BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (mutations associated with increased risk of breast-ovarian cancer) endeavors to communicate information that will help individuals make informed decisions regarding genetic testing. METHODS: This repeated-measures study examined cancer genetics knowledge and beliefs before and after counseling and their relationship to receipt of results for BRCA1/2 mutations in 120 highly educated Ashkenazi Jewish individuals. RESULTS: A repeated-measures analysis examined change in knowledge and beliefs regarding personal behavior, mechanisms of cancer inheritance, meaning of a positive result, practitioner knowledge, frequency of inherited cancer, and meaning of a negative result from pre- to post-counseling with the between subjects variables of education (with/without graduate training) and personal history of breast or ovarian cancer (yes/no), and risk of having a mutation entered as a covariate. Mechanisms of cancer inheritance, meaning of a positive result, and practitioner knowledge increased from pre- to post-counseling. Those with graduate training had higher ratings of mechanisms of cancer inheritance ratings and lower ratings of frequency of inherited cancers than those without. Mann-Whitney U tests found those testing had higher ratings in mechanisms of cancer inheritance, specifically in the association of multiple primary cancers with hereditary cancer, than those not testing. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic counseling is helpful in improving overall knowledge of cancer genetics even for highly educated individuals. Particular areas of knowledge improvement should be explored in relation to receipt of results, especially to further elucidate the relationship of knowledge of the association of multiple primary cancers with hereditary cancer to receipt of test results.
BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (mutations associated with increased risk of breast-ovarian cancer) endeavors to communicate information that will help individuals make informed decisions regarding genetic testing. METHODS: This repeated-measures study examined cancer genetics knowledge and beliefs before and after counseling and their relationship to receipt of results for BRCA1/2 mutations in 120 highly educated Ashkenazi Jewish individuals. RESULTS: A repeated-measures analysis examined change in knowledge and beliefs regarding personal behavior, mechanisms of cancer inheritance, meaning of a positive result, practitioner knowledge, frequency of inherited cancer, and meaning of a negative result from pre- to post-counseling with the between subjects variables of education (with/without graduate training) and personal history of breast or ovarian cancer (yes/no), and risk of having a mutation entered as a covariate. Mechanisms of cancer inheritance, meaning of a positive result, and practitioner knowledge increased from pre- to post-counseling. Those with graduate training had higher ratings of mechanisms of cancer inheritance ratings and lower ratings of frequency of inherited cancers than those without. Mann-Whitney U tests found those testing had higher ratings in mechanisms of cancer inheritance, specifically in the association of multiple primary cancers with hereditary cancer, than those not testing. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic counseling is helpful in improving overall knowledge of cancer genetics even for highly educated individuals. Particular areas of knowledge improvement should be explored in relation to receipt of results, especially to further elucidate the relationship of knowledge of the association of multiple primary cancers with hereditary cancer to receipt of test results.
Authors: Nina Beri; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Michael J Hall; Susan M Domchek; Mary B Daly; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominique Fetzer; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Dana F Clark; Andrea Forman; Rikki Gaber; Cassandra Gulden; Janice Horte; Jessica Long; Terra Lucas; Shreshtha Madaan; Kristin Mattie; Danielle McKenna; Susan Montgomery; Sarah Nielsen; Jacquelyn Powers; Kim Rainey; Christina Rybak; Michelle Savage; Christina Seelaus; Jessica Stoll; Jill E Stopfer; Xinxin Shirley Yao; Angela R Bradbury Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Angela R Bradbury; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Michael J Hall; Susan M Domchek; Mary B Daly; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominique Fetzer; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Dana F Clark; Andrea Forman; Rikki Gaber; Cassandra Gulden; Janice Horte; Jessica M Long; Terra Lucas; Shreshtha Madaan; Kristin Mattie; Danielle McKenna; Susan Montgomery; Sarah Nielsen; Jacquelyn Powers; Kim Rainey; Christina Rybak; Michelle Savage; Christina Seelaus; Jessica Stoll; Jill E Stopfer; Xinxin Shirley Yao Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kimberly M Kelly; Lee Ellington; Nancy Schoenberg; Parul Agarwal; Thomas Jackson; Stephanie Dickinson; Jame Abraham; Electra D Paskett; Howard Leventhal; Michael Andrykowski Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Meghna S Trivedi; Hilary Colbeth; Haeseung Yi; Alejandro Vanegas; Rebecca Starck; Wendy K Chung; Paul S Appelbaum; Rita Kukafka; Isaac Schechter; Katherine D Crew Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Linda Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Mary Daly; Evelyn Stevens; Dominique Fetzer; Andrea Forman; Lisa Bealin; Christina Rybak; Candace Peterson; Melanie Corbman; Angela R Bradbury Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-08-19