Cited by 53BRCA gene mutations in cancerWomen's cancer prevention and managementPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Risk‐Reduction Surgery Decisions in High‐Risk Women Seen for Genetic Counseling

Open access
Ray, Jessica A., Loescher, Lois J., Brewer, Molly·2005·Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract

Women at greatest risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer may consider prophylactic removal of breasts or ovaries as a risk‐reduction measure. This report describes uptake of risk‐reduction mastectomy (RRM), risk‐reduction oophorectomy (RRO), and related factors in 62 high‐risk women who received genetic counseling. Seven (11%) participants underwent RRM and 13 (21%) underwent RRO. Of these women, 37% did not have BRCA testing, suggesting other factors influence decisions to undergo surgery. Women who had indicated (pre‐genetic counseling) their intent not to have surgery chose not to have surgery. Information received during genetic counseling that women perceived as being most important for influencing risk‐reduction surgery decisions was BRCA test result (positive or negative), followed by discussion of family cancer history. Reasons for indecision about risk‐reduction surgery included genetic testing results, concerns about surgery, timing in life, and early menopause. The findings enhance our understanding of information that is helpful to women considering this surgery.

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 · 10.1007/s10897-005-5833-5

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The information provided at the family cancer clinic is complex, thus stressing the importance of repetitive but consistent information regarding cancer risk by the different clinicians involved.

    “These results are consistent with the findings of others [9,18,19], and indicate that the information provided at the family cancer clinic is complex, thus stressing the importance of repetitive but consistent information regarding the cancer risk by the different clinicians involved.”

    From Standard psychological consultations and follow up for women at increased risk of hereditary breast cancer considering prophylactic mastectomy (2009) · cites this paper as [18]

    The section ‘Genetic Counseling Information that Influenced Risk-Reduction Surgery Decisions’ describes uncertainty in interpreting genetic test results and emphasizes comprehensive cancer-risk assessment and information from the counseling team. It does not say that clinicians should repeat cancer-risk information consistently; that recommendation goes beyond what this source supports. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Weinstein, N. D., & Sandman, P. M. (2002). The precaution adop- tion process model. In K. Glanz, Rimer, B. K., Lewis, F. M. (Ed.), Health behavior and education. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ray, J. A., Loescher, L. J., & Brewer, M.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Loescher, Lois J.
Venue
Journal of Genetic Counseling
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-12
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
473-484
ISSN
  • 1059-7700 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3599
OpenAlex
W2082617004
Cited by
53
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Genetic Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Arizona Cancer Center
  • Oncology Nursing Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
prophylactic mastectomy, prophylactic oophorectomy, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA testing, genetic counseling, surgical decision-making, high-risk women, family history of cancer, early menopause, patient decision factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude to Health, Breast Neoplasms, Cross-Sectional Studies, Decision Making, DNA Mutational Analysis, Female, Genetic Counseling, Genetic Testing, Genotype, Humans, Mastectomy, Middle Aged, Ovarian Neoplasms, Ovariectomy, Prospective Studies, BRCA2 Protein, Intention, Risk Reduction Behavior, Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases

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