Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30418620›Full record

ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2020

Predictors of risk-reducing surgery intentions following genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Mary Kathleen Ladd, Beth N Peshkin, Leigha Senter, Shari Baldinger, Claudine Isaacs, Hannah Segal, Samantha Philip, Chloe Phillips, Kate Shane, Aimee Martin and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Genetic Education for Men (GEM) Trial: Development of Web-Based Education for Untested Men in BRCA1/2-Positive Families.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Trial
  2. Hereditary ovarian cancer.Discover oncology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Attitude towards hereditary cancer risk management among women with cancer in Taiwan.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Mary Kathleen LaddGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Beth N PeshkinGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Leigha SenterDivision of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Shari BaldingerVirgina Piper Cancer Institute, Allina Health, Minneapolis, MN.
Claudine IsaacsGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Hannah SegalGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Samantha PhilipGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Chloe PhillipsGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Kate ShaneDivision of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Aimee MartinGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Veronique WeinsteinGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Robert PilarskiDivision of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Joanne JeterDivision of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Kevin SweetDivision of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Bonnie HattenVirgina Piper Cancer Institute, Allina Health, Minneapolis, MN.
Elisabeth J WurtmannVirgina Piper Cancer Institute, Allina Health, Minneapolis, MN.
Shanda PhippenVirgina Piper Cancer Institute, Allina Health, Minneapolis, MN.
Della BroVirgina Piper Cancer Institute, Allina Health, Minneapolis, MN.
Marc D SchwartzGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Funding

Tissue Culture Shared ResourceP30CA051008 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI Louis M Weiner · 1990 to 2026
$71.5M
Research Training in Pediatric OncologyT32CA136432 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI SCOTT A ARMSTRONG · 2009 to 2026
$7.9M
INTERNET DECISION SUPPORT FOR BRCA1/BRCA2 CARRIERSR01CA135179 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI SCHWARTZ, MARC D · 2009 to 2013
$2.1M
INTERNET INTERVENTION FOR BRCA1/BRCA2 UNINFORMATIVESR01HG005055 · NHGRI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI SCHWARTZ, MARC D · 2008 to 2010
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA051008NCI NIH HHS R01 CA135179NCI NIH HHS T32 CA136432NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG005055
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) are increasingly used to reduce breast and ovarian cancer risk following BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. However, little is known about how genetic counseling influences decisions about these surgeries. Although previous studies have examined intentions prior to counseling, few have examined RRM and RRSO intentions in the critical window between genetic counseling and test result disclosure. Previous research has indicated that intentions at this time point predict subsequent uptake of surgery, suggesting that much decision-making has taken place prior to result disclosure. This period may be a critical time to better understand the drivers of prophylactic surgery intentions. The aim of this study was to examine predictors of RRM and RRSO intentions. We hypothesized that variables from the Health Belief Model would predict intentions, and we also examined the role of affective factors. Participants were 187 women, age 21-75, who received genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We utilized multiple logistic regression to identify independent predictors of intentions. 49.2% and 61.3% of participants reported intentions for RRM and RRSO, respectively. Variables associated with RRM intentions include: newly diagnosed with breast cancer (OR = 3.63, 95% CI = 1.20-11.04), perceived breast cancer risk (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17-1.81), perceived pros (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.38-2.32) and cons of RRM (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.65-0.996), and decision conflict (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66-0.98). Variables associated with RRSO intentions include: proband status (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09-0.89), perceived pros (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.11-1.63) and cons of RRSO (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.59-0.89), and ambiguity aversion (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.65-0.95). These data provide support for the role of genetic counseling in fostering informed decisions about risk management, and suggest that the role of uncertainty should be explored further.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsOvarian NeoplasmsAdultAgedChildFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansIntentionMastectomyMiddle AgedOvariectomyYoung AdultDecision-makingGenetic counselingHereditary breast/ovarian cancerIntentionsRisk-reducing mastectomyRisk-reducing oophorectomy

Identifiers

PMID30418620
PMCPMC7394490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.