1
|
Sessa C, Balmaña J, Bober SL, Cardoso MJ, Colombo N, Curigliano G, Domchek SM, Evans DG, Fischerova D, Harbeck N, Kuhl C, Lemley B, Levy-Lahad E, Lambertini M, Ledermann JA, Loibl S, Phillips KA, Paluch-Shimon S. Risk reduction and screening of cancer in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndromes: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Oncol 2023; 34:33-47. [PMID: 36307055 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.10.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 38.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Revised: 10/05/2022] [Accepted: 10/06/2022] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- C Sessa
- Medical Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - J Balmaña
- Medical Oncology Hospital Vall d'Hebron and Hereditary Cancer Genetics Group, Vall d'Hebron Institut of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| | - S L Bober
- Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - M J Cardoso
- Champalimaud Foundation, Breast Unit and Faculdade de Medicina, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - N Colombo
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia e IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - G Curigliano
- Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies Division, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - S M Domchek
- Basser Center for BRCA, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA
| | - D G Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution Infection and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Manchester, UK; Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, MAHSC, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - D Fischerova
- Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - N Harbeck
- Breast Center, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany
| | - C Kuhl
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, University Hospital Aachen (UKA), RWTH Aachen, Germany
| | - B Lemley
- KIU - Patient Organisation for Women with Gynaecological Cancer, Copenhagen, Denmark; Clinical Trials Project, ESGO ENGAGe, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - E Levy-Lahad
- Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - M Lambertini
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, U.O. Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | - J A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London and UCL Hospitals, London, UK
| | - S Loibl
- GBG Forschungs GmbH, Neu-Isenburg, Germany
| | - K-A Phillips
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - S Paluch-Shimon
- Sharett Institute of Oncology Department, Hadassah University Hospital & Faculty of Medicine Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kehm RD, Phillips KA, Daly MB, Andrulis IL, Liao Y, Ma X, Zeinomar N, MacInnis RJ, Dite GS, John EM, Buys SS, Milne RL, Hopper JL, Terry MB. Abstract PD6-05: Withdrawn. Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-pd6-05] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.
Citation Format: Kehm RD, Phillips K-A, Daly MB, Andrulis IL, Liao Y, Ma X, Zeinomar N, MacInnis RJ, Dite GS, John EM, Buys SS, Milne RL, Hopper JL, Terry MB. Withdrawn [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD6-05.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- RD Kehm
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - K-A Phillips
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - MB Daly
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - IL Andrulis
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Y Liao
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - X Ma
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - N Zeinomar
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - RJ MacInnis
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - GS Dite
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - EM John
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - SS Buys
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - RL Milne
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - JL Hopper
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - MB Terry
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Phillips KA, Liao Y, Collins IM, Buchsbaum R, Weideman P, Bickerstaffe A, MacInnis RJ, Cuzick J, Antoniou A, Andrulis IL, John EM, Daly MB, Buys SS, Hopper JL, Terry MB. Abstract P4-09-02: Validation of iPrevent using the prospective family study cohort (ProF-SC). Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p4-09-02] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: iPrevent (https://www.petermac.org/iprevent) provides women with highly-tailored risk management information after first estimating their breast cancer (BC) risk using the established risk prediction models, IBIS and BOADICEA. iPrevent has an internal switching algorithm that governs which model is used for each woman, depending on her risk factor data (i.e. LCIS/atypical hyperplasia status, BRCA status, and cancer family history). This study assessed the calibration and discriminatory accuracy of the 10-year BC risk estimates provided by iPrevent. Methods: Subjects were 16,574 women in the ProF-SC, aged 18-70 years and without BC or bilateral mastectomy at recruitment. After 10 years follow-up, 655 women (4%) were diagnosed with invasive BC. A “batch mode” for iPrevent is not available, so the iPrevent-assigned cumulative 10-year invasive BC risks were calculated by entering self-reported risk factors at cohort entry into either the IBIS (10,169 women) or BOADICEA (6,405 women) software packages (according to the iPrevent switching algorithm). To assess calibration, the mean iPrevent-assigned risk was compared with the mean 10-year observed invasive BC incidence, using a chi-squared goodness-of-fit statistic for the whole cohort, and by quartiles of risk. To evaluate discriminatory accuracy, the overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the development of invasive BC within 10 years was computed. Data were censored at date of invasive or in situ BC diagnosis, bilateral mastectomy, death, loss to follow-up, or at 10 years of follow-up. Results: For the whole cohort, iPrevent assigned risk was well-calibrated – 690 expected BCs (E) 655 observed (O) (E/O=1.05, 95% CI: 0.98-1.14), although for women in the highest risk quartile, i.e. >6% 10-year risk, E/O=1.19, 95% CI: 1.07-1.32. The AUC was 0.70, 95% CI: 0.68-0.72. Conclusions: iPrevent is well calibrated overall and has good discriminatory accuracy for predicting 10-year BC risk, thus justifying its clinical use.
Citation Format: Phillips K-A, Liao Y, Collins IM, Buchsbaum R, Weideman P, Bickerstaffe A, MacInnis RJ, kConFab Investigators, Cuzick J, Antoniou A, Andrulis IL, John EM, Daly MB, Buys SS, Hopper JL, Terry MB. Validation of iPrevent using the prospective family study cohort (ProF-SC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-09-02.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K-A Phillips
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - Y Liao
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - IM Collins
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - R Buchsbaum
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - P Weideman
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - A Bickerstaffe
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - RJ MacInnis
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - J Cuzick
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - A Antoniou
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - IL Andrulis
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - EM John
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - MB Daly
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - SS Buys
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - JL Hopper
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - MB Terry
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Columbia University, New York; Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Keogh LA, Steel E, Weideman P, Butow P, Collins IM, Emery JD, Mann GB, Bickerstaffe A, Trainer AH, Hopper LJ, Phillips KA. Consumer and clinician perspectives on personalising breast cancer prevention information. Breast 2018; 43:39-47. [PMID: 30445378 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2018.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2018] [Revised: 10/23/2018] [Accepted: 11/03/2018] [Indexed: 10/27/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Personalised prevention of breast cancer has focused on women at very high risk, yet most breast cancers occur in women at average, or moderately increased risk (≤moderate risk). OBJECTIVES To determine; 1) interest of women at ≤ moderate risk (consumers) in personalised information about breast cancer risk; 2) familial cancer clinicians' (FCCs) perspective on managing women at ≤ moderate risk, and; 3) both consumers' and FCCs reactions to iPrevent, a personalised breast cancer risk assessment and risk management decision support tool. METHODS Seven focus groups on breast cancer risk were conducted with 49 participants; 27 consumers and 22 FCCs. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS Consumers reported some misconceptions, low trust in primary care practitioners for breast cancer prevention advice and frustration that they often lacked tailored advice about breast cancer risk. They expressed interest in receiving personalised risk information using iPrevent. FCCs reported an inadequate workforce to advise women at ≤ moderate risk and reacted positively to the potential of iPrevent to assist. CONCLUSIONS While highlighting a potential role for iPrevent, several outstanding issues remain. For personalised prevention of breast cancer to extend beyond women at high risk, we must harness women's interest in receiving tailored information about breast cancer prevention and identify a workforce willing to advise women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L A Keogh
- Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
| | - E Steel
- Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia
| | - P Weideman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia
| | - P Butow
- Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-Making (CeMPED) and the Psycho-Oncology Cooperative Research Group (PoCoG), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - I M Collins
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; The Greater Green Triangle Clinical School, Deakin University School of Medicine, Warrnambool, Australia
| | - J D Emery
- Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - G B Mann
- The Breast Service, Royal Melbourne and Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - A Bickerstaffe
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia
| | - A H Trainer
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - L J Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia
| | - K A Phillips
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ager B, Jansen J, Porter D, Phillips KA, Glassey R, Butow P. Development and pilot testing of a Decision Aid (DA) for women with early-stage breast cancer considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Breast 2018; 40:156-164. [PMID: 29857282 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2018.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2018] [Revised: 04/23/2018] [Accepted: 05/18/2018] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Describe the development, acceptability and feasibility of a Decision Aid (DA) for women with early-stage breast cancer (BC) at average contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). METHODS The DA was developed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. It provides evidence-based information about CPM in a booklet format combining text, graphs and images of surgical options. Twenty-three women with a history of early-stage breast cancer were interviewed in person or over the phone using a 'think aloud approach'. Framework analysis was used to code and analyse data. RESULTS Twenty-three women participated in the study. Mean age of participants was 58.6 years and time since diagnosis ranged from 14 months to 21 years. Five women had CPM and eighteen had not. Women strongly endorsed the DA. Many felt validated by a section on appearance and found information on average risk of recurrence and metastases helpful, however, noted the importance of discussing personal risk with their surgeon. Many requested more information on surgery details (time taken, recovery) and costs of the different options. CONCLUSION The DA was acceptable to women, including the format, content and proposed implementation strategies. Practical and financial issues are important to women in considering treatment options. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Women appreciate information about CPM at diagnosis and emphasised the importance of discussing potential downsides of the procedure in addition to benefits. The DA was considered acceptable to facilitate such discussions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Ager
- School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Australia
| | - J Jansen
- Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Australia; Psycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group (PoCoG), The University of Sydney, Australia
| | - D Porter
- Department of Medical Oncology, Auckland Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand; Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
| | - K A Phillips
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - R Glassey
- Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | | | - P Butow
- Psycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group (PoCoG), The University of Sydney, Australia; Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence Based Decision-Making, The University of Sydney, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Zeinomar N, Phillips KA, Liao Y, MacInnis RJ, Dite GS, Daly MB, John EM, Andrulis IL, Buys SS, Hopper JL, Terry MB. Abstract P6-09-04: Benign breast disease and breast cancer risk across the spectrum of familial risk using a prospective family study cohort (ProF-SC). Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-p6-09-04] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Benign breast disease (BBD) is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer but it is unclear whether the strength of the association with BBD and breast cancers varies by breast cancer family history. Few studies of BBD enrich specifically for putative genetic factors by over-sampling based on family history let alone evaluate potential interactions with measures of underlying familial risk. The aim of this study was to evaluate how risk associated with BBD is modified by underlying familial risk so as to guide clinical management and risk assessment of women with BBD.
Methods: Using a prospective family study cohort of 17,154 women unaffected with breast cancer at baseline and followed by questionnaire at regular intervals, we examined the association between BBD and breast cancer risk using Cox Proportional Hazards models. We classified women as having BBD if they reported at baseline having been told by a doctor that they had BBD, such as a non-cancerous cyst or breast lump. We did not have information on histologic sub-type. We confirmed self-reported diagnosis of BBD with pathology reports in a subset of the New York cohort and found high agreement between self-reported and pathologically confirmed BBD (93.5%). We assessed multiplicative and additive interactions with underlying familial risk profile (FRP) defined as either fixed-time horizon of 1-year, or total lifetime risk, estimated from the Breast Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model.
Results: During 176,756 person-years of follow-up (mean 10.2, maximum 23.7 years), we observed 968 incident breast cancers cases with an average age at diagnosis of 55.8 years and average age at enrollment into the cohort of 46.8 years. At baseline, 4,704 (27%) women reported having a previous diagnosis of BBD. Compared to women with no history of BBD, breast cancer risk was increased in women of all ages (HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.19,1.56), and in women up to age 45 years (using attained age models) (HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.01,1.93). In terms of recency of BBD, we found that the increased risk associated with BBD remained 21 years or more after the initial BBD diagnosis (HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.68). We found no evidence for multiplicative interactions with FRP, which implies that the increase in absolute risk associated with BBD depends on a woman's FRP (Table 1).
Conclusions: Women with a history of BBD have an increased risk of breast cancer that multiplies their underlying familial risk (FRP). These results could prove to be valuable for risk counseling and clinical management.
Table 1: Cumulative Incidence of Breast Cancer to age 45, 55, and 65 by BBD and underlying FRP as measured by 10-year BOADICEA score.AgeNo BBD, <3.4 %BBD, <3.4%No BBD, ≥3.4%BBD, ≥3.4%454.6 (3.8, 5.6)6.1(4.7, 8.0)12.1 (10.2, 14.5)16.1 (13.1, 19.7)557.4 (6.3, 8.7)9.8 (7.5, 12.8)19.1 (16.6, 22.0)25.0 (21.7, 28.9)659.7 (8.2, 11.5)12.8 (9.9, 16.5)24.5 (21.8, 27.6)31.8 (28.3, 35.7)
Citation Format: Zeinomar N, Phillips KA, Liao Y, MacInnis RJ, Dite GS, Daly MB, John EM, Andrulis IL, Buys SS, Hopper JL, Terry MB. Benign breast disease and breast cancer risk across the spectrum of familial risk using a prospective family study cohort (ProF-SC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-09-04.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Zeinomar
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - KA Phillips
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Y Liao
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - RJ MacInnis
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - GS Dite
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - MB Daly
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - EM John
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - IL Andrulis
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - SS Buys
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - JL Hopper
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - MB Terry
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Phillips KA, Milne RL, Bassett JK, Hopper JL, Buys SS, Daly MB, Hooning MJ, Mooij TM, Andrieu N, Antoniou AC, Rookus MA, Easton DF, Mary-Beth T. Abstract P3-10-01: Tamoxifen and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: An updated analysis of data from the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation consortium for research into familial breast cancer, the International BRCA1 and BRCA2 Carrier cohort study and the breast cancer family registry. Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-p3-10-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Findings from an analysis published in 2013, using combined retrospective and prospective data pooled from 3 cohort studies, were consistent with tamoxifen use after 1st breast cancer (BC) being associated with reduced CBC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, although the analysis of prospective data alone (based on 100 incident CBCs) gave inconclusive results. The association did not differ by estrogen receptor (ER) status of the 1st BC, suggesting that tamoxifen may be a useful secondary BC prevention agent for mutation carriers regardless of the ER status of their 1st BC. The aim of this updated analysis was to assess these associations after incorporating data from an additional 1,279 mutation carriers and with further follow-up providing 153 additional prospective CBC events. Methods: Eligible women were BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers diagnosed with unilateral BC since 1970 and with no other invasive cancer or tamoxifen use before their 1st BC. They were followed up from their 1st BC (or, for the prospective analysis, from the later of recruitment and 1st BC diagnosis) to the development of CBC or censoring (at contralateral mastectomy, death or loss to follow-up). Hazard ratios (HRs) for CBC associated with tamoxifen use were estimated using Cox regression, adjusting for year and age of diagnosis, country and bilateral oophorectomy; analyses were also stratified by ER status of the 1st BC. Results: This 2017 analysis includes 3,743 mutation carriers (BRCA1 2,343; BRCA2 1,400) with 21,436 person years of follow-up. Compared with the 2013 analysis, the strengths of the inverse associations were attenuated after including the additional data.
2017 2013 TotalCBCHR (95% CI) p-valueTotalCBCHR (95% CI) p-value NN NN BRCA1 Combined* Tam 1st BC No17615141.0012003381.00Yes5821290.77 (0.63-0.95) 0.01383350.38 (0.27-0.55) <0.001Prospective Tam 1st BC No9841321.00481541.00Yes369400.82 (0.57-1.20) 0.31176120.58 (0.29-1.13) 0.1BRCA2 Combined* Tam1st BC No6361661.004271151.00Yes764990.58 (0.44-0.76) <0.001454320.33 (0.22-0.50) <0.001Prospective Tam 1st BC No389461.00191211.00Yes497350.68 (0.40-1.15) 0.15235130.48 (0.22-1.05) 0.07*Combined = retrospective and prospective, N=number, BRCA1 & BRCA2=mutation carriers, Tam 1st BC= Tamoxifen for 1st Breast Cancer
In this updated prospective analysis, the inverse association between tamoxifen use for 1st BC and CBC risk was most apparent for women with ER positive 1st BC, especially for BRCA2 mutation carriers: BRCA1 ER positive HR=0.45 (95% CI 0.17-1.22, p=0.12), BRCA1 ER negative HR= 0.87 (95% CI 0.45-1.67, p=0.67), BRCA2 ER positive HR=0.33 (95% CI 0.15-0.74, p<0.007), BRCA2 ER negative HR=1.12 (95% CI 0.27-4.70, p=0.88).
Conclusions: Tamoxifen use for 1st BC might reduce CBC risk for mutation carriers, but predominantly for those with an ER positive 1st BC. These data do not support use of tamoxifen to prevent CBC for mutation carriers with ER negative BC.
Citation Format: Phillips K-A, Milne RL, Bassett JK, Hopper JL, Buys SS, Daly MB, Hooning MJ, Mooij TM, Andrieu N, Antoniou AC, Rookus MA, Easton DF, Mary-Beth T. Tamoxifen and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: An updated analysis of data from the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation consortium for research into familial breast cancer, the International BRCA1 and BRCA2 Carrier cohort study and the breast cancer family registry [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-10-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K-A Phillips
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - RL Milne
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - JK Bassett
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - JL Hopper
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - SS Buys
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - MB Daly
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - MJ Hooning
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - TM Mooij
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - N Andrieu
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - AC Antoniou
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - MA Rookus
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - DF Easton
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| | - T Mary-Beth
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Utah, U.S.; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Institut Curie, Paris, France; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Columbia University, New York
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Phillips KA, Lo L, Bressel M, Collins IM, Emery J, Weideman P, Keogh L, Steel E, Bickerstaffe A, Mann GB, Trainer A, Hopper JL, Antoniou AC, Cuzick J, Butow P. Abstract P4-11-02: Acceptability and usability of iPrevent, a web-based decision support tool for assessment and management of breast cancer risk. Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-p4-11-02] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: iPrevent estimates an individual's personal BC risk, using either the IBIS or BOADICEA algorithms, and provides tailored risk management information on screening, lifestyle modifications, risk-reducing surgery and risk-reducing medication. It is designed to be used collaboratively by women and their clinicians. The purpose of this pre-implementation pilot study was to assess the clinical usability and acceptability of the iPrevent prototype, and to identify barriers to clinical implementation. Exploratory aims investigated patients' BC worry, anxiety, risk perception and knowledge before and after using iPrevent. Methods: Eligible clinicians worked in primary care (PC), breast surgical (BS) or genetics clinics (GC). Their female patients were eligible if aged 18-70 years with no personal cancer history. Clinicians were familiarized with iPrevent using hypothetical cases, then actor scenarios, and lastly iPrevent was trialed with patients. All participants completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and an acceptability questionnaire 2 weeks after using iPrevent. Patients also completed the Lerman BC Worry Scale, Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and BC risk perception and prevention knowledge questionnaires before and 2 weeks after using the tool. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: 63 participants comprising 20 clinicians (median age 47 years, 8 PC, 6 BS, 6 GC) and 43 patients (median age 38 years, 16% high risk, 51% moderate risk, 33% average risk) were recruited. Usability was rated above average (SUS score >68) by most clinicians (68%) and patients (76%). Most (79% of clinicians, 81% of patients) agreed iPrevent was 'easy to use', although 10 (53%) clinicians and 10 (27%) patients reported that it was too long. Most clinicians (84%) and patients (86%) found iPrevent 'very' or 'somewhat' helpful. 89% of participants reported that iPrevent provided the right amount of information. 5% reported to 'rarely' or 'not at all' worry about BC before iPrevent, and 29% after use. 25% of patients reported less impact of worrying about BC after iPrevent, 47% were unchanged and 28% reported more impact of worrying about BC after iPrevent use. State anxiety remained the same. 87% of patients correctly reported their risk category after using iPrevent® compared with 40% before. BC prevention knowledge improved for most questions. Conclusions: iPrevent has high usability and acceptability. Exploratory analyses suggest that iPrevent may also improve patients' BC risk perception and knowledge without adversely affecting anxiety or BC worry. Because concerns about length could be a barrier to implementation, data entry has been abbreviated in the modified version of iPrevent that will be publically available.
Citation Format: Phillips K-A, Lo L, Bressel M, Collins IM, Emery J, Weideman P, Keogh L, Steel E, Bickerstaffe A, Mann GB, Trainer A, Hopper JL, Antoniou AC, Cuzick J, Butow P. Acceptability and usability of iPrevent, a web-based decision support tool for assessment and management of breast cancer risk [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-02.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K-A Phillips
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - L Lo
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - M Bressel
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - IM Collins
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - J Emery
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - P Weideman
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - L Keogh
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - E Steel
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - A Bickerstaffe
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - GB Mann
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - A Trainer
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - JL Hopper
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - AC Antoniou
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - J Cuzick
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| | - P Butow
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; University of Cambridge; Queen Mary University of London; University of Sydney
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Terry MB, Phillips KA, Daly MB, Andrulis IL, Liao Y, Ma X, Zeinomar N, MacInnis RJ, Dite GS, John EM, Buys SS, Hopper JL. Abstract P6-09-01: Risk-reducing oophorectomy and breast cancer risk across the spectrum of familial risk using a prospective family study cohort (ProF-SC). Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-p6-09-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Whether risk-reducing salpingo oophorectomy (RRSO) reduces breast cancer risk in addition to reducing ovarian cancer risk is controversial with some arguing that the previous evidence of a reduction in breast cancer risk from RRSO was due to bias. Evidence from independent prospective cohorts of high-risk women is needed to resolve this controversy.
Methods: Using a prospective family study cohort of 17,810 women unaffected with breast cancer at baseline, we examined the association between RRSO and breast cancer risk using Cox Proportional Hazards models. We compared results estimating RRSO as a non-time-dependent variable to results treating RRSO as a time-dependent variable, because failing to account for the time-varying nature of a covariate person- time prior to RRSO, should it exist, will incorrectly attribute the cancer-free person-time to RRSO. We separately examined the association with RRSO in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and non-carriers, and further performed gene-stratified analyses in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 only. We also assessed multiplicative interactions with underlying familial risk profile (FRP), defined as total lifetime risk estimated from the Breast Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model.
Results: During a median 10.7 years of follow-up (maximum 23.7 years), we observed 1,040 incident cases of breast cancer with an average age at diagnosis of 55.8 years and average age at enrollment into the cohort of 46.8 years. A total of 2434 (14%) women reported at baseline having a RRSO. We observed decreased risk of breast cancer associated with RRSO for both BRCA1(N= 650) and BRCA2(N=557) mutation carriers when RRSO was treated as a fixed covariate (HR= 0.60, 95% CI=0.40-0.92 and HR= 0.40, 95%CI = 0.23-0.69, respectively). In contrast, when we treated RRSO as a time-varying covariate, for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, we no longer observed a decreased risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (HR= 1.67, 95% CI=1.05-2.67 and HR= 0.97, 95%CI = 0.53-1.80, respectively). There was no association between RRSO and breast cancer risk for non-carriers (N=16,603), whether we treated RRSO as a fixed or time varying covariate (HR= 0.88, 95% CI=0.72-1.08 and HR= 1.06, 95%CI = 0.85-1.30, respectively).
Conclusions: Our findings provide an independent replication that the reduced risk of breast cancer previously observed in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier women may be from bias in counting person-time. Clinical management of high-risk women should counsel based on the reduced risk of ovarian cancer from RRSO, but not breast cancer.
Citation Format: Terry MB, Phillips KA, Daly MB, Andrulis IL, Liao Y, Ma X, Zeinomar N, MacInnis RJ, Dite GS, John EM, Buys SS, Hopper JL. Risk-reducing oophorectomy and breast cancer risk across the spectrum of familial risk using a prospective family study cohort (ProF-SC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-09-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- MB Terry
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - KA Phillips
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - MB Daly
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - IL Andrulis
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Y Liao
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - X Ma
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - N Zeinomar
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - RJ MacInnis
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - GS Dite
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - EM John
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - SS Buys
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - JL Hopper
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Moore HCF, Unger JM, Phillips KA, Boyle F, Hitre E, Moseley A, Porter D, Francis PA, Goldstein LJ, Gomez HL, Vallejos CS, Partridge AH, Dakhil SR, Garcia AA, Gralow J, Lombard JM, Forbes JF, Martino S, Barlow WE, Fabian CJ, Minasian L, Meyskens FL, Gelber RD, Hortobagyi GN, Albain KS. Abstract P1-15-01: Final analysis of SWOG S0230/Prevention of early menopause study (POEMS). Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-p1-15-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The SWOG S0230/POEMS study demonstrated a 70% reduction in ovarian failure (OF) with goserelin coadministration during chemotherapy (CT) for ER-negative early breast cancer (BC; Moore H et al, NEJM 2015). Goserelin use was also associated with more pregnancies as well as favorable disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Here we report the final analysis after 5 years of follow-up.
METHODS: Premenopausal women age <50 with stage I-IIIA ER/PR-negative BC to be treated with cyclophosphamide-containing CT were randomized to receive standard CT with or without monthly goserelin 3.6 mg SQ starting at least 1 week prior to the first CT dose. The primary endpoint was OF at 2-years, defined as amenorrhea for the prior 6 months and post-menopausal FSH. Secondary endpoints included pregnancies, disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). An unplanned analysis of rate of menses recovery at 2 years (presence of menses within 6 months of the 2 year time-point or pregnancy within the first 2 years) was also conducted. OF and pregnancy endpoints were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for stratification factors (age and CT regimen); DFS and OS were examined using multivariable Cox regression, adjusting for stratification factors and stage. Two-sided p-values are reported unless otherwise specified in accordance with protocol design.
RESULTS: Among 257 randomized participants, 218 were eligible and evaluable. One hundred thirty-six eligible and evaluable patients had OF data and 186 had menstrual data. Median age was 37.7 years. Among the 136 patients with OF data, the odds ratio (OR) for OF at 2 years was 0.30 (95% CI 0.1-0.98; one-sided p=0.023) comparing CT with goserelin to standard CT alone. Among 186 patients with menstrual data, 80% recovered menses by 2 years in the goserelin arm compared with 70% in the standard arm (OR=1.74, 95% CI: 0.83-3.66, p=0.15). Pregnancies, DFS and OS are reported for all 218 eligible and evaluable patients. With a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 22% of patients in the goserelin group had at least one pregnancy compared with 12% in the standard group (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.08-5.26, p=0.03). Cumulative incidence of pregnancy at 5 years is 23% in the goserelin arm compared with 12% in the standard group. Five-year Kaplan-Meier DFS estimates are 88% in the goserelin arm compared with 79% in the standard arm (HR=0.50, p=0.05). Five-year OS is 92% with goserelin versus 83% in the standard arm (HR=0.47, p=0.06). Including all 257 randomized patients, HR for DFS and OS are 0.67 and 0.48 (p=0.18 and p=0.05).
CONCLUSION: Ovarian suppression with goserelin during chemotherapy for hormone receptor-negative breast cancer reduces OF risk and, after 5 years of follow-up, continues to be associated with more pregnancies and improved survival compared with chemotherapy without goserelin.
SUPPORT: NIH/NCI grant awards CA189974, CA180888, CA180819, CA074362; AstraZeneca
Citation Format: Moore HCF, Unger JM, Phillips K-A, Boyle F, Hitre E, Moseley A, Porter D, Francis PA, Goldstein LJ, Gomez HL, Vallejos CS, Partridge AH, Dakhil SR, Garcia AA, Gralow J, Lombard JM, Forbes JF, Martino S, Barlow WE, Fabian CJ, Minasian L, Meyskens FL, Gelber RD, Hortobagyi GN, Albain KS. Final analysis of SWOG S0230/Prevention of early menopause study (POEMS) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-15-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- HCF Moore
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - JM Unger
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - K-A Phillips
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - F Boyle
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - E Hitre
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - A Moseley
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - D Porter
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - PA Francis
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - LJ Goldstein
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - HL Gomez
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - CS Vallejos
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - AH Partridge
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - SR Dakhil
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - AA Garcia
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - J Gralow
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - JM Lombard
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - JF Forbes
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - S Martino
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - WE Barlow
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - CJ Fabian
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - L Minasian
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - FL Meyskens
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - RD Gelber
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - GN Hortobagyi
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| | - KS Albain
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; SWOG Statiscial Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Aukland Regional Cancer Center and Blood Service, Auckland, New Zealand; Fox Chace Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Instituto de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Oncosalud SAC, Lima, Peru; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, NSW, Australia; Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; University of Kansas, Westwood, KS; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; University of California at Irvine, Orange, CA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Phillips KA, Trosman JR, Weldon CB, Douglas MP. New Medicare Coverage Policy for Next-Generation Tumor Sequencing: A Key Shift in Coverage Criteria With Broad Implications Beyond Medicare. JCO Precis Oncol 2018; 2. [PMID: 31073549 DOI: 10.1200/po.18.00206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- K A Phillips
- University of California at San Francisco, Department of Clinical Pharmacy.,Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS).,UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy.,UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | - J R Trosman
- University of California at San Francisco, Department of Clinical Pharmacy.,Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS).,Center for Business Models in Healthcare
| | - C B Weldon
- Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS).,Center for Business Models in Healthcare
| | - M P Douglas
- University of California at San Francisco, Department of Clinical Pharmacy.,Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS)
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Terry MB, Phillips KA, Liao Y, MacInnis RJ, Dite GS, Daly MB, John EM, Andrulis IL, Buys SS, Buchsbaum R, Hopper JL. Abstract P2-06-01: Non-genetic risk factors improve accuracy of breast cancer risk assessment for women at high familial risk: Comparison of risk estimation models using the prospective family study cohort (ProF-SC). Cancer Res 2017. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-p2-06-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- MB Terry
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - K-A Phillips
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Y Liao
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - RJ MacInnis
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - GS Dite
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - MB Daly
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - EM John
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - IL Andrulis
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - SS Buys
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - R Buchsbaum
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - JL Hopper
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Terry MB, Dite GS, Phillips KA, Andrulis IL, John EM, Daly MB, Buys SS, Hopper JL. Abstract P5-08-05: Prospective family cohort analyses of gene-environment interactions in breast cancer: Body mass index. Cancer Res 2017. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-p5-08-05] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
This abstract was not presented at the symposium.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- MB Terry
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - GS Dite
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - K-A Phillips
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - IL Andrulis
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - EM John
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - MB Daly
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - SS Buys
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - JL Hopper
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY; The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA; Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Schrijver LH, Olsson H, Antoniou AC, Milne RL, Phillips KA, Andrieu N, Easton DF, Goldgar D, Engel C, Kast K, Roos-Blom MJ, Mooij TM, Hopper JL, van Leeuwen FE, Terry MB, Rookus MA. Abstract P5-08-09: Use of oral contraceptives and risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: An international prospective cohort study; for the studies of EMBRACE, GENEPSO, HEBON, kConFab and BCFR. Cancer Res 2017. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-p5-08-09] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- LH Schrijver
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - H Olsson
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - AC Antoniou
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - RL Milne
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - K-A Phillips
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - N Andrieu
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - DF Easton
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - D Goldgar
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - C Engel
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - K Kast
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - M-J Roos-Blom
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - TM Mooij
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - JL Hopper
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - FE van Leeuwen
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - M-B Terry
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| | - MA Rookus
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Lund University, Lund, Sweden; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Institute Curie, PSL Research University, INSERM, U900, Paris, France; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Colombia University, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Tiller K, Meiser B, Gaff C, Kirk J, Dudding T, Phillips KA, Friedlander M, Tucker K. A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Aid for Women at Increased Risk of Ovarian Cancer. Med Decis Making 2016; 26:360-72. [PMID: 16855125 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x06290486] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Purpose. To carry out a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women at increased risk of developing ovarian cancer to facilitate decision making regarding risk management options. Methods. This randomized trial, conducted through 6 familial cancer centers, compared the efficacy of tailored decision aid to that of a general educational pamphlet in preparing women for decision making. Participants. 131 women with a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer or of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Outcome measures. Decisional conflict, knowledge about ovarian cancer risk management options, and psychological adjustment were reassessed at 3 time points. Results. Compared to those who received the pamphlet (control), women who received the decision aid (intervention) were significantly more likely to report a high degree of acceptability of the educational material at both follow-up assessment time points. Findings indicate neither group experienced significant increases in psychological distress at either follow-up assessment time points relative to baseline. Two weeks postintervention, the intervention group demonstrated a significant decrease in decisional conflict compared to the control group (t = 2.4, P < 0.025) and a trend for a greater increase in knowledge about risk management options (t = 2.1, P = 0.037). No significant differences were found 6 months postintervention. Conclusion. This form of educational material is successful in increasing knowledge about risk management options and in reducing decisional conflict in the shorter term. The decision aid is an effective and acceptable strategy for patient education to facilitate an inclusive and informed decision-making process about managing ovarian cancer risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Tiller
- Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Affiliation(s)
- P Butow
- Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CeMPED) Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - K A Phillips
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology Centre for Molecular, Environmental, Genetic and Analytic Epidemiology, School of Population Health Department of Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Phillips KA, Menard W, Quinn E, Didie ER, Stout RL. A 4-year prospective observational follow-up study of course and predictors of course in body dysmorphic disorder. Psychol Med 2013; 43:1109-1117. [PMID: 23171833 DOI: 10.1017/s0033291712001730] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This report prospectively examines the 4-year course, and predictors of course, of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), a common and often severe disorder. No prior studies have prospectively examined the course of BDD in individuals ascertained for BDD. Method The Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation (LIFE) assessed weekly BDD symptoms and treatment received over 4 years for 166 broadly ascertained adults and adolescents with current BDD at intake. Kaplan-Meier life tables were constructed for time to remission and relapse. Full remission was defined as minimal or no BDD symptoms, and partial remission as less than full DSM-IV criteria, for at least 8 consecutive weeks. Full relapse and partial relapse were defined as meeting full BDD criteria for at least 2 consecutive weeks after attaining full or partial remission respectively. Cox proportional hazards regression examined predictors of remission and relapse. RESULTS Over 4 years, the cumulative probability was 0.20 for full remission and 0.55 for full or partial remission from BDD. A lower likelihood of full or partial remission was predicted by more severe BDD symptoms at intake, longer lifetime duration of BDD, and being an adult. Among partially or fully remitted subjects, the cumulative probability was 0.42 for subsequent full relapse and 0.63 for subsequent full or partial relapse. More severe BDD at intake and earlier age at BDD onset predicted full or partial relapse. Eighty-eight percent of subjects received mental health treatment during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS In this observational study, BDD tended to be chronic. Several intake variables predicted greater chronicity of BDD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K A Phillips
- Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI 02903, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Phythian CJ, Phillips KA, Wall R. Farmer perceptions of the prevalence and management of Psoroptes ovis infestation in sheep flocks in southwest England. Vet Rec 2013; 172:290. [PMID: 23396535 DOI: 10.1136/vr.101412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- C J Phythian
- School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Dolberry Building, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Collins IM, Milne RL, McLachlan SA, Friedlander M, Birch KE, Weideman PC, Hopper JL, Phillips KA. Abstract P4-13-10: Do BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have an earlier natural menopause than their non-carrier relatives: A study from the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium For Research Into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab). Cancer Res 2012. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs12-p4-13-10] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited data from the in vitro fertilisation setting suggest that germline BRCA1 mutations are associated with occult primary ovarian insufficiency. We examined whether carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation have earlier natural menopause than their non-carrier relatives.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible subjects were female mutation carriers and tested non-carriers from families segregating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations enrolled in KConFab. Women who had not been tested for the family mutation and those with primary amenorrhoea were excluded. Data were self-reported using uniform questionnaires completed at cohort entry and every 3 years thereafter. Age at natural menopause (NM) was defined as age at cessation of menses for ≥ 12 months in the absence of other causes. Cox proportional hazards analysis was applied, modelling time in years from birth to NM, adjusting for year of birth (continuous), body mass index (continuous), ever regular cigarette smoking (no, yes), and ever regular alcohol use (no, yes). Analysis time was censored at the earliest of: cessation of menses for 12 months in the absence of other reasons (natural menopause), last follow-up, pelvic surgery including oophorectomy or hysterectomy, commencement of hormone replacement therapy or Tamoxifen as a risk reducing medication, or any cancer diagnosis. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated as a measure of how rapidly mutation carriers reach natural menopause relative to non-carriers.
RESULTS: No difference was observed in the rate at which carriers and non-carriers went through natural menopause, regardless of the gene mutated in the families. The adjusted hazard ratio estimates were 0.97, (95% CI 0.69–1.35, p = 0.8) for BRCA1 mutation carriers versus non-carriers and 1.02, (95%CI 0.72–1.44, p = 0.9) for BRCA2 mutation carriers versus non-carriers.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found no evidence that BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers do reach natural menopause at an earlier age than their non-carrier relatives.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-13-10.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- IM Collins
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Australia; St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia
| | - RL Milne
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Australia; St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia
| | - SA McLachlan
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Australia; St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia
| | - M Friedlander
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Australia; St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia
| | - KE Birch
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Australia; St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia
| | - PC Weideman
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Australia; St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia
| | - JL Hopper
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Australia; St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia
| | - K-A Phillips
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Australia; St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Ribi K, Aldridge J, Phillips KA, Thompson A, Harvey V, Thürlimann B, Cardoso F, Pagani O, Coates AS, Goldhirsch A, Price KN, Gelber RD, Bernhard J. Subjective cognitive complaints one year after ceasing adjuvant endocrine treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2012; 106:1618-25. [PMID: 22531635 PMCID: PMC3349183 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.156] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the BIG 1-98 trial objective cognitive function improved in postmenopausal women 1 year after cessation of adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer. This report evaluates changes in subjective cognitive function (SCF). METHODS One hundred postmenopausal women, randomised to receive 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, letrozole, or a sequence of the two, completed self-reported measures on SCF, psychological distress, fatigue, and quality of life during the fifth year of trial treatment (year 5) and 1 year after treatment completion (year 6). Changes between years 5 and 6 were evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Subjective cognitive function and its correlates were explored. RESULTS Subjective cognitive function and the other patient-reported outcomes did not change significantly after cessation of endocrine therapy with the exception of improvement for hot flushes (P=0.0005). No difference in changes was found between women taking tamoxifen or letrozole. Subjective cognitive function was the only psychosocial outcome with a substantial correlation between year 5 and 6 (Spearman's R=0.80). Correlations between SCF and the other patient-reported outcomes were generally low. CONCLUSION Improved objective cognitive function but not SCF occur following cessation of adjuvant endocrine therapy in the BIG 1-98 trial. The substantial correlation of SCF scores over time may represent a stable attribute.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Ribi
- IBCSG Coordinating Center, Effingerstr. 40, Bern 3008, Switzerland
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Peate M, Meiser B, Cheah BC, Saunders C, Butow P, Thewes B, Hart R, Phillips KA, Hickey M, Friedlander M. Making hard choices easier: a prospective, multicentre study to assess the efficacy of a fertility-related decision aid in young women with early-stage breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2012; 106:1053-61. [PMID: 22415294 PMCID: PMC3304428 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.61] [Citation(s) in RCA: 118] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2011] [Revised: 01/27/2012] [Accepted: 02/06/2012] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fertility is a priority for many young women with breast cancer. Women need to be informed about interventions to retain fertility before chemotherapy so as to make good quality decisions. This study aimed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of a fertility-related decision aid (DA). METHODS A total of 120 newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer patients from 19 Australian oncology clinics, aged 18-40 years and desired future fertility, were assessed on decisional conflict, knowledge, decision regret, and satisfaction about fertility-related treatment decisions. These were measured at baseline, 1 and 12 months, and were examined using linear mixed effects models. RESULTS Compared with usual care, women who received the DA had reduced decisional conflict (β=-1.51; 95%CI: -2.54 to 0.48; P=0.004) and improved knowledge (β=0.09; 95%CI: 0.01-0.16; P=0.02), after adjusting for education, desire for children and baseline uncertainty. The DA was associated with reduced decisional regret at 1 year (β=-3.73; 95%CI: -7.12 to -0.35; P=0.031), after adjusting for education. Women who received the DA were more satisfied with the information received on the impact of cancer treatment on fertility (P<0.001), fertility options (P=0.005), and rated it more helpful (P=0.002), than those who received standard care. CONCLUSION These findings support widespread use of this DA shortly after diagnosis (before chemotherapy) among younger breast cancer patients who have not completed their families.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Peate
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of NSW, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Kiely BE, Friedlander ML, Milne RL, Stanhope L, Russell P, Jenkins MA, Weideman P, McLachlan SA, Grant P, Hopper JL, Phillips KA. Adequacy of risk-reducing gynaecologic surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers and other women at high risk of pelvic serous cancer. Fam Cancer 2012; 10:505-14. [PMID: 21424757 PMCID: PMC3175342 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-011-9435-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to describe the type of risk-reducing gynaecologic surgery (RRGS) and the extent of pathological evaluation being undertaken for Australasian women at high familial risk of pelvic serous cancer. Surgical and pathology reports were reviewed for women with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations, or a family history of breast and ovarian cancer, who underwent RRGS between 1998 and 2008. "Adequate" surgery was defined as complete removal of all ovarian and extra-uterine fallopian tube tissue. "Adequate" pathology was defined as paraffin embedding of all removed ovarian and tubal tissue. Predictors of adequacy were assessed using logistic regression. There were 201 women, including 173 mutation carriers, who underwent RRGS. Of these, 91% had adequate surgery and 23% had adequate pathology. Independent predictors of adequate surgery were surgeon type (OR = 20; 95% CI 2-167; P = 0.005 for gynaecologic oncologists versus general gynaecologists), more recent surgery (OR = 1.33/year; 95% CI 1.07-1.67; P = 0.012) and younger patient age (OR = 0.93/year of age; 95% CI 0.87-0.99; P = 0.028). Independent predictors of adequate pathology were more recent surgery (OR = 1.26/year; 95% CI 1.06-1.49; P = 0.008) and surgeon type (OR = 3.1; 95% CI 1.4-6.7; P = 0.004 for gynaecologic oncologists versus general gynaecologists). Four serous ovarian cancers and one endometrioid endometrial cancer were detected during surgery or pathological examination. In conclusion Australasian women attending a specialist gynaecologic oncologist for RRGS are most likely to have adequate surgery and pathological examination. Additional education of clinicians and consumers is needed to ensure optimal surgery and pathology in these women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B E Kiely
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Locked Bag 1, A'Beckett St, Melbourne, VIC, 8006, Australia
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Phillips KA, Milne RL, Rookus MA, Goldgar D, Friedlander M, McLachlan SA, Buys S, Antoniou AC, Birch K, Terry MB, Easton DF, Weideman P, Daly M, Andrieu N, John EM, Hooning MJ, Andrulis IL, Caldes T, Olsson H, Hopper JL. Association of tamoxifen use and reduced risk of contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2012. [PMCID: PMC3395384 DOI: 10.1186/1897-4287-10-s2-a11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
|
24
|
Meiser B, Price MA, Butow PN, Karatas J, Charles M, Phillips KA. Are women at high risk for serous gynaecological cancer (SGC) opting for risk-reducing salphingo-oophorectomy motivated by high levels of anxiety and risk perceptions? Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2012. [PMCID: PMC3395335 DOI: 10.1186/1897-4287-10-s2-a5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
|
25
|
Phillips KA, Sherwood CC. Age-related differences in corpus callosum area of capuchin monkeys. Neuroscience 2011; 202:202-8. [PMID: 22173013 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.11.074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2011] [Revised: 11/30/2011] [Accepted: 11/30/2011] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) are New World primates with relatively large brains for their body size. The developmental trajectories of several brain regions-including cortical white matter, frontal lobe white matter, and basal ganglia nuclei-are similar to humans. Additionally, capuchins have independently evolved several behavioral and anatomical characteristics in common with humans and chimpanzees-including complex manipulative abilities, use of tools, and the use of precision grips-making them interesting species for studies of comparative brain morphology and organization. Here, we report the first investigation into the development of the corpus callosum (CC) and its regional subdivisions in capuchins. CC development was quantified using high-resolution structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images from 39 socially reared subjects (male n=22; female n=18) ranging in age from 4 days (infancy) to 20 years (middle adulthood). The total area of the CC and the subdivisions of the genu, rostral midbody, medial midbody, caudal midbody, and splenium were traced from the midsagittal section. Total CC area displayed significant differences across this time span and was best explained by quadratic growth. Sustained linear growth was observed in the subdivisions of the genu, rostral midbody, and splenium; sustained quadratic growth was seen in the subdivision of the medial midbody. Differences in growth were not detected in the subdivision of the caudal midbody. Females had a larger raw area of the total CC and of the medial midbody and caudal midbody throughout the lifespan. Our results indicate that capuchins show continued white matter development beyond adolescence in regions related to cognitive and motor development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K A Phillips
- Department of Psychology, Trinity University, One Trinity Place, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Harvey SL, Milne RL, McLachlan SA, Friedlander ML, Birch KE, Weideman P, Goldgar D, Hopper JL, Phillips KA. Prospective study of breast cancer risk for mutation negative women from BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation positive families. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 130:1057-61. [PMID: 21850394 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1733-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2011] [Accepted: 08/06/2011] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Published studies have reached contradictory conclusions regarding breast cancer risk for women from families segregating a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who do not carry the family-specific mutation. Accurate estimation of breast cancer risk is crucial for appropriate counselling regarding risk management. The aim of this study is to prospectively assess whether breast cancer risk for mutation negative women from families segregating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations is greater than for women in the general population. Eligible women were 722 first-, second- and third-degree relatives of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier from 224 mutation positive (128 BRCA1, 96 BRCA2) families, had no personal cancer history at baseline, and had been tested and found not to carry the family-specific mutation. Self-reported family history of cancer, preventive interventions and verified cancer diagnoses were collected at baseline, and every 3 years thereafter. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (range 0.1-12.4 years). Time at risk of breast cancer was censored at cancer diagnosis or risk-reducing surgery. Standardised incidence ratios (SIR) were estimated by comparing observed to population incidences of invasive breast cancer using Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality Books. Six cases of invasive breast cancer were observed. The estimated SIRs were 1.14 (95% CI: 0.51-2.53) overall (n = 722), 1.29 (95% CI: 0.58-2.88) when restricted to first- and second-degree relatives of an affected mutation carrier (n = 442) and 0.48 (95% CI: 0.12-1.93) when restricted to those with no family history of breast cancer in the non-mutation carrying parental lineage (n = 424). There was no evidence that mutation negative women from families segregating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are at increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this being the largest prospective cohort to assess this issue, moderately increased breast cancer risk (2-fold) cannot be ruled out.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S L Harvey
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Locked Bag 1, A'Beckett St, Melbourne, VIC 8006, Australia
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Pollard A, Henderson M, Phillips KA, Dutu G, Murnane A, Bryant C. Abstract PD08-10: Breast Cancer Survivors Healthy Lifestyle Study: A Randomised Controlled Pilot To Test the Effects of a Behavioural Intervention (Information and Advice) on Uptake of Physical Activity in Breast Cancer Survivors. Cancer Res 2010. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs10-pd08-10] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Physical activity (PA) is a potentially modifiable behavioural risk factor for breast cancer recurrence. It declines during treatment, and most breast cancer survivors do not engage in PA at recommended levels. Effective interventions to increase PA after primary treatment for early stage breast cancer are needed.
Materials and Methods: Between November 2008 and January 2010, women who had completed primary treatment for early stage breast cancer, and not currently meeting PA guidelines, were randomly assigned to one of three conditions; 1) control group (UC) received a self-care fact sheet, or an intervention group 2) which received a theory based information booklet, diary and pedometer (INFO), or an alternate intervention group 3) which also received theory based information, diary and pedometer combined with a behavioural planning intervention (INFO+BPI). Measures (self reported PA, six minute walk test, mood, and quality of life) were collected at baseline (T1) and at 12 weeks (T2). The primary endpoint was self reported minutes of moderate to strenuous PA per week, secondary endpoints included mood and quality of life. A linear mixed models analysis approach was used to analyse data.
Results: 118 women were randomized and 107 completed T2 measures. The average age of participants was 54.6 years (Range 32-74), 31.8% had stage I disease, 38.3% had stage II disease, 15% had stage IIIa disease and 15% had DCIS, 58% had received adjuvant chemotherapy. Motivation (intention) to increase PA did not differ between groups at T1. There were no differences between groups in PA at T1. PA levels increased in all groups between T1 and T2 (P<0.0001), but PA in the two intervention groups increased significantly more than in controls (+113.9 and +139.9 min per week increase in INFO and INFO + BPI respectively compared to +61.3 min per week in UC), such that at T2, there was a statistically significant difference between the intervention groups versus controls with +65 min per week increase on average (95% CI 25.3 to 104.8, p=0.02). There was no significant difference between the two intervention groups, with +25.9 min difference on average (95% CI -73.4 to 21.6, p=0.25). There were no significant differences in quality of life, anxiety or depression between groups at T1. No adverse events were reported.
Discussion: Minimally intensive, theory-based interventions increased PA participation over a 12 week period in this single centre study. The addition of a behavioural planning intervention to the INFO intervention did not significantly improve PA participation. Results of a T3, 12 month, follow up will be important in determining sustainability of the behaviour change following these interventions. A larger multicentre study is warranted to confirm the efficacy of the intervention.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD08-10.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Pollard
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - M Henderson
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - K-A Phillips
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - G Dutu
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - A Murnane
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - C. Bryant
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Abstract
The distinction between normality and psychopathology has long been subject to debate. DSM-III and DSM-IV provided a definition of mental disorder to help clinicians address this distinction. As part of the process of developing DSM-V, researchers have reviewed the concept of mental disorder and emphasized the need for additional work in this area. Here we review the DSM-IV definition of mental disorder and propose some changes. The approach taken here arguably takes a middle course through some of the relevant conceptual debates. We agree with the view that no definition perfectly specifies precise boundaries for the concept of mental/psychiatric disorder, but in line with a view that the nomenclature can improve over time, we aim here for a more scientifically valid and more clinically useful definition.
Collapse
|
29
|
Balsters JH, Cussans E, Diedrichsen J, Phillips KA, Preuss TM, Rilling JK, Ramnani N. Evolution of the cerebellar cortex: the selective expansion of prefrontal-projecting cerebellar lobules. Neuroimage 2010; 49:2045-52. [PMID: 19857577 PMCID: PMC6436533 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 145] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2009] [Revised: 10/13/2009] [Accepted: 10/14/2009] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
It has been suggested that interconnected brain areas evolve in tandem because evolutionary pressures act on complete functional systems rather than on individual brain areas. The cerebellar cortex has reciprocal connections with both the prefrontal cortex and motor cortex, forming independent loops with each. Specifically, in capuchin monkeys cerebellar cortical lobules Crus I and Crus II connect with prefrontal cortex, whereas the primary motor cortex connects with cerebellar lobules V, VI, VIIb, and VIIIa. Comparisons of extant primate species suggest that the prefrontal cortex has expanded more than cortical motor areas in human evolution. Given the enlargement of the prefrontal cortex relative to motor cortex in humans, our hypothesis would predict corresponding volumetric increases in the parts of the cerebellum connected to the prefrontal cortex, relative to cerebellar lobules connected to the motor cortex. We tested the hypothesis by comparing the volumes of cerebellar lobules in structural MRI scans in capuchins, chimpanzees and humans. The fractions of cerebellar volume occupied by Crus I and Crus II were significantly larger in humans compared to chimpanzees and capuchins. Our results therefore support the hypothesis that in the cortico-cerebellar system, functionally related structures evolve in concert with each other. The evolutionary expansion of these prefrontal-projecting cerebellar territories might contribute to the evolution of the higher cognitive functions of humans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J H Balsters
- Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Ikediobi ON, Shin J, Nussbaum RL, Phillips KA, Walsh JM, Ladabaum U, Marshall D. Addressing the challenges of the clinical application of pharmacogenetic testing. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009; 86:28-31. [PMID: 19536122 DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2009.30] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
Pharmacogenomics aims to use molecular genetic markers to predict treatment outcome. Indeed, within the past decade there has been a rapid emergence of pharmacogenetic tests to aid clinicians in predicting efficacy or toxicity for some drugs. Despite this major advance in therapeutic drug management, there remain challenges to the appropriate use of pharmacogenetic tests. We discuss UGT1A1 pharmacogenetic testing to illustrate the knowledge gaps impeding widespread use of pharmacogenetic tests in the clinical setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- O N Ikediobi
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Phillips KA, Kapfenberger N, Hopkins WD. A comparative study of corpus callosum size and signal intensity in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Neuroscience 2009; 159:1119-25. [PMID: 19356692 PMCID: PMC2678549 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.01.061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2008] [Revised: 01/25/2009] [Accepted: 01/27/2009] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
The evolution of corpus callosum (CC) was integral to the development of higher cognitive processes and hemispheric specialization. An examination of CC morphology and organization across different primate species will further our understanding of the evolution of these specified functions. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a non-invasive technique to measure CC size and to approximate the degree of myelination in the corpus callosum, we report differences in CC morphology and organization in capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees, two divergent primate species that have independently evolved several behavioral and anatomical characteristics. Species differences in CC morphology were detected, with chimpanzees having a larger overall CC compared to capuchin monkeys. Additionally, chimpanzees had the genu as the largest subdivision; in capuchin monkeys, the genu and splenium were the largest subdivisions. Sex differences in signal intensity were detected; capuchin monkey males had higher signal intensity values whereas chimpanzee females had higher signal intensity values. Thus, while capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees show some similarity in patterns of CC morphology, these species differ significantly in the regional organization of the CC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K A Phillips
- Department of Psychology and Biology, Hiram College, 11715 Garfield Road, Hiram, OH 44234, USA.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Phillips KA, Jenkins MA, Lindeman GJ, McLachlan SA, McKinley JM, Weideman PC, Hopper JL, Friedlander ML. Risk-reducing surgery, screening and chemoprevention practices of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study. Clin Genet 2006; 70:198-206. [PMID: 16922722 DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2006.00665.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
This study prospectively evaluated the utilization of cancer risk management strategies in a multi-institutional cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers using a self-report questionnaire. Of 142 unaffected female mutation carriers, 70 (49%) had elected to receive their mutation result. Of those who knew their mutation result, 11% underwent bilateral mastectomy (BM), 29% had bilateral oophorectomy (BO), 78% performed regular breast self-examination (BSE), and 80%, 89%, 67%, and 0% had at least annual clinical breast examination (CBE), mammography, transvaginal ultrasound (TVU), and CA125, respectively. A further 20%, 7%, 0%, 21%, and 75%, respectively, reported never having had these tests. For women who elected not to receive their mutation result, 0% underwent BM, 6% underwent BO, and 77%, 42%, 56%, 7%, and 0% had regular BSE, CBE, mammography, TVU, and CA125, respectively. Only one woman used chemoprevention outside a clinical trial. Uptake of prophylactic surgery and screening was associated with knowing one's mutation status (for all behaviors except BSE), age (for BO and CBE) and residence (for mammography). In this cohort, the minority of mutation carriers utilized risk-reducing surgery or chemoprevention and a substantial minority were not undergoing regular cancer-screening tests.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K-A Phillips
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne Department of Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital, Victoria, NSW, Australia.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Phillips KA, Menard W, Pagano ME, Fay C, Stout RL. Delusional versus nondelusional body dysmorphic disorder: clinical features and course of illness. J Psychiatr Res 2006; 40:95-104. [PMID: 16229856 PMCID: PMC2809249 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2005.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 108] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2005] [Revised: 07/27/2005] [Accepted: 08/04/2005] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
DSM-IV's classification of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is controversial. Whereas BDD is classified as a somatoform disorder, its delusional variant is classified as a psychotic disorder. However, the relationship between these BDD variants has received little investigation. In this study, we compared BDD's delusional and nondelusional variants in 191 subjects using reliable and valid measures that assessed a variety of domains. Subjects with delusional BDD were similar to those with nondelusional BDD in terms of most variables, including most demographic features, BDD characteristics, most measures of functional impairment and quality of life, comorbidity, and family history. Delusional and nondelusional subjects also had a similar probability of remitting from BDD over 1 year of prospective follow-up. However, delusional subjects had significantly lower educational attainment, were more likely to have attempted suicide, had poorer social functioning on several measures, were more likely to have drug abuse or dependence, were less likely to currently be receiving mental health treatment, and had more severe BDD symptoms. However, when controlling for BDD symptom severity, the two groups differed only in terms of educational attainment. These findings indicate that BDD's delusional and nondelusional forms have many more similarities than differences, although on several measures delusional subjects evidenced greater morbidity, which appeared accounted for by their more severe BDD symptoms. Thus, these findings offer some support for the hypothesis that these two BDD variants may constitute the same disorder. Additional studies are needed to examine this issue, which may have relevance for other disorders with both delusional and nondelusional variants in DSM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K A Phillips
- Butler Hospital, 345 Blackstone Boulevard, Providence, RI 02906, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Thewes B, Meiser B, Taylor A, Phillips KA, Pendlebury S, Capp A, Dalley D, Goldstein D, Baber R, Friedlander ML. Fertility- and menopause-related information needs of younger women with a diagnosis of early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:5155-65. [PMID: 16051957 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2005.07.773] [Citation(s) in RCA: 190] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The use of chemotherapy and endocrine therapies in the treatment of premenopausal women carries with it reproductive and gynecologic implications that young women may find distressing and discordant with plans for childbearing. This multicenter study aimed to investigate fertility- and menopause-related information needs among young women with a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred twenty-eight women with a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer who were aged 40 years or younger at diagnosis and who were 6 to 60 months after diagnosis were entered onto the trial. Participants completed a mailed self-report questionnaire that included a purposely designed fertility- and menopause-related information needs survey and standardized measures of distress, anxiety, quality of life, menopausal symptoms, and information-seeking style. RESULTS Seventy-one percent of participants discussed fertility-related issues with a health professional as part of their breast cancer treatment, and 86% discussed menopause-related issues. Consultation with a fertility or menopause specialist was the most preferred method of obtaining this information. Receiving fertility-related information was rated as being significantly more important than receiving menopause-related information at time of diagnosis (P < .001) and at treatment decision making (P = .058). Receiving menopause-related information was rated as being significantly more important than receiving fertility-related information during adjuvant treatment (P < .05), at completion of adjuvant treatment (P < .001), and during follow-up (P < .001). Common questions, sources of information, and correlates of perceived importance were identified. CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that younger women have unmet needs for fertility- and menopause-related information and provide preliminary empirical data to guide the development of better fertility- and menopause-related patient education materials for younger women with a diagnosis of early breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Thewes
- Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales 2031, Australia.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Rapley EA, Hockley S, Warren W, Johnson L, Huddart R, Crockford G, Forman D, Leahy MG, Oliver DT, Tucker K, Friedlander M, Phillips KA, Hogg D, Jewett MAS, Lohynska R, Daugaard G, Richard S, Heidenreich A, Geczi L, Bodrogi I, Olah E, Ormiston WJ, Daly PA, Looijenga LHJ, Guilford P, Aass N, Fosså SD, Heimdal K, Tjulandin SA, Liubchenko L, Stoll H, Weber W, Einhorn L, Weber BL, McMaster M, Greene MH, Bishop DT, Easton D, Stratton MR. Somatic mutations of KIT in familial testicular germ cell tumours. Br J Cancer 2004; 90:2397-401. [PMID: 15150569 PMCID: PMC2410291 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601880] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Somatic mutations of the KIT gene have been reported in mast cell diseases and gastrointestinal stromal tumours. Recently, they have also been found in mediastinal and testicular germ cell tumours (TGCTs), particularly in cases with bilateral disease. We screened the KIT coding sequence (except exon 1) for germline mutations in 240 pedigrees with two or more cases of TGCT. No germline mutations were found. Exons 10, 11 and 17 of KIT were examined for somatic mutations in 123 TGCT from 93 multiple-case testicular cancer families. Five somatic mutations were identified; four were missense amino-acid substitutions in exon 17 and one was a 12 bp in-frame deletion in exon 11. Two of seven TGCT from cases with bilateral disease carried KIT mutations compared with three out of 116 unilateral cases (P=0.026). The results indicate that somatic KIT mutations are implicated in the development of a minority of familial as well as sporadic TGCT. They also lend support to the hypothesis that KIT mutations primarily take place during embryogenesis such that primordial germ cells with KIT mutations are distributed to both testes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E A Rapley
- Section of Cancer Genetics, Institute of Cancer Research, Brookes Lawley Building, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Scott CI, Iorgulescu DG, Thorne HJ, Henderson MA, Phillips KA. Clinical, pathological and genetic features of women at high familial risk of breast cancer undergoing prophylactic mastectomy. Clin Genet 2003; 64:111-21. [PMID: 12859406 DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2003.00097.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Prophylactic mastectomy (PM) is a risk-management option for women at high familial risk of breast cancer (BC). This study describes the PM experience of women enrolled in a large observational cohort study involving families with a history of hereditary breast cancer. Within 357 multiple-case BC families [119 (33%) BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation positive], identified via family cancer clinics, 49 cases of PM [21 (43%) BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation positive] were identified and their clinical, pathological and genetic features reviewed. Families with at least one incidence of PM displayed stronger breast/ovarian cancer histories than did families without PM. Median age at time of PM was 45 years (range 28-58). Ten cases (21%) were bilateral PMs in unaffected women and 39 cases were contralateral PMs in women with prior invasive BC (71%) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (8%). Most (88%) underwent total mastectomy. Unnecessary axillary surgery occurred in eight subjects (16%). Malignant histology was found in three PM specimens (6%). Prior to genetic testing, PM was performed in two women who were subsequently shown not to carry the mutation specific to their family. Optimal utilization of genetic testing to guide surgical decision making, appropriate surgical technique and careful pathology examination of PM specimens, are important issues to consider prior to PM in women at high familial risk of BC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C I Scott
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Familial Cancer Center, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, St Andrew's Place, East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002, Australia
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Tiller K, Meiser B, Reeson E, Tucker M, Andrews L, Gaff C, Kirk J, Phillips KA, Friedlander M. A decision aid for women at increased risk for ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003; 13:15-22. [PMID: 12631214 DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1438.2003.13018.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
This paper reviews changes that have occurred within and without the medical profession that have fostered an increasing demand for decision aids as adjuncts to practitioners' counseling to prepare patients for decision making. In the absence of data on the efficacy of ovarian cancer screening and prophylactic strategies, decisions about optimal care are difficult for both women and their doctors. Because surveillance and preventive options are an area of great uncertainty, a decision aid has been developed specifically aimed at facilitating decisions involving ovarian cancer risk management options. This was achieved by reviewing and integrating the available literature on models of medical decision making, patient preferences for information and involvement in decision making, the utility of decision aids, and management options for ovarian cancer risk. Findings indicate that patients wish to be informed participants in the decision-making process and that decision aids are an acceptable and effective method of providing quality information in a format that facilitates an inclusive model of shared decision making. A decision aid designed for women at increased risk of ovarian cancer that facilitates informed decision making may be a valuable addition to patient support. A randomized controlled trial of this type of educational material will provide timely and much needed evidence on its acceptability and efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Tiller
- Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
McCredie MR, Dite GS, Porter L, Maskiell J, Giles GG, Phillips KA, Redman S, Hopper JL. Prevalence of self-reported arm morbidity following treatment for breast cancer in the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study. Breast 2001; 10:515-22. [PMID: 14965632 DOI: 10.1054/brst.2000.0291] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2000] [Revised: 11/28/2000] [Accepted: 12/05/2000] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Population-based women (n=1049) with breast cancer diagnosed mainly between 1996 and 1998, when aged 20-59 years, were mailed a questionnaire seeking information about self-reported shoulder stiffness and swelling, numbness and pain/ache in the arm following treatment (excluding 6 months from diagnosis). Of the 809 who completed the survey, approximately seven in eight experienced at least one symptom, one in six reported all four symptoms, and one in three considered that their arm morbidity interfered substantially with activities of daily living. Arm swelling occurred at some time in 39% of women, was present in 20% 1 year, and in 29% 4 years, after diagnosis. The prevalence of arm swelling was higher in women with axillary node dissection (OR=2.4; 95% Cl 1.0-5.6), and was increased in a women with a higher body mass index (P=0.02) and less education (P=0.01), but was not related to age, number of nodes excised or self-reports of radiation or type of surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M R McCredie
- Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Abstract
CONTEXT Adverse drug reactions are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Although many adverse drug reactions are considered nonpreventable, recent developments suggest these reactions may be avoided through individualization of drug therapies based on genetic information, an application known as pharmacogenomics. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the potential role of pharmacogenomics in reducing the incidence of adverse drug reactions. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE English-language only searches for adverse drug reaction studies published between January 1995 and June 2000 and review articles of variant alleles of drug-metabolizing enzymes published between January 1997 and August 2000. We also used online resources, texts, and expert opinion. STUDY SELECTION Detailed inclusion criteria were used to select studies. We included 18 of 333 adverse drug reaction studies and 22 of 61 variant allele review articles. DATA EXTRACTION All the investigators reviewed and coded articles using standardized abstracting forms. DATA SYNTHESIS We identified 27 drugs frequently cited in adverse drug reaction studies. Among these drugs, 59% are metabolized by at least 1 enzyme with a variant allele known to cause poor metabolism. Conversely, only 7% to 22% of randomly selected drugs are known to be metabolized by enzymes with this genetic variability (range, P =.006-P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that drug therapy based on individuals' genetic makeups may result in a clinically important reduction in adverse outcomes. Our findings serve as a foundation for further research on how pharmacogenomics can reduce the incidence of adverse reactions and on the resulting clinical, societal, and economic implications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K A Phillips
- School of Pharmacy, Institute for Health Policy Studies, and Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California St, Room 420, Box 0613, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
|
41
|
|
42
|
Phillips KA, Grant J, Siniscalchi J, Albertini RS. Surgical and nonpsychiatric medical treatment of patients with body dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics 2001; 42:504-10. [PMID: 11815686 DOI: 10.1176/appi.psy.42.6.504] [Citation(s) in RCA: 229] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
It appears that many individuals with body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) receive nonpsychiatric medical treatment and surgery; however, this topic has had little systematic investigation. This study assessed the nonpsychiatric treatment sought and received by 289 individuals (250 adults and 39 children/adolescents) with DSM-IV BDD. Such treatment was sought by 76.4% and received by 66.0% of adults. Dermatologic treatment was most often received (by 45.2% of adults), followed by surgery (by 23.2%). These treatments rarely improved BDD symptoms. Results were similar in children/adolescents. These findings indicate that a majority of patients with BDD receive nonpsychiatric treatment but tend to respond poorly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K A Phillips
- Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Abstract
To determine whether (1) insight in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) improves when OCD symptoms improve, and whether (2) degree of insight in OCD predicts response to sertraline, data were obtained from five sites participating in a larger multisite study of relapse in OCD. During the first 16 weeks of the study, 71 patients received open-label treatment with sertraline and were assessed using the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Rating Scale (Y-BOCS) and a rating scale to evaluate insight, the Brown Assessment of Beliefs Scale (BABS), at study baseline and termination. Baseline total BABS score was not significantly correlated with change in Y-BOCS score. Change in BABS total score and change in Y-BOCS total score were significantly correlated. There was no significant difference in mean endpoint Y-BOCS scores for patients with poor insight (n = 14) compared to patients with good insight at baseline (n = 57). Thus, insight improved with decrease in OCD symptom severity. Degree of insight at baseline did not predict response to sertraline, i.e., patients with poor insight were just as likely to respond to sertraline as patients with good insight.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J L Eisen
- Butler Hospital and the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI 02906, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Goldman L, Phillips KA, Coxson P, Goldman PA, Williams L, Hunink MG, Weinstein MC. The effect of risk factor reductions between 1981 and 1990 on coronary heart disease incidence, prevalence, mortality and cost. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 38:1012-7. [PMID: 11583874 DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01512-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We sought to estimate the impact and cost-effectiveness of risk factor reductions between 1981 and 1990. BACKGROUND Coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality rates have declined dramatically, partly as a result of reductions in CHD risk factors. METHODS We used the CHD Policy Model, a validated computer-simulation model, to estimate the effects of actual investments made to change coronary risk factors between 1981 and 1990, as well as the impact of these changes on the incidence, prevalence, mortality and costs of CHD during this period and projected to 2015. RESULTS Observed changes in risk factors between 1981 and 1990 resulted in a reduction of CHD deaths by approximately 430,000 and overall deaths by approximately 740,000, with an estimated cost-effectiveness of about $44,000 per year of life saved during this period, based on the estimated actual costs of the interventions used. However, because much of the benefit of risk factor reductions is delayed, the estimated reductions for the 35-year period of 1981 to 2015 were 3.6 million CHD deaths and 1.2 million non-CHD deaths, at a cost of only about $5,400 per year of life saved. CONCLUSIONS Aggregate efforts to reduce risk factors between 1981 and 1990 have led to substantial reductions in CHD and should be well worth the cost, largely because of population-wide changes in life-style and habits. Some interventions are much better investments than others, and attention to such issues could lead to better use of resources and better outcomes in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Goldman
- Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, 94143-0120, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Abstract
There are few reports in the literature of platinum-based chemotherapy administered in pregnancy. We present a case of serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary complicating pregnancy. Following laparotomy at 16 weeks of gestation, four cycles of cisplatin were administered prior to confinement at 32 weeks. There were no neonatal sequelae. We believe there is increasing evidence for the safe use of cisplatin in pregnancy.
Collapse
|
46
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Research on the pharmacotherapy of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is limited. No placebo-controlled, continuation, maintenance, or discontinuation studies have been published. Only one augmentation study has been published. METHOD In this chart-review study of 90 patients with DSM-IV BDD treated for up to 8 years by the first 2 authors (K.A.P., R.S.A.) in their clinical practice, response to a variety of medications, including augmentation strategies, was assessed. The relapse rate with medication discontinuation was also determined. RESULTS All subjects received a serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI), with 63.2% (55/87) of adequate SRI trials resulting in improvement in BDD symptoms; similar response rates were obtained for each type of SRI. Discontinuation of an effective SRI resulted in relapse in 83.8% (31/37) of cases. Response rates to selective SRI augmentation were clomipramine, 44.4% (4/9) of trials; buspirone, 33.3% (12/36) of trials; lithium, 20.0% (1/5); methylphenidate, 16.7% (1/6); and antipsychotics, 15.4% (2/13) of trials. CONCLUSION These findings from a clinical setting suggest that a majority of BDD patients improve with an SRI and that all SRIs appear effective. Certain SRI augmentation strategies may be beneficial. The high relapse rate with SRI discontinuation suggests that long-term treatment is often necessary. These preliminary findings require confirmation in placebo-controlled efficacy studies and effectiveness studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K A Phillips
- Butler Hospital and the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI 02906, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Abstract
The identification of two breast cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, in the mid-1990s has led to a better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of hereditary breast cancer and to a new era in breast cancer research. The present article reviews the current state of knowledge regarding the biology of BRCA1 and BRCA2, the cancer risks associated with carrying a pathogenic mutation in either of these genes and the possible genetic and environmental risk modifiers. The phenotypes of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated hereditary breast cancers are reviewed. Research into BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast cancer is in its infancy and much remains to be learned, particularly about modifiers of genetic risk and the clinical implications of carrying a mutation in one of these two genes. Australia has an excellent research infrastructure in place, through the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study and the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer, to contribute substantially to future research in this area.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K A Phillips
- Department of Haematology and Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Abstract
This study examined preferences for specific types of HIV tests as well as for test attributes such as cost, counseling, and privacy. A survey was administered to 354 clients of public testing services. Nonparametric tests and logistic regression were used to compare test preferences and attribute ratings, and to assess differences by demographic and risk groups. Nearly two thirds of respondents chose a public clinic test as their first choice, whereas 24% chose a home self-test, 12% chose a test at a doctor's office, and 1% chose a home specimen-collection test. Three attributes (accuracy/timeliness, privacy of test disclosure, and linking of test results) were rated equally-and most-important. In-person counseling was endorsed as the fourth most important attribute. Availability of in-person counseling was the strongest predictor of "loyalty" to public clinic tests-a consistent preference for that type of test even when the other tests were offered as additional no-cost options. There was also substantial interest in home self-tests. The results suggest specific attributes of testing that may be particularly important to individuals from diverse demographic and risk backgrounds.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H S Skolnik
- California State University, San Francisco, California, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dermatologic surgeons frequently see patients with body dysmorphic disorder, a distressing or impairing preoccupation with a nonexistent or slight defect in appearance. Recognition of this disorder is essential to avoid unnecessary and generally unsatisfying surgical outcomes, but no screening tools are available for use in a dermatology setting. OBJECTIVE To develop and validate a brief self-report questionnaire to screen for body dysmorphic disorder in dermatology settings. METHODS A questionnaire was developed and its sensitivity and specificity determined in 46 subjects, using a reliable clinician-administered diagnostic interview for body dysmorphic disorder. The interrater reliability of a defect severity scale was also determined (n = 50). RESULTS The self-report questionnaire had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 93%. The interrater reliability (ICC) of the defect rating scale was.88. CONCLUSIONS This brief questionnaire was a highly effective screening tool for body dysmorphic disorder in a cosmetic dermatology setting. Use of this questionnaire may help identify patients with this syndrome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R G Dufresne
- Department of Dermatology and Butler Hospital and Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Go AS, Hylek EM, Phillips KA, Chang Y, Henault LE, Selby JV, Singer DE. Prevalence of diagnosed atrial fibrillation in adults: national implications for rhythm management and stroke prevention: the AnTicoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) Study. JAMA 2001; 285:2370-5. [PMID: 11343485 DOI: 10.1001/jama.285.18.2370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4436] [Impact Index Per Article: 192.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia in elderly persons and a potent risk factor for stroke. However, recent prevalence and projected future numbers of persons with atrial fibrillation are not well described. OBJECTIVE To estimate prevalence of atrial fibrillation and US national projections of the numbers of persons with atrial fibrillation through the year 2050. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Cross-sectional study of adults aged 20 years or older who were enrolled in a large health maintenance organization in California and who had atrial fibrillation diagnosed between July 1, 1996, and December 31, 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Prevalence of atrial fibrillation in the study population of 1.89 million; projected number of persons in the United States with atrial fibrillation between 1995-2050. RESULTS A total of 17 974 adults with diagnosed atrial fibrillation were identified during the study period; 45% were aged 75 years or older. The prevalence of atrial fibrillation was 0.95% (95% confidence interval, 0.94%-0.96%). Atrial fibrillation was more common in men than in women (1.1% vs 0.8%; P<.001). Prevalence increased from 0.1% among adults younger than 55 years to 9.0% in persons aged 80 years or older. Among persons aged 50 years or older, prevalence of atrial fibrillation was higher in whites than in blacks (2.2% vs 1.5%; P<.001). We estimate approximately 2.3 million US adults currently have atrial fibrillation. We project that this will increase to more than 5.6 million (lower bound, 5.0; upper bound, 6.3) by the year 2050, with more than 50% of affected individuals aged 80 years or older. CONCLUSIONS Our study confirms that atrial fibrillation is common among older adults and provides a contemporary basis for estimates of prevalence in the United States. The number of patients with atrial fibrillation is likely to increase 2.5-fold during the next 50 years, reflecting the growing proportion of elderly individuals. Coordinated efforts are needed to face the increasing challenge of optimal stroke prevention and rhythm management in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A S Go
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, 3505 Broadway, 12th Floor, Oakland, CA 94611, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|