Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1314–1315 | Cite as

Letter to the Editor: Response to Cox (2018)

  • Teresa GavaruzziEmail author
  • Alessandra Tasso
  • Marzena Franiuk
  • Liliana Varesco
  • Lorella Lotto
Letter to the Editor

This letter is in response to the comment by Cox (2018), who appeared to be concerned by the figures we presented to participants about the residual risk for ovarian cancer after bilateral risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). We agree with the fact that the presence of a residual cancer risk after prophylactic surgery is an important element of discussion during post-test genetic counseling and the subsequent decision-making process. However, at present, we don’t have robust evidence of these figures in real-life high-risk programs. For this reason, we decided to take a conservative approach and, as hypothesized by Cox, we used “…the 80% reduction in risk for ovarian cancer reported in Finch et al. (2014), in conjunction with the lifetime risks reported by Mavaddat et al. (2013)”, instead of using lower figures.

Specifically, we first considered risk figures in Mavaddat et al. (2013), who estimated the average cumulative risks for ovarian cancer by age 70 to be 59% for BRCA1...


  1. Cameron, L. D., Sherman, K. A., Marteau, T. M., & Brown, P. M. (2009). Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. Health Psychology, 28, 307–316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cox, D. (2018). Letter to the Editor: Response to “A psychological perspective on factors predicting prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy in a sample of Italian women from the general population. Results from a hypothetical study in the context of BRCA mutations.” Journal of Genetic Counseling. Scholar
  3. Finch, A. P., Lubinski, J., Møller, P., Singer, C. F., Karlan, B., Senter, L., et al. (2014). Impact of oophorectomy on cancer incidence and mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32, 1547–1553.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Gavaruzzi, T., Tasso, A., Franiuk, M., Varesco, L., & Lotto, L. (2017). A psychological perspective on factors predicting prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy in a sample of Italian women from the general population. Results from a hypothetical study in the context of BRCA mutations. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26, 1144–1152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 53–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lotto, L., Tasso, A., Gavaruzzi, T., Carnaghi, A., & Rumiati, R. (2014). How framing and numerical information affect people’s judgments when they read a newspaper story. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Marchetti, C., De Felice, F., Palaia, I., Perniola, G., Musella, A., Musio, D., et al. (2014). Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: A meta-analysis on impact on ovarian cancer risk and all cause mortality in BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 mutation carriers. BMC Women’s Health, 14, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mavaddat, N., Peock, S., Frost, D., Ellis, S., Platte, R., Fineberg, E., et al. (2013). Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: Results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 105, 812–822.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 66, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Reyna, V. F. (2008). A theory of medical decision making and health: Fuzzy trace theory. Medical Decision Making, 28, 850–865.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and Individual Differences, 7, 1–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect euristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 1333–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Witteman, H. O., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Waters, E. A., Gavaruzzi, T., & Fagerlin, A. (2011). Risk estimates from an online risk calculator are more believable and recalled better when expressed as integers. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13, e54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teresa Gavaruzzi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alessandra Tasso
    • 2
  • Marzena Franiuk
    • 3
  • Liliana Varesco
    • 3
  • Lorella Lotto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Developmental Psychology and SocializationUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly
  2. 2.Department of HumanitiesUniversity of FerraraFerraraItaly
  3. 3.Unit of Hereditary Cancer, IRCCS AOU San MartinoIST Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul CancroGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations