Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2018

Open Access 01-09-2018 | Epidemiology

Risk-reducing mastectomy rates in the US: a closer examination of the Angelina Jolie effect

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

In 2013, Angelina Jolie disclosed in the New York Times (NYT) that she had undergone risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy (RRBM) after learning that she was a BRCA1 mutation carrier. We examined the rates of BRCA testing and RRBM from 1997 to 2016, and quantified trends before and after the Jolie op-ed.

Methods

This observational study of insurance claims data representative of the commercially-insured US population (Truven MarketScan® database) measured BRCA testing and RRBM rates among females ≥ 18 years. Censoring events were breast cancer or ovarian cancer diagnosis, last follow-up date (September 2016), or death. Interrupted time series analyses were used to quantify trends before and after the op-ed.

Results

Angelina Jolie’s NYT op-ed led to a statistically significant increase in the uptake of genetic testing and in RRBM among women without previous diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer in the US population, and in women who did not undergo testing for BRCA (P < 0.0001 for both). The rate (slope) of RRBM among women who were previously tested for BRCA (P = 0.70) was unchanged. After excluding women with in-situ tumors, the editorial’s effect became less pronounced, suggesting that high-risk women with in-situ breast cancers were most influenced by Jolie’s announcement.

Conclusion

The Angelina Effect—a term coined by Time magazine to describe the rise in internet searches related to breast cancer genetics and counseling—represents a long-lasting impact of celebrity on public health awareness as significant increases in genetic testing and mastectomy rates were observed and sustained in subsequent years.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Antoniou AC, Hardy R, Walker L, Evans DG, Shenton A, Eeles R, Shanley S, Pichert G, Izatt L, Rose S et al (2008) Predicting the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: validation of BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, Myriad and the Manchester scoring system using data from UK genetics clinics. J Med Genet 45(7):425–431CrossRefPubMed
3.
Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD (1994) Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 73(3):643–651CrossRefPubMed
4.
Evans DG, Graham J, O’Connell S, Arnold S, Fitzsimmons D (2013) Familial breast cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ 346:f3829CrossRefPubMed
5.
Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, Mulvihill JJ (1989) Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81(24):1879–1886CrossRefPubMed
6.
Moyer VA (2014) Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160(4):271–281CrossRefPubMed
7.
Nisker J (2013) A public health education initiative for women with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer: why did it take Angelina Jolie? J Obstet Gynaecol Can 35(8):689–691CrossRefPubMed
8.
Evans DG, Barwell J, Eccles DM, Collins A, Izatt L, Jacobs C, Donaldson A, Brady AF, Cuthbert A, Harrison R et al (2014) The Angelina Jolie effect: how high celebrity profile can have a major impact on provision of cancer related services. Breast Cancer Res 16:442–446CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Desai S, Jena AB (2016) Do celebrity endorsements matter? Observational study of BRCA gene testing and mastectomy rates after Angelina Jolie’s New York Times editorial. BMJ 355:i6357CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
11.
Ramsay CR, Matowe L, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE (2003) Interrupted time series designs in health technology assessment: lessons from two systematic reviews of behavior change strategies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19(4):613–623CrossRefPubMed
12.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335(7624):806–808CrossRef
13.
Logue LJ (2003) Genetic testing coverage and reimbursement: a provider’s dilemma. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev 17(6):346–350PubMed
14.
Mues KE, Liede A, Liu J, Wetmore JB, Zaha R, Bradbury BD, Collins AJ, Gilbertson DT (2017) Use of the medicare database in epidemiologic and health services research: a valuable source of real-world evidence on the older and disabled populations in the US. Clin Epidemiol 9:267–277CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
16.
17.
Gregorowitsch ML, van den Bongard H, Young-Afat DA, Pignol JP, van Gils CH, May AM, Verkooijen HM (2017) Severe depression more common in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ than early-stage invasive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat
18.
19.
Kennedy F, Harcourt D, Rumsey N, White P (2010) The psychosocial impact of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): a longitudinal prospective study. Breast 19(5):382–387CrossRefPubMed
20.
Mertz BG, Duriaud HM, Kroman N, Andersen KG (2017) Pain, sensory disturbances and psychological distress are common sequelae after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a cross-sectional study. Acta Oncol 56(5):724–729CrossRefPubMed
21.
Lodder L, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW, Klijn JG, Seynaeve C, Tilanus MM, Bartels CC, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, Verhoog LC, Niermeijer MF (2003) Attitudes and distress levels in women at risk to carry a BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutation who decline genetic testing. Am J Med Genet A 119A(3):266–272CrossRefPubMed
22.
Lerman C, Hughes C, Lemon SJ, Main D, Snyder C, Durham C, Narod S, Lynch HT (1998) What you don’t know can hurt you: adverse psychologic effects in members of BRCA1-linked and BRCA2-linked families who decline genetic testing. J Clin Oncol 16(5):1650–1654CrossRefPubMed
23.
O’Neill SC, DeMarco T, Peshkin BN, Rogers S, Rispoli J, Brown K, Valdimarsdottir H, Schwartz MD (2006) Tolerance for uncertainty and perceived risk among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 test results. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 142C(4):251–259CrossRefPubMed
24.
Dorval M, Gauthier G, Maunsell E, Dugas MJ, Rouleau I, Chiquette J, Plante M, Laframboise R, Gaudet M, Bridge PJ et al (2005) No evidence of false reassurance among women with an inconclusive BRCA1/2 genetic test result. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 14(12):2862–2867CrossRef
25.
Ertmanski S, Metcalfe K, Trempala J, Glowacka MD, Lubinski J, Narod SA, Gronwald J (2009) Identification of patients at high risk of psychological distress after BRCA1 genetic testing. Genet Test Mol Biomark 13(3):325–330CrossRef
26.
Metcalfe KA, Mian N, Enmore M, Poll A, Llacuachaqui M, Nanda S, Sun P, Hughes KS, Narod SA (2012) Long-term follow-up of Jewish women with a BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation who underwent population genetic screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(2):735–740CrossRefPubMed
27.
Hooker GW, King L, Vanhusen L, Graves K, Peshkin BN, Isaacs C, Taylor KL, Poggi E, Schwartz MD (2014) Long-term satisfaction and quality of life following risk reducing surgery in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 12(1):9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Liede A, Fairchild A, Friedman S, Amelio J, Hallett DC, Mansfield CA, Metcalfe KA (2016) Abstract P2-09-09: risk-reducing surgery and cancer-related distress among female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, vol 76
29.
Evans DG, Wisely J, Clancy T, Lalloo F, Wilson M, Johnson R, Duncan J, Barr L, Gandhi A, Howell A (2015) Longer term effects of the Angelina Jolie effect: increased risk-reducing mastectomy rates in BRCA carriers and other high-risk women. Breast Cancer Res 17:143CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Liede A, Hernandez RK, Roth M, Calkins G, Larrabee K, Nicacio L (2015) Validation of international classification of diseases coding for bone metastases in electronic health records using technology-enabled abstraction. Clin Epidemiol 7:441–448CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Risk-reducing mastectomy rates in the US: a closer examination of the Angelina Jolie effect
Publication date
01-09-2018
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4824-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2018 Go to the issue

Epidemiology

Age at first full-term birth and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Epidemiology

The relationship between patient and tumor characteristics, patterns of breast cancer care, and 5-year survival among elderly women with incident breast cancer

Epidemiology

Extent of regional lymph node surgery and impact on outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer and limited axillary disease undergoing mastectomy

Preclinical study

Comparison of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes of breast cancer in core needle biopsies and resected specimens: a retrospective analysis

Epidemiology

Including internal mammary lymph nodes in radiation therapy for synchronous bilateral breast cancer: an international survey of treatment technique and clinical priorities

Clinical trial

Machine-learning-derived classifier predicts absence of persistent pain after breast cancer surgery with high accuracy
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits