Literature DB >> 10811679

Anticipated versus actual emotional reactions to disclosure of results of genetic tests for cancer susceptibility: findings from p53 and BRCA1 testing programs.

M Dorval1, A F Patenaude, K A Schneider, S A Kieffer, L DiGianni, K J Kalkbrenner, J I Bromberg, L A Basili, K Calzone, J Stopfer, B L Weber, J E Garber.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We examined the ability of individuals undergoing genetic testing for cancer susceptibility in two structured research protocols to accurately anticipate emotional reactions to disclosure of their test result. We explored whether accuracy of emotional anticipation was associated with postdisclosure psychologic adjustment.
METHODS: Data from 65 individuals were analyzed; 24 members of Li-Fraumeni cancer syndrome families were tested for p53 mutations (all 24 were unaffected), and 41 subjects with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility were tested for BRCA1 mutations (34 were unaffected and seven were affected). Subjects were from families in which a germline mutation had been previously identified. At the pretest session, subjects rated the extent to which they anticipated feeling each of six emotional states (relief, happiness, sadness, guilt, anger, and worry) after disclosure that they did or did not carry the familial mutation. After receiving their test result, they rated their feelings on the same scale of emotions for the appropriate condition. Extent of accuracy and association with psychologic distress at 6 months, as assessed with standardized measures, were evaluated.
RESULTS: Overall, mean levels of emotional reactions after receiving test results were not different from those anticipated before result disclosure. However, affected BRCA1 carriers experienced higher levels of anger and worry than they had anticipated. Underestimation of subsequent distress emotions related to test result was associated with a significant increase in general psychologic distress at 6 months.
CONCLUSION: Unaffected individuals in cancer-predisposition testing programs are generally accurate in anticipating emotional reactions to test results. However, cancer patients may underestimate their distress after disclosure of positive results and could benefit from intervention strategies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10811679     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.10.2135

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  36 in total

1.  Considerations and costs of disclosing study findings to research participants.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; Chris Skedgel; Charles Weijer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-04-27       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  Methodology in longitudinal studies on psychological effects of predictive DNA testing: a review.

Authors:  R Timman; T Stijnen; A Tibben
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 6.318

3.  Knowledge and expectations of women undergoing cancer genetic risk assessment: a qualitative analysis of free-text questionnaire comments.

Authors:  C Phelps; F Wood; P Bennett; K Brain; J Gray
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-02-23       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  Cancers related to genetic mutations: important psychosocial issues for Canadian family physicians.

Authors:  Tara E Power; John Robinson
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Patient satisfaction of BRCA1/2 genetic testing by women at high risk for breast cancer participating in a prevention trial.

Authors:  Jennifer R Klemp; Anne O'Dea; Carolyn Chamberlain; Carol J Fabian
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Parents' attitudes toward pediatric genetic testing for common disease risk.

Authors:  Kenneth P Tercyak; Sharon Hensley Alford; Karen M Emmons; Isaac M Lipkus; Benjamin S Wilfond; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2011-04-18       Impact factor: 7.124

7.  Women's concerns about the emotional impact of awareness of heritable breast cancer risk and its implications for their children.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Darren Mays; Andrea Farkas Patenaude; Judy E Garber; Tiffani A DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Katherine A Schneider; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-08-07

8.  Improved health perception after genetic counselling for women at high risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer: construction of new questionnaires--an Italian exploratory study.

Authors:  Chiara Catania; Irene Feroce; Monica Barile; Aron Goldhirsch; Tommaso De Pas; Filippo de Braud; Sabrina Boselli; Laura Adamoli; Davide Radice; Alessandra Rossi; Gianluca Spitaleri; Cristina Noberasco; Bernardo Bonanni
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 4.553

9.  A Counselling Model for BRCA1/2 Genetic Susceptibility Testing.

Authors:  Iris van Oostrom; Aad Tibben
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2004-02-15       Impact factor: 2.857

Review 10.  Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome in the first year of colorectal cancer: a review of the psychological impact.

Authors:  Karin M Landsbergen; Judith B Prins; Han G Brunner; Floris W Kraaimaat; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2009-03-28       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.