The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
National Estimates of Genetic Testing in Women With a History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: In the United States, 3.8 million women have a history of breast (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC). Up to 15% of cases are attributable to heritable mutations, which, if identified, provide critical knowledge for treatment and preventive care. It is unknown how many patients who are at high risk for these mutations have not been tested and how rates vary by risk criteria. Methods: We used pooled cross-sectional data from three Cancer Control Modules (2005, 2010, 2015) of the National Health Interview Survey, a national in-person household interview survey. Eligible patients were adult females with a history of BC and/or OC meeting select 2017 National Comprehensive Cancer Network eligibility criteria on the basis of age of diagnosis and family history. Outcomes included the proportion of individuals reporting a history of discussing genetic testing with a health professional, being advised to undergo genetic testing, or undergoing genetic testing for BC or OC. Results: Of 47,218 women, 2.7% had a BC history and 0.4% had an OC history. For BC, 35.6% met one or more select eligibility criteria; of those, 29.0% discussed, 20.2% were advised to undergo, and 15.3% underwent genetic testing. Testing rates for individual eligibility criteria ranged from 6.2% (relative with OC) to 18.2% (diagnosis ≤ 45 years of age). For OC, 15.1% discussed, 13.1% were advised to undergo, and 10.5% underwent testing. Using only four BC eligibility criteria and all patients with OC, an estimated 1.2 to 1.3 million individuals failed to receive testing. Conclusion: Fewer than one in five individuals with a history of BC or OC meeting select National Cancer Comprehensive Network criteria have undergone genetic testing. Most have never discussed testing with a health care provider. Large national efforts are warranted to address this unmet need.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2017) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21387 · Cited by 14,712
Inhibition of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase in Tumors from BRCA Mutation Carriers
Fong, P. C., Boss, D. S., Yap, T. A., Tutt, A., Wu, P., Mergui-Roelvink, M., Mortimer, P., Swaisland, H., Lau, A., O'Connor, M. J., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0900212 · Cited by 3,634
Contralateral mastectomy improves survival in women with BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer
Evans, D. G. R., Ingham, S. L., Baildam, A., Ross, G. L., Lalloo, F., Buchan, I., & Howell, A. (2013) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-013-2583-1 · Cited by 178
Cited by
Underdiagnosis of Hereditary Breast Cancer: Are Genetic Testing Guidelines a Tool or an Obstacle?
Beitsch, P. D., Whitworth, P. W., Hughes, K., Patel, R., Rosen, B., Compagnoni, G., Baron, P., Simmons, R., Smith, L. A., Grady, I., et al. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.18.01631 · Cited by 363
Metadata
- Authors
- Childers, C. P., Childers, K. K., Maggard-Gibbons, M., & Macinko, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2017-12-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 34
- Pages
- 3800-3806
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2745994405
- Cited by
- 351
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 21.60
- 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: National Estimates of Genetic Testing in Women With a History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2017.73.6314
- The paper
- Childers, C. P., Childers, K. K., Maggard-Gibbons, M., & Macinko, J. (2017). National Estimates of Genetic Testing in Women With a History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.73.6314
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.