months later. Clearly, the removal of ovaries resulting in premature menopause could have a profound effect on a woman's body image and lifestyle. A potentially negative consequence of surgery is that women may have a false sense of security after surgery and may not continue with appropriate cancer screening. In our sample, 10 women (23%) who underwent surgery subsequently developed breast cancer. Thus, while surgery may reduce cancer risk, it does not completely eliminate the occurrence of breast cancer. Breast cancer screening and prevention options should, therefore, continue after surgery.
|
NOTES |
|---|
Supported by Public Health Service grants P30CA16520 (supplement to T. R. Rebbeck and B. L. Weber), CA57601 (B. L. Weber), CA74415 (S. L. Neuhausen), and N01CN6700 (to S. L. Neuhausen) from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services; by the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center (to T. R. Rebbeck and B. L. Weber); by The Breast Cancer Research Foundation (to B. L. Weber); by the Dana-Farber Women's Cancers Program (to J. E. Garber); by Department of Defense grants DAMD-17-96-I-6088 (A. K. Godwin), DAMD-17-94-J-4260 (S. L. Neuhausen), DAMD-17-94-J-4340 (H. T. Lynch), and DAMD-17-97-I-7112 (H. T. Lynch); by The Utah Cancer registry and the Utah State Department of Health (to S. L. Neuhausen); and by the Nebraska State Cancer and Smoking-related Diseases Research Program (LB595) (to H. T. Lynch).
A. Eisen is a member of the Speakers' Bureau of Zeneca Pharmaceuticals (Salt Lake City, UT). L. Cannon-Albright holds stock in, conducts research sponsored by, and serves on the scientific advisory board of Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. B. L. Weber holds stock options in and is a member of the clinical advisory board of Myriad Genetics Inc.
We thank Drs. Steven Gruber and Patricia Peyser for their helpful discussions of this research.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionNotesReferences |
|---|
1
Burke W, Daly M, Garber J, Botkin J, Kahn MJ, Lynch P, et al.
Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. II.
BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium. JAMA 1997;277:997-1003.
2 Piver MS, Jishi MF, Tsukada Y, Nava G. Primary peritoneal carcinoma after prophylactic oophorectomy in women with a family history of ovarian cancer. A report of the Gilda Radner Family Ovarian Cancer Registry. Cancer 1993;71:2751-5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]cancerlit;93223130
3 Struewing JP, Watson P, Easton DF, Ponder BA, Lynch HT, Tucker MA. Prophylactic oophorectomy in inherited breast/ovarian cancer families. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1995;17:33-5.cancerlit;96117097
4 Brinton LA, Schairer C, Hoover RN, Fraumeni JF Jr. Menstrual factors and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Invest 1988;6:245-54[Web of Science][Medline]
5 Meijer WJ, van Lindert AC. Prophylactic oophorectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1992;47:59-65.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]cancerlit;93050570
6 Parazzini F, Braga C, La Vecchia C, Negri E, Acerboni S, Franchesi S. Hysterectomy, oophorectomy and premenopause, and risk of breast cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:453-6.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]cancerlit;97423719
7 Schairer C, Persson I, Falkeborn M, Naessen T, Troisi R, Brinton LA. Breast cancer risk associated with gynecologic surgery and indications for such surgery. Int J Cancer 1997;70:150-4.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]cancerlit;97162165
8 Lin DY, Wei LJ. The robust inference for the Cox proportional hazards model. J Am Stat Assoc 1989;84:1074-8.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
9
Barrett-Connor E. Hormone replacement therapy. BMJ 1998;317:457-61.
10 Gayther SA, Mangion J, Russell P, Seal S, Barfoot R, Ponder BA, et al. Variation of risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with different germline mutations of the BRCA2 gene. Nat Genet 1997;15:103-5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]cancerlit;97141929
11 Gayther SA, Warren W, Mazoyer S, Russell PA, Harrington PA, Chiano M, et al. Germline mutations of the BRCA1 gene in breast and ovarian cancer families provide evidence for a genotype-phenotype correlation. Nat Genet 1995;11:428-33.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]cancerlit;96083591
12 Mattingly RF. TeLinde's operative gynecology. 6th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott; 1985.
13 Kovac SR, Cruikshank SH. Guidelines to determine the route of oophorectomy with hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:1483-8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
14 Colditz GA, Willett WC, Stampfer JM, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Hennekens CH. Menopause and the risk of coronary heart disease in women. N Engl J Med 1987;316:1105-10.[Abstract]
15 Prior JC, Vigna YM, Wark JD, Eyre DR, Lentle BC, Li DK, et al. Premenopausal ovariectomy-related bone loss: a randomized, double-blind, one-year trial of conjugated estrogen or medroxyprogesterone acetate. J Bone Miner Res 1997;12:1851-63.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
16 Lerman C, Hughes C, Lemon S, Main D, Narod S, Lynch H. Outcomes study of BRCA1/2 testing in members of hereditary breast ovarian cancer families. Proc ASCO 1997. p. 25.
Manuscript received January 26, 1999; revised June 23, 1999; accepted July 6, 1999.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Ibarra-Drendall, L. G. Wilke, C. Zalles, V. Scott, L. E. Archer, S. Lem, L. D. Yee, J. Lester, S. Kulkarni, C. Murekeyisoni, et al. Reproducibility of Random Periareolar Fine Needle Aspiration in a Multi-Institutional Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) Cross-Sectional Study Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2009; 18(5): 1379 - 1385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. W. Gray, C. O'Grady, L. Karp, D. Smith, J. S. Schwartz, R. C. Hornik, and K. Armstrong Risk Information Exposure and Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for BRCA Mutations among Women with a Personal or Family History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2009; 18(4): 1303 - 1311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. L. Kleinberg, T. L. Wood, P. A. Furth, and A. V. Lee Growth Hormone and Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I in the Transition from Normal Mammary Development to Preneoplastic Mammary Lesions Endocr. Rev., February 1, 2009; 30(1): 51 - 74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. R. Rebbeck, N. D. Kauff, and S. M. Domchek Meta-analysis of Risk Reduction Estimates Associated With Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation Carriers J Natl Cancer Inst, January 21, 2009; 101(2): 80 - 87. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. T. Lynch, J. N. Marcus, and W. S. Rubinstein Stemming the Tide of Cancer for BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers J. Clin. Oncol., September 10, 2008; 26(26): 4239 - 4243. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Mor and K. Oberle Ethical Issues Related To BRCA Gene Testing in Orthodox Jewish Women Nursing Ethics, July 1, 2008; 15(4): 512 - 522. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. D. Kauff, S. M. Domchek, T. M. Friebel, M. E. Robson, J. Lee, J. E. Garber, C. Isaacs, D. G. Evans, H. Lynch, R. A. Eeles, et al. Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy for the Prevention of BRCA1- and BRCA2-Associated Breast and Gynecologic Cancer: A Multicenter, Prospective Study J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2008; 26(8): 1331 - 1337. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Britt, A. Ashworth, and M. Smalley Pregnancy and the risk of breast cancer Endocr. Relat. Cancer, December 1, 2007; 14(4): 907 - 933. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Hosey, J. J. Gorski, M. M. Murray, J. E. Quinn, W. Y. Chung, G. E. Stewart, C. R. James, S. M. Farragher, J. M. Mulligan, A. N. Scott, et al. Molecular Basis for Estrogen Receptor {alpha} Deficiency in BRCA1-Linked Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst, November 21, 2007; 99(22): 1683 - 1694. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. C. Jordan Estrogen Receptors in BRCA1-Mutant Breast Cancer: Now You See Them, Now You Don't J Natl Cancer Inst, November 21, 2007; 99(22): 1655 - 1657. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Greenlee, C. Atkinson, F. Z. Stanczyk, and J. W. Lampe A Pilot and Feasibility Study on the Effects of Naturopathic Botanical and Dietary Interventions on Sex Steroid Hormone Metabolism in Premenopausal Women Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., August 1, 2007; 16(8): 1601 - 1609. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. D. Lehman, C. Isaacs, M. D. Schnall, E. D. Pisano, S. M. Ascher, P. T. Weatherall, D. A. Bluemke, D. J. Bowen, P. K. Marcom, D. K. Armstrong, et al. Cancer Yield of Mammography, MR, and US in High-Risk Women: Prospective Multi-Institution Breast Cancer Screening Study Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 381 - 388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. F. Heine and J. D. Parvin BRCA1 Control of Steroid Receptor Ubiquitination Sci. Signal., June 19, 2007; 2007(391): pe34 - pe34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Chang-Claude, N. Andrieu, M. Rookus, R. Brohet, A. C. Antoniou, S. Peock, R. Davidson, L. Izatt, T. Cole, C. Nogues, et al. Age at Menarche and Menopause and Breast Cancer Risk in the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2007; 16(4): 740 - 746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Dorval, M.-H. Vallee, M. Plante, J. Chiquette, M. Gaudet, the Interdisciplinary Health Research Internationa, J. Simard, and the Interdisciplinary Health Research Internationa Effect of the Women's Health Initiative Study Publication on Hormone Replacement Therapy Use among Women Who Have Undergone BRCA1/2 Testing Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2007; 16(1): 157 - 160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. Pierce, A. M. Levin, T. R. Rebbeck, M. A. Ben-David, E. Friedman, L. J. Solin, E. E. Harris, D. K. Gaffney, B. G. Haffty, L. A. Dawson, et al. Ten-Year Multi-Institutional Results of Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiotherapy in BRCA1/2-Associated Stage I/II Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2006; 24(16): 2437 - 2443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Hall and O. I. Olopade Disparities in Genetic Testing: Thinking Outside the BRCA Box J. Clin. Oncol., May 10, 2006; 24(14): 2197 - 2203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Anderson, J. S. Jacobson, D. F. Heitjan, J. G. Zivin, D. Hershman, A. I. Neugut, and V. R. Grann Cost-effectiveness of preventive strategies for women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation. Ann Intern Med, March 21, 2006; 144(6): 397 - 406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Armstrong, B. Weber, P. A. Ubel, N. Peters, J. Holmes, and J. S. Schwartz Individualized Survival Curves Improve Satisfaction With Cancer Risk Management Decisions in Women With BRCA1/2 Mutations J. Clin. Oncol., December 20, 2005; 23(36): 9319 - 9328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Kramer, I. A. Velazquez, B. E. Chen, P. S. Rosenberg, J. P. Struewing, and M. H. Greene Prophylactic Oophorectomy Reduces Breast Cancer Penetrance During Prospective, Long-Term Follow-Up of BRCA1 Mutation Carriers J. Clin. Oncol., December 1, 2005; 23(34): 8629 - 8635. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Gogas, C. Markopoulos, and R. Blamey Should women be advised to take prophylactic endocrine treatment outside of a clinical trial setting? Ann. Onc., December 1, 2005; 16(12): 1861 - 1866. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. R. Rebbeck, T. Friebel, T. Wagner, H. T. Lynch, J. E. Garber, M. B. Daly, C. Isaacs, O. I. Olopade, S. L. Neuhausen, L. van 't Veer, et al. Effect of Short-Term Hormone Replacement Therapy on Breast Cancer Risk Reduction After Bilateral Prophylactic Oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: The PROSE Study Group J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2005; 23(31): 7804 - 7810. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Eisen, J. Lubinski, J. Klijn, P. Moller, H. T. Lynch, K. Offit, B. Weber, T. Rebbeck, S. L. Neuhausen, P. Ghadirian, et al. Breast Cancer Risk Following Bilateral Oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: An International Case-Control Study J. Clin. Oncol., October 20, 2005; 23(30): 7491 - 7496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. M. Miller, P. Roussi, M. B. Daly, J. S. Buzaglo, K. Sherman, A. K. Godwin, A. Balshem, and M. E. Atchison Enhanced Counseling for Women Undergoing BRCA1/2 Testing: Impact on Subsequent Decision Making About Risk Reduction Behaviors Health Educ Behav, October 1, 2005; 32(5): 654 - 667. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* Genetic Risk Assessment and BRCA Mutation Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility: Recommendation Statement Ann Intern Med, September 6, 2005; 143(5): 355 - 361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. D. Nelson, L. H. Huffman, R. Fu, and E. L. Harris Genetic Risk Assessment and BRCA Mutation Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility: Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, September 6, 2005; 143(5): 362 - 379. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A.-M. Simeone, C.-X. Deng, G. J. Kelloff, V. E. Steele, M. M. Johnson, and A. M. Tari N-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)retinamide is more potent than other phenylretinamides in inhibiting the growth of BRCA1-mutated breast cancer cells Carcinogenesis, May 1, 2005; 26(5): 1000 - 1007. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. C. Friedman and R. M. Kramer Reproductive Issues for Women With BRCA Mutations J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, March 1, 2005; 2005(34): 83 - 86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. A. Newman Breast Cancer in African-American Women Oncologist, January 1, 2005; 10(1): 1 - 14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Wacholder Bias in Intervention Studies That Enroll Patients From High-Risk Clinics J Natl Cancer Inst, August 18, 2004; 96(16): 1204 - 1207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Razandi, A. Pedram, E. M. Rosen, and E. R. Levin BRCA1 Inhibits Membrane Estrogen and Growth Factor Receptor Signaling to Cell Proliferation in Breast Cancer Mol. Cell. Biol., July 1, 2004; 24(13): 5900 - 5913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Metcalfe, H. T. Lynch, P. Ghadirian, N. Tung, I. Olivotto, E. Warner, O. I. Olopade, A. Eisen, B. Weber, J. McLennan, et al. Contralateral Breast Cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers J. Clin. Oncol., June 15, 2004; 22(12): 2328 - 2335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J Balmana, E M Stoffel, K M Emmons, J E Garber, and S Syngal Comparison of motivations and concerns for genetic testing in hereditary colorectal and breast cancer syndromes J. Med. Genet., April 1, 2004; 41(4): e44 - e44. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. R. Rebbeck, T. Friebel, H. T. Lynch, S. L. Neuhausen, L. van 't Veer, J. E. Garber, G. R. Evans, S. A. Narod, C. Isaacs, E. Matloff, et al. Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Reduces Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: The PROSE Study Group J. Clin. Oncol., March 15, 2004; 22(6): 1055 - 1062. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Armstrong, J. S. Schwartz, T. Randall, S. C. Rubin, and B. Weber Hormone Replacement Therapy and Life Expectancy After Prophylactic Oophorectomy in Women With BRCA1/2 Mutations: A Decision Analysis J. Clin. Oncol., March 15, 2004; 22(6): 1045 - 1054. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. D. Foulkes, K. Metcalfe, P. Sun, W. M. Hanna, H. T. Lynch, P. Ghadirian, N. Tung, O. I. Olopade, B. L. Weber, J. McLennan, et al. Estrogen Receptor Status in BRCA1- and BRCA2-Related Breast Cancer: The Influence of Age, Grade, and Histological Type Clin. Cancer Res., March 15, 2004; 10(6): 2029 - 2034. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. D. Schwartz, E. Kaufman, B. N. Peshkin, C. Isaacs, C. Hughes, T. DeMarco, C. Finch, and C. Lerman Bilateral Prophylactic Oophorectomy and Ovarian Cancer Screening Following BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Testing J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2003; 21(21): 4034 - 4041. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. D. McKelvey Jr. and J. P. Evans Cancer Genetics in Primary Care J. Nutr., November 1, 2003; 133(11): 3767S - 3772. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. A. Mincey Genetics and the Management of Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer Oncologist, October 1, 2003; 8(5): 466 - 473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Rutter, S. Wacholder, A. Chetrit, F. Lubin, J. Menczer, S. Ebbers, M. A. Tucker, J. P. Struewing, and P. Hartge Gynecologic Surgeries and Risk of Ovarian Cancer in Women With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Ashkenazi Founder Mutations: An Israeli Population-Based Case-Control Study J Natl Cancer Inst, July 16, 2003; 95(14): 1072 - 1078. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. M. Klaren, L. J. van't Veer, F. E. van Leeuwen, and M. A. Rookus Potential for Bias in Studies on Efficacy of Prophylactic Surgery for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation J Natl Cancer Inst, July 2, 2003; 95(13): 941 - 947. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Wooster and B. L. Weber Breast and Ovarian Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., June 5, 2003; 348(23): 2339 - 2347. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. M. Domchek, A. Eisen, K. Calzone, J. Stopfer, A. Blackwood, and B. L. Weber Application of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models in Clinical Practice J. Clin. Oncol., February 15, 2003; 21(4): 593 - 601. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. T. Lynch, C. L. Snyder, J. F. Lynch, B. D. Riley, and W. S. Rubinstein Hereditary Breast-Ovarian Cancer at the Bedside: Role of the Medical Oncologist J. Clin. Oncol., February 15, 2003; 21(4): 740 - 753. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. M. Ginolhac, S. Gad, M. Corbex, B. Bressac-de-Paillerets, A. Chompret, Y.-J. Bignon, J.-P. Peyrat, J. Fournier, C. Lasset, S. Giraud, et al. BRCA1 Wild-Type Allele Modifies Risk of Ovarian Cancer in Carriers of BRCA1 Germ-Line Mutations Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2003; 12(2): 90 - 95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Pichert, B. Bolliger, K. Buser, and O. Pagani Evidence-based management options for women at increased breast/ovarian cancer risk Ann. Onc., January 1, 2003; 14(1): 9 - 19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Hoogerbrugge, P. Bult, L.M. de Widt-Levert, L.V. Beex, L.A. Kiemeney, M.J.L. Ligtenberg, L.F. Massuger, C. Boetes, P. Manders, and H.G. Brunner High Prevalence of Premalignant Lesions in Prophylactically Removed Breasts From Women at Hereditary Risk for Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2003; 21(1): 41 - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Narod, M.-P. Dube, J. Klijn, J. Lubinski, H. T. Lynch, P. Ghadirian, D. Provencher, K. Heimdal, P. Moller, M. Robson, et al. Oral Contraceptives and the Risk of Breast Cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers J Natl Cancer Inst, December 4, 2002; 94(23): 1773 - 1779. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D G R Evans and F Lalloo Risk assessment and management of high risk familial breast cancer J. Med. Genet., December 1, 2002; 39(12): 865 - 871. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Satagopan, J. Boyd, N. D. Kauff, M. Robson, L. Scheuer, S. Narod, and K. Offit Ovarian Cancer Risk in Ashkenazi Jewish Carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations Clin. Cancer Res., December 1, 2002; 8(12): 3776 - 3781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Al-Saffar and W D Foulkes Hereditary ovarian cancer resulting from a non-ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR) BRCA2 mutation: is the OCCR useful clinically? J. Med. Genet., November 1, 2002; 39(11): e68 - 68. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A. Metcalfe and S. A. Narod Breast Cancer Risk Perception Among Women Who Have Undergone Prophylactic Bilateral Mastectomy J Natl Cancer Inst, October 16, 2002; 94(20): 1564 - 1569. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. B. Gruber and G. M. Petersen Cancer Risks in BRCA1 Carriers: Time for the Next Generation of Studies J Natl Cancer Inst, September 18, 2002; 94(18): 1344 - 1345. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. Brose, T. R. Rebbeck, K. A. Calzone, J. E. Stopfer, K. L. Nathanson, and B. L. Weber Cancer Risk Estimates for BRCA1 Mutation Carriers Identified in a Risk Evaluation Program J Natl Cancer Inst, September 18, 2002; 94(18): 1365 - 1372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Euhus, K. C. Smith, L. Robinson, A. Stucky, O. I. Olopade, S. Cummings, J. E. Garber, A. Chittenden, G. B. Mills, P. Rieger, et al. Pretest Prediction of BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation by Risk Counselors and the Computer Model BRCAPRO J Natl Cancer Inst, June 5, 2002; 94(11): 844 - 851. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W D Foulkes, J-S Brunet, N Wong, J Goffin, and P O Chappuis Change in the penetrance of founder BRCA1/2 mutations? A retrospective cohort study J. Med. Genet., June 1, 2002; 39(6): 407 - 409. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. D. Kauff, J. M. Satagopan, M. E. Robson, L. Scheuer, M. Hensley, C. A. Hudis, N. A. Ellis, J. Boyd, P. I. Borgen, R. R. Barakat, et al. Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy in Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation N. Engl. J. Med., May 23, 2002; 346(21): 1609 - 1615. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. R. Rebbeck, H. T. Lynch, S. L. Neuhausen, S. A. Narod, L. van't Veer, J. E. Garber, G. Evans, C. Isaacs, M. B. Daly, E. Matloff, et al. Prophylactic Oophorectomy in Carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations N. Engl. J. Med., May 23, 2002; 346(21): 1616 - 1622. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Haber Prophylactic Oophorectomy to Reduce the Risk of Ovarian and Breast Cancer in Carriers of BRCA Mutations N. Engl. J. Med., May 23, 2002; 346(21): 1660 - 1662. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. R. Grann, J. S. Jacobson, D. Thomason, D. Hershman, D. F. Heitjan, and A. I. Neugut Effect of Prevention Strategies on Survival and Quality-Adjusted Survival of Women With BRCA1/2 Mutations: An Updated Decision Analysis J. Clin. Oncol., May 15, 2002; 20(10): 2520 - 2529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. van Roosmalen, L. C.G. Verhoef, P. F.M. Stalmeier, N. Hoogerbrugge, and W. A.J. van Daal Decision Analysis of Prophylactic Surgery or Screening for BRCA1 Mutation Carriers: A More Prominent Role For Oophorectomy J. Clin. Oncol., April 15, 2002; 20(8): 2092 - 2100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Rhodes Identifying and Counseling Women at Increased Risk for Breast Cancer Mayo Clin. Proc., April 1, 2002; 77(4): 355 - 361. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. R. Love Breast Cancer Prevention Oncologist, April 1, 2002; 7(2): 100 - 102. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Scheuer, N. Kauff, M. Robson, B. Kelly, R. Barakat, J. Satagopan, N. Ellis, M. Hensley, J. Boyd, P. Borgen, et al. Outcome of Preventive Surgery and Screening for Breast and Ovarian Cancer in BRCA Mutation Carriers J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2002; 20(5): 1260 - 1268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Morrow and W. Gradishar Recent developments: Breast cancer BMJ, February 16, 2002; 324(7334): 410 - 414. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M.-C. King, S. Wieand, K. Hale, M. Lee, T. Walsh, K. Owens, J. Tait, L. Ford, B. K. Dunn, J. Costantino, et al. Tamoxifen and Breast Cancer Incidence Among Women With Inherited Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP-P1) Breast Cancer Prevention Trial JAMA, November 14, 2001; 286(18): 2251 - 2256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Hallowell, I. Jacobs, M. Richards, J. Mackay, and M. Gore Surveillance or surgery? A description of the factors that influence high risk premenopausal women's decisions about prophylactic oophorectomy J. Med. Genet., October 1, 2001; 38(10): 683 - 691. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Goldhirsch, J. H. Glick, R. D. Gelber, A. S. Coates, and H.-J. Senn Meeting Highlights: International Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., September 15, 2001; 19(18): 3817 - 3827. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. G. Vogel Reducing the Risk of Breast Cancer With Tamoxifen in Women at Increased Risk J. Clin. Oncol., September 15, 2001; 19(90001): 87s - 92. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Warner, D. B. Plewes, R. S. Shumak, G. C. Catzavelos, L. S. Di Prospero, M. J. Yaffe, V. Goel, E. Ramsay, P. L. Chart, D. E.C. Cole, et al. Comparison of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mammography, and Ultrasound for Surveillance of Women at High Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2001; 19(15): 3524 - 3531. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Kuter Breast Cancer Oncologist, August 1, 2001; 6(4): 338 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Meijers-Heijboer, B. van Geel, W. L.J. van Putten, S. C. Henzen-Logmans, C. Seynaeve, M. B.E. Menke-Pluymers, C. C.M. Bartels, L. C. Verhoog, A. M.W. van den Ouweland, M. F. Niermeijer, et al. Breast Cancer after Prophylactic Bilateral Mastectomy in Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation N. Engl. J. Med., July 19, 2001; 345(3): 159 - 164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Eisen and B. L. Weber Prophylactic Mastectomy for Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations -- Facts and Controversy N. Engl. J. Med., July 19, 2001; 345(3): 207 - 208. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. R. Rebbeck, Y. Wang, P. W. Kantoff, K. Krithivas, S. L. Neuhausen, A. K. Godwin, M. B. Daly, S. A. Narod, J.-S. Brunet, D. Vesprini, et al. Modification of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated Breast Cancer Risk by AIB1 Genotype and Reproductive History Cancer Res., July 1, 2001; 61(14): 5420 - 5424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Chang, S. G. Hilsenbeck, J. H. Sng, J. Wong, and G. C. Ragu Pathological Features and BRCA1 Mutation Screening in Premenopausal Breast Cancer Patients Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2001; 7(6): 1739 - 1742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.-M. Martin, M.A. Blackwood, D. Antin-Ozerkis, H.A. Shih, K. Calzone, T.A. Colligon, S. Seal, N. Collins, M.R. Stratton, B.L. Weber, et al. Germline Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Breast-Ovarian Families From a Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Clinic J. Clin. Oncol., April 15, 2001; 19(8): 2247 - 2253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. F. Col, L. K. Hirota, R. K. Orr, J. K. Erban, J. B. Wong, and J. Lau Hormone Replacement Therapy After Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Assessment of Risk J. Clin. Oncol., April 15, 2001; 19(8): 2357 - 2363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Levy-Lahad, A. Lahad, S. Eisenberg, E. Dagan, T. Paperna, L. Kasinetz, R. Catane, B. Kaufman, U. Beller, P. Renbaum, et al. A single nucleotide polymorphism in the RAD51 gene modifies cancer risk in BRCA2 but not BRCA1 carriers PNAS, March 13, 2001; 98(6): 3232 - 3236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M.E. Walsh, N. C. Dolan, and P. Charney Update in Women's Health Ann Intern Med, November 21, 2000; 133(10): 808 - 814. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Eeles and T. J. Powles Chemoprevention Options for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2000; 18(90001): 93s - 99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. R. Rebbeck Prophylactic Oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2000; 18(90001): 100s - 103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. Pierce, M. Strawderman, S. A. Narod, I. Oliviotto, A. Eisen, L. Dawson, D. Gaffney, L. J. Solin, A. Nixon, J. Garber, et al. Effect of Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Treatment in Women With Breast Cancer and Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations J. Clin. Oncol., October 19, 2000; 18(19): 3360 - 3369. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Hilakivi-Clarke Estrogens, BRCA1, and Breast Cancer Cancer Res., September 1, 2000; 60(18): 4993 - 5001. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. J. Fabian, B. F. Kimler, C. M. Zalles, J. R. Klemp, S. Kamel, S. Zeiger, and M. S. Mayo Short-Term Breast Cancer Prediction by Random Periareolar Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology and the Gail Risk Model J Natl Cancer Inst, August 2, 2000; 92(15): 1217 - 1227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. T. Chlebowski Reducing the Risk of Breast Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., July 20, 2000; 343(3): 191 - 198. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. M. Petersen Familial Aggregation: Sorting Susceptibility From Shared Environment J Natl Cancer Inst, July 19, 2000; 92(14): 1114 - 1115. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. H. Lu, J. E. Garber, D. W. Cramer, W. R. Welch, J. Niloff, D. Schrag, R. S. Berkowitz, and M. G. Muto Occult Ovarian Tumors in Women With BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations Undergoing Prophylactic Oophorectomy J. Clin. Oncol., July 14, 2000; 18(14): 2728 - 2732. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. M. Bennett, K. A. McAllister, J. Malphurs, T. Ward, N. K. Collins, J. C. Seely, L. C. Gowen, B. H. Koller, B. J. Davis, and R. W. Wiseman Mice Heterozygous for a Brca1 or Brca2 Mutation Display Distinct Mammary Gland and Ovarian Phenotypes in Response to Diethylstilbestrol Cancer Res., July 1, 2000; 60(13): 3461 - 3469. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Eisen, T. R. Rebbeck, W. C. Wood, and B. L. Weber Prophylactic Surgery in Women With a Hereditary Predisposition to Breast and Ovarian Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., May 9, 2000; 18(9): 1980 - 1995. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Schrag, K. M. Kuntz, J. E. Garber, and J. C. Weeks Life Expectancy Gains From Cancer Prevention Strategies for Women With Breast Cancer and BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations JAMA, February 2, 2000; 283(5): 617 - 624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Garber A 40-Year-Old Woman With a Strong Family History of Breast Cancer JAMA, November 24, 1999; 282(20): 1953 - 1960. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. M. Lippman and P. H. Brown Tamoxifen Prevention of Breast Cancer: an Instance of the Fingerpost J Natl Cancer Inst, November 3, 1999; 91(21): 1809 - 1819. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. J. Helzlsouer Bad News/Good News: Information About Breast Cancer Risk Following Prophylactic Oophorectomy J Natl Cancer Inst, September 1, 1999; 91(17): 1442 - 1443. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||