Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Amanda C. Brandt is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Amanda C. Brandt.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2014

Underestimation of risk of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer by BRCAPRO: a multi-institution study.

Molly S. Daniels; Sheri A. Babb; Robin King; Diana L. Urbauer; Brittany A.L. Batte; Amanda C. Brandt; Christopher I. Amos; Adam H. Buchanan; David G. Mutch; Karen H. Lu

PURPOSE Identification of the 10% to 15% of patients with ovarian cancer who have germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations is important for management of both patients and relatives. The BRCAPRO model, which estimates mutation likelihood based on personal and family cancer history, can inform genetic testing decisions. This studys purpose was to assess the accuracy of BRCAPRO in women with ovarian cancer. METHODS BRCAPRO scores were calculated for 589 patients with ovarian cancer referred for genetic counseling at three institutions. Observed mutations were compared with those predicted by BRCAPRO. Analysis of variance was used to assess factors impacting BRCAPRO accuracy. RESULTS One hundred eighty (31%) of 589 patients with ovarian cancer tested positive. At BRCAPRO scores less than 40%, more mutations were observed than expected (93 mutations observed v 34.1 mutations expected; P < .001). If patients with BRCAPRO scores less than 10% had not been tested, 51 (28%) of 180 mutations would have been missed. BRCAPRO underestimated the risk for high-grade serous ovarian cancers but overestimated the risk for other histologies (P < .001), underestimation increased as age at diagnosis decreased (P = .02), and model performance varied by institution (P = .02). CONCLUSION Patients with ovarian cancer classified as low risk by BRCAPRO are more likely to test positive than predicted. The risk of a mutation in patients with low BRCAPRO scores is high enough to warrant genetic testing. This study demonstrates that assessment of family history by a validated model cannot effectively target testing to a high-risk ovarian cancer patient population, which strongly supports the recommendation to offer BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing to all patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer regardless of family history.


Obstetrics & Gynecology | 2009

Endometrial cancer in an adolescent: a possible manifestation of Cowden syndrome.

Kathleen M. Schmeler; Molly S. Daniels; Amanda C. Brandt; Karen H. Lu

BACKGROUND: Cowden syndrome is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by the development of multiple intestinal hamartomas, distinctive mucocutaneous lesions, and an increased risk of endometrial, breast, and thyroid cancer. CASE: An adolescent girl whose mother had a known germline PTEN mutation presented with abnormal vaginal bleeding and was diagnosed with a grade 2 endometrial adenocarcinoma. She underwent a robotic hysterectomy and was found to have no myometrial invasion or distant disease. Genetic testing revealed the patient to have the familial germline PTEN mutation. CONCLUSION: The strikingly young age of onset of this patient’s endometrial cancer highlights the need for additional study to better understand Cowden syndrome and to determine what endometrial cancer screening and preventive strategies are needed.


Familial Cancer | 2011

A clinical perspective on genetic counseling and testing during end of life care for women with recurrent progressive ovarian cancer: opportunities and challenges

Molly S. Daniels; Jennifer K. Burzawa; Amanda C. Brandt; Kathleen M. Schmeler; Karen H. Lu

Abstract10–15% of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer is attributable to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The identification of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in women with ovarian cancer allows for accurate predictive genetic testing of their at-risk relatives, who can then avail themselves of early detection and risk reduction strategies. In the case of women with recurrent progressive ovarian cancer, the window of opportunity for genetic testing can be particularly limited. Here we describe our perspective on providing genetic counseling during these patients’ end of life care, incorporating two illustrative examples from our clinical practice. While these situations pose unique challenges, they also present a significant opportunity to benefit the patient and her family. Further attention and research should be directed towards provision of genetic counseling and testing during end of life care.


JCO Precision Oncology | 2018

Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer

Angela R. Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Brian L. Egleston; Kara N. Maxwell; Laura DiGiovanni; Jamie Brower; Dominique Fetzer; Jill B. Gaieski; Amanda C. Brandt; Danielle McKenna; Jessica B. Long; Jacquelyn Powers; Jill Stopfer; Katherine L. Nathanson; Susan M. Domchek

Purpose Understanding the outcomes of returning individual genetic research results to participants is critical because some genetic variants are found to be associated with health outcomes and have become available for clinical testing. Materials and Methods BRCA1/2-negative women with early-onset breast cancer, multiple primary cancers, or a family history of breast cancer who participated in a gene discovery cancer registry were offered the opportunity to learn their individual genetic research results of 24 breast cancer susceptibility genes with a genetic counselor after predisclosure genetic counseling. Outcomes included uptake of research results, knowledge, informed choice, psychosocial adjustment, uncertainty, satisfaction, and uptake of clinical confirmation testing. Results Four hundred two potential participants were contacted. One hundred ninety-four participants (48%) did not respond despite multiple attempts, and 85 participants (21%) actively or passively declined. One hundred seven participants (27%) elected for predisclosure counseling and were more likely to be younger, married, and white. Ninety percent of participants who had predisclosure counseling elected to receive their genetic research results, and 89% made an informed choice. Knowledge increased significantly after predisclosure counseling, and anxiety, intrusive cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and depression declined significantly after receipt of results. General anxiety and intrusive cancer-specific distress declined significantly for both participants with a positive result and those with a negative result. Sixty-four percent of participants had clinical confirmation testing when recommended, including all participants with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene. Conclusion Uptake of genetic research results may be lower than anticipated by hypothetical reports and small select studies. Participants who elected to receive research results with genetic providers did not experience increases in distress or uncertainty, but not all patients return for confirmation testing.


Familial Cancer | 2010

Knowledge, attitudes, and clinical experience of physicians regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes

Amanda C. Brandt; Matthew L. Tschirgi; Kaylene Ready; Charlotte C. Sun; Sandra Darilek; Jacqueline T. Hecht; Banu Arun; Karen H. Lu


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2017

Oncotype DX scores in BRCA1 and BRCA2 associated breast cancer.

Nicholas Patrick McAndrew; Kara N. Maxwell; Jill Stopfer; Jacquelyn Powers; Amanda C. Brandt; Jessica M. Long; Katherine L. Nathanson; Susan M. Domchek


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2017

Impact of prior knowledge of mutation status on tumor stage in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Clinton Yam; Jill Stopfer; Amanda C. Brandt; Jacquelyn Powers; Jessica M. Long; Kara N. Maxwell; Angela R. Bradbury; Katherine L. Nathanson; Susan M. Domchek


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2017

An alternative approach to identify women at risk for colorectal cancer.

Amanda S. Bruegl; Bojana Djordjevic; Shannon N. Westin; Pamela T. Soliman; Amanda C. Brandt; Molly S. Daniels; Karen H. Lu; Russell Broaddus


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2017

A multi-institution study of the accuracy of BRCAPRO in predicting BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in women with ovarian cancer.

Molly S. Daniels; Sheri A. Babb; Robin King; Diana L. Urbauer; Christopher I. Amos; Amanda C. Brandt; Adam H. Buchanan; David G. Mutch; Karen H. Lu


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2017

Comparison of BRCA1/2-positive and -negative women diagnosed with metachronous breast and ovarian cancers.

Amanda C. Brandt; Nisreen Elsayegh; Heather Lin; Angelica M. Gutierrez-Barrera; Karen H. Lu; Banu Arun

Collaboration


Dive into the Amanda C. Brandt's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Karen H. Lu

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Molly S. Daniels

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Banu Arun

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jacquelyn Powers

University of Pennsylvania

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jill Stopfer

University of Pennsylvania

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Kara N. Maxwell

University of Pennsylvania

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Susan M. Domchek

University of Pennsylvania

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Charlotte C. Sun

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge