Literature DB >> 15633195

BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families II: impact on relationships.

Aideen McInerney-Leo1, Barbara Bowles Biesecker, Donald W Hadley, Ronald G Kase, Therese R Giambarresi, Elizabeth Johnson, Caryn Lerman, Jeffery P Struewing.   

Abstract

Members of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) families often express concern during genetic counseling about the impact of BRCA1/2 testing on close relatives. Yet whether there are likely to be adverse effects of either the decision to undergo genetic testing or the results of testing on family relationships is unknown. One purpose of this study was to assess the impact on close family relationships. Within a randomized trial of breast cancer genetic counseling methods, members of 13 HBOC families were offered BRCA1/2 testing for a known family mutation. The Family Relationship Index (FRI) of the Family Environment Scale (FES) was used to measure perceived family cohesion, conflict, and expressiveness at baseline and again 6-9 months following the receipt of test results, or at the equivalent time for those who declined testing. Participants (n = 212) completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires. Comparisons were made between testers and non-testers as well as between those who tested positive and negative for the family mutation. One hundred eighty-one participants elected to undergo genetic testing (85%) and 47 (26%) were identified to have a mutation. After adjusting for baseline family relationship scores, counseling intervention, gender and marital status, non-testers reported a greater increase in expressiveness (P = 0.006) and cohesion (P = 0.04) than testers. Individuals who tested positive reported a decrease in expressiveness (P = 0.07), although as a trend. Regardless of test decision or test result, those who were randomized to a client-centered counseling intervention reported a decrease in conflict (P = 0.006). Overall, study results suggest that undergoing genetic testing and learning ones BRCA1/2 status may affect family relationships. Those individuals who declined testing reported feeling closer to family members and more encouraged to express emotions to other family members demonstrating potential benefit from the offer of testing. Since those who tested positive reported feeling less encouraged to express their emotions within the family, we recommend helping clients to identify others with whom they feel comfortable sharing their thoughts and feelings about their positive gene status and increased cancer risk. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15633195     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.30566

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


  17 in total

1.  Stigmatization and male identity: Norwegian males' experience after identification as BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Nina Strømsvik; Målfrid Råheim; Nina Oyen; Lars Fredrik Engebretsen; Eva Gjengedal
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  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

4.  Interpersonal responses among sibling dyads tested for BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutations.

Authors:  Heidi A Hamann; Timothy W Smith; Ken R Smith; Robert T Croyle; John M Ruiz; John C Kircher; Jeffrey R Botkin
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.267

5.  Assessment of psychosocial outcomes in genetic counseling research: an overview of available measurement scales.

Authors:  Nadine A Kasparian; Claire E Wakefield; Bettina Meiser
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-08-13       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Consumer awareness and attitudes about insurance discrimination post enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

Authors:  Dawn C Allain; Sue Friedman; Leigha Senter
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 7.  Ethical issues of predictive genetic testing for diabetes.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2009-07-01

Review 8.  A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Lisa Madlensky; Angela M Trepanier; Deborah Cragun; Barbara Lerner; Kristen M Shannon; Heather Zierhut
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  What women with breast cancer discuss with clinicians about risk for their adolescent daughters.

Authors:  Erin Maloney; Shawna Edgerson; Mark Robson; Ken Offit; Richard Brown; Carma Bylund; David W Kissane
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2012

Review 10.  What facilitates or impedes family communication following genetic testing for cancer risk? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of primary qualitative research.

Authors:  Kim Chivers Seymour; Julia Addington-Hall; Anneke M Lucassen; Claire L Foster
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-04-09       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.