Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peshkin, B. N.
Right arrow Articles by Isaacs, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Peshkin, B. N.
Right arrow Articles by Isaacs, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 19, Issue 9 (May), 2001: 2555-2565
© 2001 American Society for Clinical Oncology


SPECIAL ARTICLES

BRCA1/2 Testing: Complex Themes in Result Interpretation

By Beth N. Peshkin, Tiffani A. DeMarco, Barbara M. Brogan, Caryn Lerman, Claudine Isaacs

From the Department of Oncology/Division of Cancer Control, Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Address reprint requests to Beth N. Peshkin, MS, CGC, Georgetown University, 2233 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 317, Washington, DC 20007; email: peshkinb{at}gunet.georgetown.edu

ABSTRACT: Since the cloning of BRCA1 and BRCA2, genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility has become more widespread. However, interpretation of test results is not always straightforward. To illustrate this point, five vignettes adapted from actual cases are presented. As these cases demonstrate, in many high-risk families, a deleterious mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 is not identified in an affected proband. There are several potential explanations for such a finding, namely that an undetected mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 may exist, or there could be a mutation in a rare or undiscovered gene. In addition, the possibility that women with breast cancer represent sporadic cases within hereditary cancer families must also be considered. Finally, the occurrence of BRCA1/2 variants of uncertain significance, often missense mutations, further complicates the risk assessment. In some of these instances, extending testing to relatives can be helpful to clarify results. When hereditary breast cancer cannot be ruled out, individuals may still be at increased risk for cancer and therefore need to obtain appropriate surveillance. The process of genetic counseling is critical both before and after testing to ensure that patients understand the potential medical and psychosocial implications of testing and are aware of available options and resources. A multidisciplinary approach to service delivery, which includes clinicians in genetics and oncology, can facilitate patients’ decision making and provide continued access to information and support.

Presented in part during a poster session at the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, New Orleans, LA, May 20-23, 2000.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Health Educ BehavHome page
S. M. Miller, P. Roussi, M. B. Daly, J. S. Buzaglo, K. Sherman, A. K. Godwin, A. Balshem, and M. E. Atchison
Enhanced Counseling for Women Undergoing BRCA1/2 Testing: Impact on Subsequent Decision Making About Risk Reduction Behaviors
Health Educ Behav, October 1, 2005; 32(5): 654 - 667.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
M. D. Schwartz, E. Kaufman, B. N. Peshkin, C. Isaacs, C. Hughes, T. DeMarco, C. Finch, and C. Lerman
Bilateral Prophylactic Oophorectomy and Ovarian Cancer Screening Following BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Testing
J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2003; 21(21): 4034 - 4041.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
P. A. Daly, C. Nolan, A. Green, W. Ormiston, N. Cody, T. McDevitt, B. O'hIci, D. Byrne, E. McDermott, D. N. Carney, et al.
Predictive testing for BRCA1 and 2 mutations: a male contribution
Ann. Onc., April 1, 2003; 14(4): 549 - 553.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
S. E. Gollust, S. C. Hull, and B. S. Wilfond
Limitations of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising for Clinical Genetic Testing
JAMA, October 9, 2002; 288(14): 1762 - 1767.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
A. Edwards, G. Elwyn, and A. Mulley
Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures
BMJ, April 6, 2002; 324(7341): 827 - 830.
[Full Text] [PDF]



About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2001 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online