• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

医生对遗传性乳腺癌/卵巢癌风险的乳腺钼靶检查和预防性手术的态度以及随后发布的指南。

Physicians' attitudes towards mammography and prophylactic surgery for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer risk and subsequently published guidelines.

作者信息

Julian-Reynier C, Eisinger F, Moatti J P, Sobol H

机构信息

INSERM U379, Paoli-Calmettes Institute, Marseilles, France.

出版信息

Eur J Hum Genet. 2000 Mar;8(3):204-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200418.

DOI:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200418
PMID:10780786
Abstract

After a BRCA mutation has been identified in the context of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC), mammographic screening and prophylactic surgery are two of the main options available to those responsible for the clinical management of healthy women. The aim of this study was to describe the attitudes of specialists towards the clinical management of women with an HBOC risk: this information was collected prior to the publication of the recent French guidelines. A random national sample of 1169 French surgeons, gynaecologists and obstetricians was surveyed using a mailed questionnaire, to which 700 of these physicians (60%) responded. When dealing with a BRCA mutated woman, 88.6% of the respondents said they would recommend mammographic screening, but only 27.1% would recommend that it should be carried out annually from the age of 30 years onwards, as recommended in the French guidelines; 10.9% would find it acceptable to propose prophylactic mastectomy from the age of 30 years, and 22.9% would find it acceptable to propose prophylactic oophorectomy from the age of 35 years. The specialists who agreed with recommending breast/ovarian cancer genetic testing also had more positive attitudes towards prophylactic mastectomy (adj OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.4-8.2), as did those who had previously recommended prophylactic mastectomy when gene testing was not yet available (adj OR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.23-3.44). The respondents' attitudes towards prophylactic oophorectomy and mastectomy were significantly associated (adj OR = 3.9; 95% CI = 2.3-6.5). Previous recommendation of prophylactic mastectomy was associated (P < 0.01) with a higher level of knowledge of breast/ovarian cancer genetics and with medical practice in this field. French physicians' attitudes towards mammographic screening and prophylactic surgery were not in complete agreement with the subsequently published French guidelines, the impact of which has now to be considered. Constantly evolving knowledge about the efficacy of preventive intervention will give practitioners new elements to integrate into their counselling.

摘要

在遗传性乳腺癌/卵巢癌(HBOC)背景下鉴定出BRCA突变后,乳腺钼靶筛查和预防性手术是负责健康女性临床管理的人员可采用的两种主要选择。本研究的目的是描述专家对有HBOC风险女性临床管理的态度:这些信息是在最近法国指南发布之前收集的。使用邮寄问卷对1169名法国外科医生、妇科医生和产科医生进行了全国随机抽样调查,其中700名医生(60%)进行了回复。在处理BRCA突变女性时,88.6%的受访者表示他们会推荐乳腺钼靶筛查,但只有27.1%的人会按照法国指南的建议,推荐从30岁起每年进行筛查;10.9%的人认为从30岁起提议进行预防性乳房切除术是可以接受的,22.9%的人认为从35岁起提议进行预防性卵巢切除术是可以接受的。同意推荐乳腺癌/卵巢癌基因检测的专家对预防性乳房切除术也有更积极的态度(调整后比值比=3.4,95%置信区间=1.4-8.2),那些在基因检测尚未可用时曾推荐预防性乳房切除术的专家也是如此(调整后比值比=2.06,95%置信区间=1.23-3.44)。受访者对预防性卵巢切除术和乳房切除术的态度显著相关(调整后比值比=3.9;95%置信区间=2.3-6.5)。先前推荐预防性乳房切除术与对乳腺癌/卵巢癌遗传学的较高知识水平以及该领域的医疗实践相关(P<0.01)。法国医生对乳腺钼靶筛查和预防性手术的态度与随后发布的法国指南并不完全一致,现在必须考虑其影响。关于预防性干预效果的知识不断发展,将为从业者提供新的要素以纳入其咨询中。

相似文献

1
Physicians' attitudes towards mammography and prophylactic surgery for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer risk and subsequently published guidelines.医生对遗传性乳腺癌/卵巢癌风险的乳腺钼靶检查和预防性手术的态度以及随后发布的指南。
Eur J Hum Genet. 2000 Mar;8(3):204-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200418.
2
Association between clinical characteristics and risk-reduction interventions in women who underwent BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing: a single-institution study.接受BRCA1和BRCA2检测的女性临床特征与风险降低干预措施之间的关联:一项单机构研究。
Cancer. 2006 Dec 15;107(12):2745-51. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22352.
3
Attitudes toward prophylactic oophorectomy and screening utilization in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.对罹患遗传性乳腺癌/卵巢癌风险增加的女性进行预防性卵巢切除术及筛查利用的态度。
Gynecol Oncol. 1999 Oct;75(1):122-9. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1999.5544.
4
Intra-abdominal carcinomatosis after prophylactic oophorectomy in women of hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome kindreds associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.与BRCA1和BRCA2基因突变相关的遗传性乳腺癌卵巢癌综合征家族中女性接受预防性卵巢切除术后的腹腔内癌转移
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 May;97(2):457-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.01.039.
5
Use of genetic testing and prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in women with breast or ovarian cancer from families with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.对来自携带BRCA1或BRCA2基因突变家族的乳腺癌或卵巢癌女性使用基因检测、预防性乳房切除术和卵巢切除术。
J Clin Oncol. 2003 May 1;21(9):1675-81. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.09.052.
6
Family physicians' perspectives on ovarian cancer.家庭医生对卵巢癌的看法。
Cancer Prev Control. 1999 Feb;3(1):61-7.
7
Prophylactic surgery decisions and surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 testing.BRCA1/2基因检测后一年的预防性手术决策及监测措施
Prev Med. 2000 Jul;31(1):75-80. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0684.
8
Predictors of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: the Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group.携带BRCA1或BRCA2基因突变女性对侧预防性乳房切除术的预测因素:遗传性乳腺癌临床研究组
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 1;26(7):1093-7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.6078. Epub 2008 Jan 14.
9
Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy compared with surveillance in women with BRCA mutations.BRCA 突变女性中双侧输卵管卵巢预防性切除与监测的比较
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Sep;108(3 Pt 1):515-20. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000228959.30577.13.
10
Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: issues and concerns.双侧预防性乳房切除术:问题与担忧。
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1995(17):37-42.

引用本文的文献

1
Time trends in uptake rates of risk-reducing mastectomy in Israeli asymptomatic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.以色列无症状 BRCA1 和 BRCA2 突变携带者中降低风险的乳房切除术接受率的时间趋势。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021 Jan;185(2):391-399. doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05949-z. Epub 2020 Sep 30.
2
A comparison of genomic laboratory reports and observations that may enhance their clinical utility for providers and patients.比较基因组学实验室报告和观察结果,以提高其对提供者和患者的临床实用性。
Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2019 Jul;7(7):e00551. doi: 10.1002/mgg3.551. Epub 2019 May 21.
3
Psychosocial factors and uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women at high risk for ovarian cancer.
高风险卵巢癌女性的社会心理因素与降低风险的输卵管卵巢切除术的接受情况。
Fam Cancer. 2013 Mar;12(1):101-9. doi: 10.1007/s10689-012-9585-8.
4
Significant differences among physician specialties in management recommendations of BRCA1 mutation carriers.不同医学专业的医生在 BRCA1 基因突变携带者的管理建议方面存在显著差异。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Aug;129(1):221-7. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1449-7. Epub 2011 Apr 5.
5
Cancer risk management strategies and perceptions of unaffected women 5 years after predictive genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations.BRCA1/2 基因突变预测性基因检测后 5 年未受影响女性的癌症风险管理策略和认知。
Eur J Hum Genet. 2011 May;19(5):500-6. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2010.241. Epub 2011 Jan 26.
6
Is no news good news? Inconclusive genetic test results in BRCA1 and BRCA2 from patients and professionals' perspectives.没有消息就是好消息吗?从患者和专业人员的角度看BRCA1和BRCA2基因检测结果不确定的情况
Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2010 Jan 12;8(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1897-4287-8-1.
7
Variation in rates of uptake of preventive options by Canadian women carrying the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutation.携带BRCA1或BRCA2基因突变的加拿大女性对预防性措施的接受率差异。
Open Med. 2007 Aug 13;1(2):e92-8.
8
The process of deciding about prophylactic surgery for breast and ovarian cancer: Patient questions, uncertainties, and communication.预防性手术治疗乳腺癌和卵巢癌的决策过程:患者的问题、不确定性和沟通。
Am J Med Genet A. 2010 Jan;152A(1):52-66. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33068.
9
International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.携带BRCA1和BRCA2基因突变者预防性治疗方案的国际应用率差异
Int J Cancer. 2008 May 1;122(9):2017-22. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23340.
10
Acceptance of preventive surgeries by Israeli women who had undergone BRCA testing.接受过BRCA检测的以色列女性对预防性手术的接受情况。
Fam Cancer. 2006;5(4):327-35. doi: 10.1007/s10689-006-0002-z. Epub 2006 May 25.