Moscicki, A. HPV infections in adolescents. Disease Markers 2007;23:229–234.Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Cervical cancer screening and prevention. Practice bulletin No. 168. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:111–130.Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Management of abnormal cervical cancer screening test results and cervical cancer precursors. Practice Bulletin No. 140. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:1338–1367.Google Scholar

Katki, HA, Schiffman, M, Castle, PE et al.Benchmarking CIN 3+ risk as the basis for incorporating HPV and Pap cotesting into cervical screening and management guidelines. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17 (5 Suppl 1):S28.Google Scholar

Benard, VB, Watson, M, Castle, PE, Saraiya, M. Cervical carcinoma rates among young females in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1117–1123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cox, JT, Schiffman, M, Solomon, D. Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1406–1412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Katki, HA1, Schiffman, M, Castle, PE et al. Five-year risk of CIN 3+ to guide the management of women aged 21 to 24 years. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17 (5 Suppl 1): S64–S68.Google Scholar

Massad, L, Einstein, M, Huh, W et al. 2012 Updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17 (5 Suppl 1): S1–S2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arbyn, M, Sasieni, P, Meijer, CJ et al. Chapter 9: Clinical applications of HPV testing : a summary of meta-analyses. Vaccine 2006;24 (suppl 3): S78–S89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Waxman, AG, Chelmow, D, Darragh, TM, Lawson, H, Moscicki, AB. Revised terminology for cervical histopathology and its implications for management of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2012 December;120(6):1465–1471.Google Scholar

Moscicki, A, Ma, Y, Wibbelsman, C et al. Rate of and risks for regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 in adolescents and young women. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1373–1380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Lynch syndrome. Practice bulletin No. 147. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:1042–1054.Google Scholar

Barrow, E, Hill, J, Evans, DG. Cancer risk in Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer 2013;12(2):229–240.Google Scholar

Nakamura, K, Banno, K, Yanokura, M et al. Features of ovarian cancer in Lynch syndrome. Mol Clin Oncol. 2014;2(6):909–916.Google Scholar

Lu, KH, Dinh, M, Kohlmann, W et al. Gynecologic cancer as a “sentinel cancer” for women with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:569–574.Google Scholar

Vasen, H, Watson, P, Mecklin, JP, Lynch, H. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative Group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 1999;116(6):1453–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Umar, A, Boland, CR, Terdiman, JP et al. Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(4):261–268.Google Scholar

National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal. Version 1.2017. Available at NCCN.org.Google Scholar

Lindor, NM, Petersen, GM, Hadley, DW et al. Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA 2006;296:1507–1517.Google Scholar

Burn, J, Gerdes, AM, Macrae, F et al. CAPP2 Investigators: long-term effect of aspirin on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;378:2081–2087.Google Scholar

Schmeler, K, Lynch, HT, Chen, L et al. Prophylactic surgery to reduce the risk of gynecologic cancers in the Lynch Syndrome. N Engl J Med 2006;354:261–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hampel, H. Genetic counseling and cascade genetic testing in Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer 2016;15:423–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stoffel, EM, Ford, B, Mercado, RC et al. Sharing genetic test results in Lynch syndrome: communication with close and distant relatives. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6(3):333–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

American Medical Association, Code of Medical Ethics. Opinion E-2.131: Disclosure of Familial Risk in Genetic Testing. www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion2131.page. Accessed 11 January 2013.Google Scholar

Duesing, N, Schwarz, J, Choschzick, M et al. Assessment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with colposcopic biopsy and efficacy of loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:1549–1554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ghaem-Maghami, S, Sagi, S, Majeed, G, Soutter, W P. Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of treatment failure: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncology 2007;8(11):985–993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Liss, J, Alston, M, Krull, MB, Mazzoni, SE. Predictors of positive margins at time of Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2017:21(1):64–66.Google Scholar

McCredie, MR, Sharples, KJ, Paul, C et al. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:425–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Felix, JC, Muderspach, LI, Duggan, BD, Roman, LD. The significance of positive margins in loop electrosurgical cone biopsies. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84(6):996–1000.Google ScholarPubMed

Temkin, SM, Hellmann, M, Lee, YC, Abulafia, O. Dysplastic endocervical curettings: a predictor of cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007 May;196(5):469.e1–469.e4Google Scholar

Massad, SL, Einstein, MH, Huh, WK et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17: S1–S27.Google Scholar

Ayhan, A, Boynukalin, FK, Guven, S et al. Repeat LEEP conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and positive ectocervical margins. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009:105(1):14–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bansal, N, Wright, JD, Cohen, CJ, Herzog, TJ. Natural history of low grade cervical intraepithelial lesions. Anticancer Res 2008 May–June;28(3B):1763–1766.Google Scholar

Jin, G, Lanlan, Z, Li, C, Dan, Z. Pregnancy outcome following loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2014;289(1):85–99.Google Scholar

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. Version 2.2017. 2016. www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf. (Accessed April 27, 2017).Google Scholar

Moyer VA, Force USPST. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:271–281.Google Scholar

Couch, FJ, Nathanson, KL, Offit, K. Two decades after BRCA: setting paradigms in personalized cancer care and prevention. Science 2014;343:1466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins–Gynecology, ACOG Committee on Genetics, Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 103: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113: 957–66 (reaffirmed 2015).Google Scholar

Lancaster, JM, Powell, CB, Chen, LM, Richardson, DL, SGO Clinical Practice Committee. Society of Gynecologic Oncology statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. Gynecol Oncol 2015;136:3–7.Google Scholar

King, MC, Wieand, S, Hale, K et al. Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidence among women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP-P1) Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. JAMA 2001;286:2251–2256.Google Scholar

Moorman, PG, Havrilesky, LJ, Gierisch, JM et al. Oral contraceptives and risk of ovarian cancer and breast cancer among high-risk women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:4188–4198.Google Scholar

Society of Gynecologic Oncology. SGO clinical practice statement: salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. 2013. www.sgo.org/clinical-practice/guidelines/sgo-clinical-practice-statement-salpingectomy-for-ovarian-cancer-prevention/. (Accessed February 18, 2015).Google Scholar

Domchek, SM, Friebel, TM, Singer, CF et al. Association of risk-reducingsurgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA 2010;304:967–975.Google Scholar

Rebbeck, TR, Friebel, T, Wagner, T et al. Effect of short-term hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer risk reduction after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7804–7810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Massad, LS et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17:S1.Google Scholar

ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 140, Management of abnormal cervical cancer screening test results and cervical cancer precursors, December 2013.Google Scholar

ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 168, Cervical cancer screening and prevention, October 2016.Google Scholar

Waxman, AG, Chelmow, D, Darragh, TM, Lawson, H, Moscicki, A-B. Revised terminology for cervical histopathology and its implications for management of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120(6):1465–1471.Google Scholar

National Cancer Institute: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. [Online] accessed 7/16/2017 2008. www.cancer.goy/bcrisktool/.Google Scholar

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines Version 1.2017 Breast Cancer Risk Reduction. [Online] July 16, 2017. www.nccn.org/professionals/physicians_gls/pdf/breast_risk.pdf.Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-risk women. Practice bulletin No. 179. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130: e1–e16.Google Scholar

Bevers, T. Clinical management of the patient at increased or high risk. [book auth.] Copeland, E, Bland, K. Breast: Comprehensive Management of Benign and Malignant Disease. 4th Edition. s.l.: Saunders Elsevier, 2009, pp. 1381–1392.Google Scholar

Heisey, R, Carrol, J. Identification and management of women with a family history of breast cancer: practical guide for clinicians. Can Fam Physician October 2016;10:799–803.Google Scholar

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines Version 1.2017 Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. [Online] July 17, 2017. www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf.Google Scholar

Kushi, LH, Doyle, C, McCullough, M et al. and The American Cancer Society 2010 Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, American Cancer Society guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention. CA: Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:30–67. doi:10.3322/caac.20140Google Scholar

Rosenberg, L, Weber, R, Sjoberg, D, Vickers, A. Impact of self-reported data on the acquistion of multi-generational family history and lifestyle factors among women seen in high-risk breast screening program: a focus on modifiable risk factors and genetic referral. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017;162:275–282.Google Scholar

Massad, LS, Einstein, MH, Huh, WK et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17(5 Suppl 1): S1–S27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Human papillomavirus vaccination. Committee Opinion No. 704. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 129: e173–e178.Google Scholar

Markowitz, LE, Hariri, S, Lin, C et al. Reduction in human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence among young women following HPV vaccine introduction in the United States, National health and nutrition examination surveys, 2003–2010. J Infect Dis 2013;208(3):385–393.Google Scholar

Khan, MJ, Castle, PE, Lorincz, AT et al. The elevated 10-year risk of cervical precancer and cancer in women with human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 or 18 and the possible utility of type-specific HPV testing in clinical practice. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97(14):1072–1079.Google Scholar

Munoz, N, Bosch, FX, de Sanjose, S et al. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348(6):518–527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Viens, LJ, Henley, SJ, Watson, M et al. Human papillomavirus-associated cancers – United States, 2008–2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65(26):661–666.Google Scholar

Meites, E, Kempe, A, Markowitz, LE. Use of a 2-dose schedule for human papillomavirus vaccination – updated recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65(49):1405–1408.Google Scholar

Olsson, SE, Kjaer, SK, Sigurdsson, K et al. Evaluation of quadrivalent HPV 6/11/16/18 vaccine efficacy against cervical and anogenital disease in subjects with serological evidence of prior vaccine type HPV infection. Hum Vaccin 2009;5(10):696–704.Google Scholar

Markowitz, LE, Dunne, EF, Saraiya, M et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 2014;63(RR–05):1–30.Google Scholar

Vichnin, M, Bonanni, P, Klein, NP et al. An overview of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine safety: 2006 to 2015. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2015;34(9):983–991.Google Scholar