EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 27 / No 6-7 (Juin–Juillet 2011) Med Sci (Paris), 27 6-7 (2011) 657-661 References
Free Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 27, Number 6-7, Juin–Juillet 2011
Page(s) 657 - 661
Section Forum
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2011276019
Published online 01 July 2011
  1. Sevilla C, Bourret P, Noguès C, et al. L’offre de tests de prédisposition génétique au cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire en France. Med Sci (Paris) 2004 ; 20 : 788-792. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Inca. Rapport d’activité d’oncogénétique 2009-2010. Paris. Intitut National du Cancer, 2010 : 54. [Google Scholar]
  3. Eisinger F, Bressac B, Castaigne D, et al. Identification and management of hereditary predisposition to cancer of the breast and the ovary (update 2004). Bull Cancer 2004 ; 91 : 219-237. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bast RC Jr, Mills GB. Personalizing therapy for ovarian cancer : BRCAness and beyond. J Clin Oncol 2011 ; 28 : 3545-3548. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Van Dijk S, Otten W, Timmermans DR, et al. What’s the message? Interpretation of an uninformative BRCA1/2 test result for women at risk of familial breast cancer. Genet Med 2005 ; 7 : 239-245. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cypowyj C, Eisinger F, Huiart L, et al. Subjective interpretation of inconclusive BRCA1/2 cancer genetic test results and transmission of information to the relatives. Psychooncology 2009 ; 18 : 209-215. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hallowell N, Foster C, Ardern-Jones A, et al. Genetic testing for women previously diagnosed with breast/ovarian cancer : examining the impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation searching. Genet Test 2002 ; 6 : 79-87. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Inserm. Test génétiques : questions scientifiques, médicales et sociétales. Collection Expertises collectives. Paris : Inserm, 2008 : 352 p. [Google Scholar]
  9. Julian-Reynier C, Pierret J, Eisinger F. Prédisposition génétique au cancer : questions psychologiques et débats de société, Paris : John Libbey Eurotext, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  10. Julian-Reynier C, Welkenhuysen M, Hagoel L, et al. Risk communication strategies : state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. Eur J Hum Genet 2003 ; 11 : 725-736. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Risk charts : putting cancer in context. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002 ; 94 : 799-804. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Braithwaite D, Emery J, Walter F, et al. Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer : a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004 ; 96 : 122-133. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, et al. A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med 2008 ; 10 : 19-32. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hopwood P. Psychosocial aspects of risk communication and mutation testing in familial breast-ovarian cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2005 ; 17 : 340-344. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Meiser B, Halliday JL. What is the impact of genetic counselling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer? A meta-analytic review. Soc Sci Med 2002 ; 54 : 1463-1470. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Julian-Reynier C, Bouhnik AD, Mouret-Fourme E, et al. Time to prophylactic surgery in BRCA1/2 carriers depends on psychological and other characteristics. Genet Med 2010 ; 12 : 801-807. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Bonaïti-Pellié C, Andrieu N, Arveux P, et al. Cancer genetics : estimation of the needs of the population in France for the next ten years. Bull Cancer 2009 ; 96 : 875-900. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Bouhnik A. Psychological follow-up after disclosure of cancer genetic test results in BRCA1/2 mutated families. Eur J Hum Genet 2010 ; 18S1 : 387. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lodder L, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW, et al. Psychological impact of receiving a BRCA1/BRCA2 test result. Am J Med Genet 2001 ; 98 : 15-24. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Foster C, Watson M, Eeles R, et al. Predictive genetic testing for BRCA1/2 in a UK clinical cohort : three-year follow-up. Br J Cancer 2007 ; 96 : 718-724. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Julian-Reynier C, Mancini J, Mouret-Fourme E, et al. Cancer risk management strategies and perceptions of unaffected women 5 years after predictive genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Eur J Hum Genet 2011 ; 19 : 500-506. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Schwartz MD. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy : efficacy, satisfaction, and regret. J Clin Oncol 2005 ; 23 : 7777-7779. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lodder LN, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW, et al. One year follow-up of women opting for presymptomatic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 : emotional impact of the test outcome and decisions on risk management (surveillance or prophylactic surgery). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002 ; 73 : 97-112. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Metcalfe KA, Ghadirian P, Rosen B, et al. Variation in rates of uptake of preventive options by Canadian women carrying the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutation. Open Med 2007 ; 1 : e92-8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Evans DG, Lalloo F, Ashcroft L, et al. Uptake of risk-reducing surgery in unaffected women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer is risk, age, and time dependent. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009 ; 18 : 2318-2324. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Skytte AB, Gerdes AM, Andersen MK, et al. Risk-reducing mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy in unaffected BRCA mutation carriers : uptake and timing. Clin Genet 2010 ; 77 : 342-349. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Julian-Reynier CM, Bouchard LJ, Evans DG, et al. Women’s attitudes toward preventive strategies for hereditary breast or ovarian carcinoma differ from one country to another : differences among English, French, and Canadian women. Cancer 2001 ; 92 : 959-968. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Julian-Reynier C, Eisinger F, Moatti JP, Sobol H. Physicians’ attitudes towards mammography and prophylactic surgery for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer risk and subsequently published guidelines. Eur J Hum Genet 2000 ; 8 : 204-208. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Dawson SJ, Price MA, Jenkins MA, et al. Cancer risk management practices of noncarriers within BRCA1/2 mutation positive families in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for research into familial breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008 ; 26 : 225-232. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Dorval M, Noguès C, Berthet P, et al. Breast and ovarian cancer screening of non-carriers from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families : 2-year follow-up of cohorts from France and Quebec. Eur J Hum Genet 2011 ; 19 : 494-499. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Jordan, B. Les tests génétiques grand public en « caméra cachée ». Med Sci (Paris) 2011 ; 27 : 103-106. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ducournau P, Gourraud PA, Rial-Sebbag E, et al. Tests génétiques en accès libre sur Internet - Stratégies commerciales et enjeux éthiques et sociétaux. Med Sci (Paris) 2011 ; 27 : 95-102. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Matloff ET, Brierley KL. The double-helix derailed : the story of the BRCA patent. Lancet 2010 ; 376 : 314-315. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Cassier M, Stoppa-Lyonnet D. Un juge fédéral et le gouvernement des États-Unis interviennent contre la brevetabilité des gènes. Med Sci (Paris) 2011 ; 27 : 662-666. [Google Scholar]
  35. Annes J, Giiovanni M, Murray M. Risk of presymptomatic direct-to-consumer genetic testing. N Engl J Med 2010 ; 363 : 1100-1101. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Evans J, Dale D, Fomous C. Preparing for a consumer-driven genomic age. N Engl J Med 2010 ; 363 : 1099-1103. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Manolio TA. Genomewide association studies and assessment of the risk of disease. N Engl J Med 2010 ; 363 : 166-176. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Human Genetics Commission. Genes direct : ensuring the effective oversight of genetic tests supplied directly to the public. London: Department of Health, 2003 : 78. http://www.hgc.gov.uk/Client/ document.asp?DocId=34 [Google Scholar]
  39. Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility : evaluating direct to consumer marketing. Atlanta, Denver, Raleigh-Durham, and Seattle 2003. MMWR 2004 ; 53 : 603-606. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wertz D, Fletcher J. Genetics and ethics in global perspective. Amsterdam : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Jordan B. Séquence personnelle et tests génétiques : le pavé dans la mare. Med Sci (Paris) 2010 ; 26 : 999-1001. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Becker F, van El CG, Ibarreta D, et al. Genetic testing, common disorders in a public health framework : how to assess relevance, possibilities. Background document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing, common disorders. Eur J Hum Genet 2011 ; 19 (suppl 1) : S6-S44. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.