Literature DB >> 12784290

Attitudes and distress levels in women at risk to carry a BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutation who decline genetic testing.

Litanja Lodder1, Petra G Frets, R Willem Trijsburg, Jan G M Klijn, Caroline Seynaeve, Madeleine M A Tilanus, Carina C M Bartels, E Johanna Meijers-Heijboer, Leon C Verhoog, Martinus F Niermeijer.   

Abstract

Genetic testing enables women at risk for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer to find out whether they have inherited the gene mutation, and if so, to opt for undergoing frequent surveillance and/or prophylactic surgery. However, the option to know about one's genetic status is not always seen as a benefit by women at risk. Motives for declining genetic testing were explored in 13 women at 25% or 50% risk to be a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carrier, who participated in a surveillance program for breast/ovarian cancer (the non-tested group). We hypothesized that high anxiety might be an important motive to decline testing. In addition, we investigated whether the non-tested group differed from a reference group of women who did undergo the test (tested group; n = 85) with regard to biographical factors, experience with cancer in relatives, and personality traits. Most non-tested women (10/13) were satisfied with participating in the surveillance program. Four reported to feel emotionally unprepared to cope with the consequences of testing. Compared with the tested group, the non-tested women had similar mean distress levels (which were not high), but a higher education level, they were more often childless, showed more reluctance towards prophylactic surgery, were younger when first confronted with a relative affected with breast/ovarian cancer, and were longer aware of the genetic nature of the disease. This study showed that women were more likely to have thoroughly reflected on their decision not to undergo genetic testing, than to deny the whole issue due to high anxiety. Being confronted at a relatively young age with breast/ovarian cancer in a relative, and being aware of the genetic risk for a many years, may have resulted in the risk for cancer becoming an integrated part of their lives. However, generalization of these results to women who neither underwent the test nor participated in a surveillance program should be considered with caution. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12784290     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.10168

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  9 in total

1.  Results of an intervention for individuals and families with BRCA mutations: a model for providing medical updates and psychosocial support following genetic testing.

Authors:  Wendy McKinnon; Shelly Naud; Taka Ashikaga; Rose Colletti; Marie Wood
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  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

3.  Factors associated with an individuals' decision to withdraw from genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes mutations: are personality traits involved?

Authors:  Anita Caruso; Cristina Vigna; Valentina Bigazzi; Carlo Leone; Gabriella Maggi; Aline Martayan; Fabio M Sega; Francesco Cognetti; Antonella Savarese
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Concerns about cancer risk and experiences with genetic testing in a diverse population of patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Reshma Jagsi; Kent A Griffith; Allison W Kurian; Monica Morrow; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Experiences and decisions that motivate women at increased risk of breast cancer to participate in an experimental screening program.

Authors:  Michelle Proulx; Marie-Dominique Beaulieu; Christine Loignon; Marie-Hélène Mayrand; Christine Maugard; Nathalie Bellavance; Diane Provencher
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-02-14       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Withdrawal from genetic counselling for cancer.

Authors:  Eveline Bleiker; Gea Wigbout; Anja van Rens; Senno Verhoef; Laura Van't Veer; Neil Aaronson
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2005-02-15       Impact factor: 2.857

7.  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

8.  Risk perception and cancer worries in families at increased risk of familial breast/ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne Mellon; Robin Gold; James Janisse; Michelle Cichon; Michael A Tainsky; Michael S Simon; Jeannette Korczak
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.894

9.  Risk-reducing mastectomy rates in the US: a closer examination of the Angelina Jolie effect.

Authors:  Alexander Liede; Mona Cai; Tamara Fidler Crouter; Daniela Niepel; Fiona Callaghan; D Gareth Evans
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 4.872

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.