Literature DB >> 14735581

Impact of BRCA1/2 testing and disclosure of a positive test result on women affected and unaffected with breast or ovarian cancer.

Mariëlle S van Roosmalen1, P F M Stalmeier, L C G Verhoef, J E H M Hoekstra-Weebers, J C Oosterwijk, N Hoogerbrugge, U Moog, W A J van Daal.   

Abstract

To evaluate the impact of BRCA1/2 testing and disclosure of a positive test result on women affected and unaffected with cancer. Longitudinal cohort study including women affected and unaffected with breast or ovarian cancer testing for a BRCA1/2 mutation. Data on well-being (anxiety, depression, cancer related distress, general health), treatment choice, and decision making about cancer prevention were collected at baseline (1 week after blood sampling; affected n = 192, unaffected n = 176) and at follow-up (2 weeks after disclosure of a positive test result; affected n = 23, unaffected n = 66). Women affected and unaffected with breast or ovarian cancer were compared using univariate statistics. Change over time was examined using repeated measures analysis of variance. With respect to well-being, affected women scored worse at baseline. At follow-up, both affected and unaffected women experienced a decline in well-being, which tended to be stronger in affected women. Women diagnosed with cancer less than 1 year previously tended to report a worse well-being than those diagnosed longer ago. With respect to treatment choice, more affected women intended to obtain prophylactic surgery and valued it higher at both time points. With respect to decision making, affected women had a lower preference for participation in decision making at baseline; no differences were found at follow-up. At follow-up, both affected and unaffected women showed an increase in strength of treatment preference and a decrease in decision uncertainty. Disclosure of a positive test result had a negative impact on well-being. Affected women, especially those who have been recently diagnosed with cancer, experienced the worst well-being and could benefit from psychosocial support. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14735581     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.20374

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


  22 in total

1.  The role of distress in uptake and response to predisposition genetic testing: the BMPR2 experience.

Authors:  Diana L Jones; Ellen W Clayton
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2011-11-15

2.  Attitudes toward information about genetic risk for cognitive impairment after cancer chemotherapy: breast cancer survivors compared with healthy controls.

Authors:  Michael A Andrykowski; Jessica L Burris; Erin Walsh; Brent J Small; Paul B Jacobsen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-05-24       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Breast cancer, BRCA mutations, and attitudes regarding pregnancy and preimplantation genetic diagnosis.

Authors:  Ashley H Woodson; Kimberly I Muse; Heather Lin; Michelle Jackson; Danielle N Mattair; Leslie Schover; Terri Woodard; Laurie McKenzie; Richard L Theriault; Gabriel N Hortobágyi; Banu Arun; Susan K Peterson; Jessica Profato; Jennifer K Litton
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2014-06-20

4.  Enhanced counselling for women undergoing BRCA1/2 testing: Impact on knowledge and psychological distress-results from a randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Pagona Roussi; Kerry Anne Sherman; Suzanne Miller; Joanne Buzaglo; Mary Daly; Alan Taylor; Eric Ross; Andrew Godwin
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2010-04

5.  Deaf genetic testing and psychological well-being in deaf adults.

Authors:  Christina G S Palmer; Patrick Boudreault; Erin E Baldwin; Michelle Fox; Joshua L Deignan; Yoko Kobayashi; Yvonne Sininger; Wayne Grody; Janet S Sinsheimer
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Are we being overly cautious? A qualitative inquiry into the experiences and perceptions of treatment-focused germline BRCA genetic testing amongst women recently diagnosed with breast cancer.

Authors:  E Zilliacus; B Meiser; M Gleeson; K Watts; K Tucker; E A Lobb; G Mitchell
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-03-24       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  A closer look at unmet needs at the end of primary treatment for breast cancer: a longitudinal pilot study.

Authors:  Jessica L Burris; Kent Armeson; Katherine Regan Sterba
Journal:  Behav Med       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 3.104

8.  Making Sense of SNPs: Women's Understanding and Experiences of Receiving a Personalized Profile of Their Breast Cancer Risks.

Authors:  Mary-Anne Young; Laura Elenor Forrest; Victoria-Mae Rasmussen; Paul James; Gillian Mitchell; Sarah Dilys Sawyer; Katrina Reeve; Nina Hallowell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  BRCA1/2 mutation testing in breast cancer patients: a prospective study of the long-term psychological impact of approach during adjuvant radiotherapy.

Authors:  Kathryn J Schlich-Bakker; Margreet G E M Ausems; Maria Schipper; Herman F J Ten Kroode; Carla C Wárlám-Rodenhuis; Jan van den Bout
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 10.  Genetic counselling and testing for inherited gene mutations in newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer: a review of the existing literature and a proposed research agenda.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser; Kathy Tucker; Michael Friedlander; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Elizabeth Lobb; Christobel Saunders; Gillian Mitchell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2008-11-28       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.