ArticleJAMA network open2020
Trends in Positive BRCA Test Results Among Older Women in the United States, 2008-2018.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical characteristics and prognostic factors analysis of patients stricken with double primary breast and ovarian cancer based on the SEER database.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Analyzing Precision Medicine Utilization with Real-World Data: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Genetic testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants has been used for targeted, individualized cancer prevention and treatment. A positive BRCA test result indicates a higher risk for developing BRCA-related cancers. During the past decade, testing criteria have loosened. The impact of these loosened criteria on BRCA testing in older women has not previously been studied. Objective: To assess whether the rate of positive BRCA test results changed between 2008 and 2018 among older women in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a 10% random sample of women 65 years of age or older from Optum's deidentified Integrated Claims-Clinical data set (2008-2018), a large national electronic health record data set. A total of 5533 women with BRCA test results from January 1, 2008, to March 31, 2018, were evaluated. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual percentage change in positive BRCA test results was evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between positive test results and race/ethnicity, region of residence, income, educational level, and personal history of breast or ovarian cancer. Results: Of 5533 women 65 years of age or older (mean age, 68.1 years [95% CI, 67.9-68.4 years]) who underwent BRCA testing from 2008 to 2018, most (4679 [84.6%]) were non-Hispanic White women, and 1915 (34.6%) resided in the Midwest. Positive BRCA test results decreased from 85.7% (36 of 42) in 2008 to 55.6% (140 of 252) in 2018 (annual percentage change, -2.55; 95% CI, -3.45 to -1.64). Among patients with breast or ovarian cancer, positive test results decreased from 83.3% (20 of 24) in 2008 to 61.6% (61 of 99) in 2018, while among women without breast or ovarian cancer, positive test results decreased from 87.5% (21 of 24) in 2008 to 48.4% (74 of 153) in 2018 (annual percentage change, -3.17 vs -2.49; P = .29). Women with positive test results were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black women, to live in the West or South, to live in areas with a low percentage of college graduates, or to not have a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that there was a significantly decreasing rate of positive BRCA test results among women 65 years of age or older. Socioeconomic and regional disparities in testing use remain an issue.
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.