Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 685

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

BRCA1 Mutations in Women Attending Clinics That Evaluate the Risk of Breast Cancer

Open access
Couch, Fergus J., DeShano, Michelle L., Blackwood, M. Anne, Calzone, Kathleen, Stopfer, Jill, Campeau, Lisa, Ganguly, Arupa, Rebbeck, Timothy, Weber, Barbara L., Jablon, Lisa, Cobleigh, Melody A., Hoskins, Kent, Garber, Judy E.·1997·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To define the incidence of BRCA1 mutations among patients seen in clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer, we analyzed DNA samples from women seen in this setting and constructed probability tables to provide estimates of the likelihood of finding a BRCA1 mutation in individual families. METHODS: Clinical information, family histories, and blood for DNA analysis were obtained from 263 women with breast cancer. Conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis and DNA sequencing were used to identify BRCA1 mutations. RESULTS: BRCA1 mutations were identified in 16 percent of women with a family history of breast cancer. Only 7 percent of women from families with a history of breast cancer but not ovarian cancer had BRCA1 mutations. The rates were higher among women from families with a history of both breast and ovarian cancer. Among family members, an average age of less than 55 years at the diagnosis of breast cancer, the presence of ovarian cancer, the presence of breast and ovarian cancer in the same woman, and Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry were all associated with an increased risk of detecting a BRCA1 mutation. No association was found between the presence of bilateral breast cancer or the number of breast cancers in a family and the detection of a BRCA1 mutation, or between the position of the mutation in the BRCA1 gene and the presence of ovarian cancer in a family. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with breast cancer and a family history of the disease, the percentage with BRCA1 coding-region mutations is less than the 45 percent predicted by genetic-linkage analysis. These results suggest that even in a referral clinic specializing in screening women from high-risk families, the majority of tests for BRCA1 mutations will be negative and therefore uninformative.

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 · 10.1056/nejm199705153362002

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 685

Metadata

Authors
Couch, F. J., DeShano, M. L., Blackwood, M. A., Calzone, K., Stopfer, J., Campeau, L., Ganguly, A., Rebbeck, T., Weber, B. L., Jablon, L., Cobleigh, M. A., Hoskins, K., & Garber, J. E.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1997-05-15
Volume
336
Issue
20
Pages
1409-1415
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2323655901
Cited by
685
References
2
FWCI
34.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: BRCA1 Mutations in Women Attending Clinics That Evaluate the Risk of Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199705153362002
The paper
Couch, F. J., DeShano, M. L., Blackwood, M. A., Calzone, K., Stopfer, J., Campeau, L., Ganguly, A., Rebbeck, T., Weber, B. L., Jablon, L., Cobleigh, M. A., Hoskins, K., & Garber, J. E. (1997). BRCA1 Mutations in Women Attending Clinics That Evaluate the Risk of Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199705153362002

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.