Literature DB >> 11331335

BRCA1/2 testing: complex themes in result interpretation.

B N Peshkin1, T A DeMarco, B M Brogan, C Lerman, C Isaacs.   

Abstract

Since the cloning of BRCA1 and BRCA2, genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility has become more widespread. However, interpretation of test results is not always straightforward. To illustrate this point, five vignettes adapted from actual cases are presented. As these cases demonstrate, in many high-risk families, a deleterious mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 is not identified in an affected proband. There are several potential explanations for such a finding, namely that an undetected mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 may exist, or there could be a mutation in a rare or undiscovered gene. In addition, the possibility that women with breast cancer represent sporadic cases within hereditary cancer families must also be considered. Finally, the occurrence of BRCA1/2 variants of uncertain significance, often missense mutations, further complicates the risk assessment. In some of these instances, extending testing to relatives can be helpful to clarify results. When hereditary breast cancer cannot be ruled out, individuals may still be at increased risk for cancer and therefore need to obtain appropriate surveillance. The process of genetic counseling is critical both before and after testing to ensure that patients understand the potential medical and psychosocial implications of testing and are aware of available options and resources. A multidisciplinary approach to service delivery, which includes clinicians in genetics and oncology, can facilitate patients' decision making and provide continued access to information and support.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11331335     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.9.2555

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn; Al Mulley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-06

2.  Direct-to-consumer sales of genetic services on the Internet.

Authors:  Sarah E Gollust; Benjamin S Wilfond; Sara Chandros Hull
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 8.822

3.  Effect of Alzheimer disease genetic risk disclosure on dietary supplement use.

Authors:  Jacqueline A Vernarelli; J Scott Roberts; Susan Hiraki; Clara A Chen; L Adrienne Cupples; Robert C Green
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 7.045

Review 4.  Genomic Biomarkers for Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Michael F Walsh; Katherine L Nathanson; Fergus J Couch; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.622

5.  Outcomes of a systems-level intervention offering breast cancer risk assessments to low-income underserved women.

Authors:  Darren Mays; McKane E Sharff; Tiffani A DeMarco; Bernice Williams; Beth Beck; Vanessa B Sheppard; Beth N Peshkin; Jennifer Eng-Wong; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  "Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer.

Authors:  Kara-Grace Leventhal; William Tuong; Beth N Peshkin; Yasmin Salehizadeh; Mary B Fishman; Susan Eggly; Kevin FitzGerald; Marc D Schwartz; Kristi D Graves
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Behavioral and psychosocial effects of rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Marijke R Wevers; Margreet G E M Ausems; Senno Verhoef; Eveline M A Bleiker; Daniela E E Hahn; Frans B L Hogervorst; Rob B van der Luijt; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Richard van Hillegersberg; Emiel J T H Rutgers; Neil K Aaronson
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2011-01-10       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  Results of an online community needs assessment for psychoeducational interventions among partners of hereditary breast cancer previvors and survivors.

Authors:  Kenneth P Tercyak; Darren Mays; Tiffani A DeMarco; McKane E Sharff; Susan Friedman
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  Predictive value of breast cancer cognitions and attitudes toward genetic testing on women's interest in genetic testing for breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Frauke Reitz; Jürgen Barth; Jürgen Bengel
Journal:  Psychosoc Med       Date:  2004-07-01

Review 10.  Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Ellen Otten; Mirjam Plantinga; Erwin Birnie; Marian A Verkerk; Anneke M Lucassen; Adelita V Ranchor; Irene M Van Langen
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 8.822

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.