Literature DB >> 12798709

Pre- and postmenopausal high-risk women undergoing screening for ovarian cancer: anxiety, risk perceptions, and quality of life.

Martee L Hensley1, Mark E Robson, Noah D Kauff, Beata Korytowsky, Mercedes Castiel, Jamie Ostroff, Karen Hurley, Lucy E Hann, Jasmine Colon, David Spriggs.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Recommendations for women at high risk of ovarian cancer include prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (PSO) or screening with transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) and CA125 levels. The best strategy for improving survival and maintaining quality of life in high-risk women is not known. Premenopausal women may be more reluctant than postmenopausal women to undergo PSO. However, the risk of false-positive screening results may be more likely in premenopausal women, posing potential psychological risk for those enrolled in high-risk ovarian cancer surveillance programs. We sought to determine whether anxiety, depression, perception of ovarian cancer risk, and false-positive test frequency differed between high-risk premenopausal and postmenopausal women initiating ovarian cancer screening.
METHODS: High-risk women aged > or = 30 years enrolling in a TVUS plus CA125 ovarian cancer screening study completed standard QOL (SF-36), cancer-specific anxiety (IES), depression (CES-D), and ovarian cancer risk perception measures. CA125 > 35 and TVUS showing solid or complex cystic ovarian masses were considered abnormal. Abnormal tests were repeated after 4-6 weeks. Persistently abnormal tests prompted a search for malignancy. Tests that normalized on repeat were considered false positive.
RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven high-risk women, median age 46 (range, 30-78), 78 premenopausal and 69 postmenopausal, had > or = 1 TVUS/CA125/outcome assessment. Premenopausal women were more likely than postmenopausal women to consider themselves at higher risk of ovarian cancer compared with women their age (P < 0.001) and compared with women with similar family histories (P < 0.001). Mean personal perception of lifetime risk of ovarian cancer among premenopausal women was 37% (range, 0-90%) versus 26% (range, 0-60%) among postmenopausal women (P = 0.02). While general QOL and depression scores were similar, 38% of premenopausal women reported high anxiety versus 27% of postmenopausal women (P = 0.03). Thirty percent of women required repeat CA125 or TVUS after first screening; 10.8% of premenopausal women versus 4.6% of postmenopausal women required repeat CA125; and 23.3% of premenopausal and 20.6% of postmenopausal women required repeat TVUS. One postmenopausal woman with persistently rising CA125 >100 had negative mammography, colonoscopy, and dilation and curettage/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. All other abnormal tests normalized on repeat. Two premenopausal women withdrew due to anxiety following false-positive CA125 results. Five women (2 premenopausal, 3 postmenopausal) with normal TVUS/CA125 screening tests elected PSO, with benign findings.
CONCLUSION: Premenopausal women perceive their ovarian cancer risk to be higher, report greater ovarian cancer risk-related anxiety, and are more likely to have false-positive screening results than postmenopausal women. Few high-risk women elect PSO in the short term. Knowledge of the frequency of false-positive screening results and psychosocial outcomes is important for high-risk women choosing strategies for managing ovarian cancer risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12798709     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00147-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  10 in total

1.  Factors associated with deciding between risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and ovarian cancer screening among high-risk women enrolled in GOG-0199: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

Authors:  Phuong L Mai; Marion Piedmonte; Paul K Han; Richard P Moser; Joan L Walker; Gustavo Rodriguez; John Boggess; Thomas J Rutherford; Oliver Zivanovic; David E Cohn; J Tate Thigpen; Robert M Wenham; Michael L Friedlander; Chad A Hamilton; Jamie Bakkum-Gamez; Alexander B Olawaiye; Martee L Hensley; Mark H Greene; Helen Q Huang; Lari Wenzel
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Large prospective study of ovarian cancer screening in high-risk women: CA125 cut-point defined by menopausal status.

Authors:  Steven J Skates; Phuong Mai; Nora K Horick; Marion Piedmonte; Charles W Drescher; Claudine Isaacs; Deborah K Armstrong; Saundra S Buys; Gustavo C Rodriguez; Ira R Horowitz; Andrew Berchuck; Mary B Daly; Susan Domchek; David E Cohn; Linda Van Le; John O Schorge; William Newland; Susan A Davidson; Mack Barnes; Wendy Brewster; Masoud Azodi; Stacy Nerenstone; Noah D Kauff; Carol J Fabian; Patrick M Sluss; Susan G Nayfield; Carol H Kasten; Dianne M Finkelstein; Mark H Greene; Karen Lu
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2011-09

3.  A prospective study of quality of life among women undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy versus gynecologic screening for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Carolyn Y Fang; Carol Cherry; Karthik Devarajan; Tianyu Li; John Malick; Mary B Daly
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Prospective follow-up of quality of life for participants undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or ovarian cancer screening in GOG-0199: An NRG Oncology/GOG study.

Authors:  Phuong L Mai; Helen Q Huang; Lari B Wenzel; Paul K Han; Richard P Moser; Gustavo C Rodriguez; John Boggess; Thomas J Rutherford; David E Cohn; Noah D Kauff; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Kelly Wilkinson; Robert M Wenham; Chad Hamilton; Matthew A Powell; Joan L Walker; Mark H Greene; Martee L Hensley
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Risk perception, worry, and test acceptance in average-risk women who undergo ovarian cancer screening.

Authors:  Laura L Holman; Karen H Lu; Robert C Bast; Mary A Hernandez; Diane C Bodurka; Steven Skates; Charlotte C Sun
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-11-16       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Awareness of ovarian cancer risk factors, beliefs and attitudes towards screening: baseline survey of 21,715 women participating in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening.

Authors:  L Fallowfield; A Fleissig; J Barrett; U Menon; I Jacobs; J Kilkerr; V Farewell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-07-20       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Factors influencing cancer risk perception in high risk populations: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jon C Tilburt; Katherine M James; Pamela S Sinicrope; David T Eton; Brian A Costello; Jantey Carey; Melanie A Lane; Shawna L Ehlers; Patricia J Erwin; Katherine E Nowakowski; Mohammad H Murad
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 2.857

8.  High percentage of abnormal findings on TVU needs further discussion.

Authors:  M J E Mourits; N M van der Velde; H J G Arts; G H de Bock
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-10-23       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Impact of lung cancer screening results on participant health-related quality of life and state anxiety in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  Ilana F Gareen; Fenghai Duan; Erin M Greco; Bradley S Snyder; Phillip M Boiselle; Elyse R Park; Dennis Fryback; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Dynamic change of depression and anxiety after chemotherapy among patients with ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Hongxia Liu; Linqing Yang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.817

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.