ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2017
Use of BRCA Mutation Test in the U.S., 2004-2014.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- Use of Family Relationships in Commercial Claims Data to Characterize Clinical Events of Patients withAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026Article
- BRCA genetic testing utilization and expenditures among privately insured adults in the United States, 2013 to 2022.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025Article
- Predictive Genetic Testing in the Cancer Management and Prevention.Journal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics · 2025Article
- A de Novo BRCA1 Pathogenic Variant in a 29-Year-Old Woman with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Barriers to gJournal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Attitudes towards and sociodemographic determinants of genetic test usage in the USA; data from the Health Information National Trend Survey, 2020.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Article
- Article
- Germline Genetic Testing in Breast Cancer: Systemic Therapy Implications.Current oncology reports · 2022Review
- The Role of Race and Insurance Status in Access to Genetic Counseling and Testing Among High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients.The oncologist · 2022Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in Engaging Primary Care Providers in BRCA Testing: Results from the BFOR Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Observational
- Article
- Novel Interactive Tool for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment (Bright Pink Assess Your Risk): Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Improving our model of cascade testing for hereditary cancer risk by leveraging patient peer support: a concept report.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2021Article
- Cancer genetic testing in marginalized groups during an era of evolving healthcare reform.Journal of cancer policy · 2021Review
- Perception on genetic testing in Korean medicine doctors: A mobile-based survey.Integrative medicine research · 2021Article
- Germline variants of Brazilian women with breast cancer and detection of a novel pathogenic ATM deletion in early-onset breast cancer.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2021Article
- Trends in Positive BRCA Test Results Among Older Women in the United States, 2008-2018.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Healthcare Utilization and Costs after Receiving a PositiveJournal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBRCA mutation testing has been used for screening women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer and for selecting the best treatment for those with breast cancer. To optimize the infrastructure and medical resources allocation for genetic testing, it is important to understand the use of BRCA mutation testing in the U.S. health system.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 53,254 adult women with insurance claims for BRCA mutation testing between 2004 and 2014 from Clinformatics
resultsBetween 2004 and 2014, of those receiving BRCA testing, the proportion of BRCA tests performed in unaffected women increased significantly (p<0.001), from 24.3% in 2004 to 61.5% in 2014. An increase in the proportion of BRCA tests used in unaffected women was found in each characteristic subgroup. In 2014, most subgroups had a proportion surpassing 50%, except for those aged 51-65 years and those without a family history of breast cancer. There was a much lower proportion of those aged 20-40 years among tested women with previously diagnosed breast or ovarian cancer than in unaffected women (17.6% vs 41.7%, p<0.001).
conclusionsDuring the past decade, the role of BRCA testing has gradually shifted from being used primarily in cancer patients to being used in unaffected women in the U.S.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.