Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Racial disparities in BRCA testing and cancer risk management across a population‐based sample of young breast cancer survivors

Open access
Cragun, Deborah, Weidner, Anne, Lewis, Courtney, Bonner, Devon, Kim, Jongphil, Vadaparampil, Susan T., Pal, Tuya·2017·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) disparities may widen with genomic advances. The authors compared non‐Hispanic white (NHW), black, and Hispanic BC survivors for 1) cancer risk‐management practices among BRCA carriers and 2) provider discussion and receipt of genetic testing. METHODS: A population‐based sample of NHW, black, and Hispanic women who had been diagnosed with invasive BC at age 50 years or younger from 2009 to 2012 were recruited through the state cancer registry. Multiple logistic regression was used to compare cancer risk‐management practices in BRCA carriers and associations of demographic and clinical variables with provider discussion and receipt of testing. RESULTS: Of 1622 participants, 159 of 440 (36.1%) black women, 579 of 897 (64.5%) NHW women, 58 of 117 (49.6%) Spanish‐speaking Hispanic women, and 116 of 168 (69%) English‐speaking Hispanic women underwent BRCA testing, of whom 90 had a pathogenic BRCA mutation identified. Among BRCA carriers, the rates of risk‐reducing mastectomy and risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy were significantly lower among black women compared with Hispanic and NHW women after controlling for clinical and demographic variables (P = .025 and P = .008, respectively). Compared with NHW women, discussion of genetic testing with a provider was 16 times less likely among black women (P < .0001) and nearly 2 times less likely among Spanish‐speaking Hispanic women (P = .04) after controlling for clinical and sociodemographic factors. CONCLUSIONS: The current results suggest that the rates of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy are lower among black BRCA carriers compared with their Hispanic and NHW counterparts, which is concerning because benefits from genetic testing arise from cancer risk‐management practice options. Furthermore, lower BRCA testing rates among blacks may partially be because of a lower likelihood of provider discussion. Future studies are needed to improve cancer risk identification and management practices across all populations to prevent the widening of disparities. Cancer 2017;123:2497–05. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.30621

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

See all 293

Metadata

Authors
Cragun, D., Weidner, A., Lewis, C., Bonner, D., Kim, J., Vadaparampil, S. T., & Pal, T.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-09
Volume
123
Issue
13
Pages
2497-2505
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2587623479
Cited by
293
References
43
FWCI
12.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Racial disparities in BRCA testing and cancer risk management across a population‐based sample of young breast cancer survivors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.30621
The paper
Cragun, D., Weidner, A., Lewis, C., Bonner, D., Kim, J., Vadaparampil, S. T., & Pal, T. (2017). Racial disparities in BRCA testing and cancer risk management across a population‐based sample of young breast cancer survivors. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30621

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.