 |
 |

Effect of Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment on Surgical Decisions at Breast Cancer DiagnosisInvited Critique
Dimitrios H. Roukos, MD
Ioannina, Greece
Arch Surg. 2003;138:1329.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
The evident high lifetime risk of breast cancer (45%-85%) and ovarian cancer (15%-40%) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers has established a form of genetic testing essential for decision making between risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy or oophorectomy1 and surveillance. Now, Weitzel and colleagues correctly highlight the utility of GCRA not only for preventive interventions but also for therapeutic decision making in women who have breast cancer and a strong family history or early-onset disease. Indeed, GCRA before definitive treatment of such patients may change the current choice from BCT to bilateral mastectomy. In sporadic breast cancer, an association has been suggested between multicentricity or multifocality and local failure after BCT in younger as oppposed to older patients.2 This well-established increased risk for young women may partially be attributable to undiagnosed BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations in some women with early-onset disease.
Although bilateral mastectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 . . . [Full Text of this Article]
RELATED ARTICLE
Effect of Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment on Surgical Decisions at Breast Cancer Diagnosis
Jeffrey N. Weitzel, Sarah M. McCaffrey, Raluca Nedelcu, Deborah J. MacDonald, Kathleen R. Blazer, and Carey A. Cullinane
Arch Surg. 2003;138(12):1323-1328.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
 |
The Predominant Role of Surgery in the Prevention and New Trends in the Surgical Treatment of Women With BRCA1/2 Mutations
Fatouros et al.
Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008;15:21-33.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Editorial: Preventing Breast, Ovarian Cancer in BRCA Carriers: Rational of Prophylactic Surgery and Promises of Surveillance
Agnantis et al.
Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2004;11:1030-1034.
FULL TEXT
|