Literature DB >> 15834241

What's the message? Interpretation of an uninformative BRCA1/2 test result for women at risk of familial breast cancer.

Sandra van Dijk1, Wilma Otten, Daniëlle R M Timmermans, Christi J van Asperen, Hanne Meijers-Heijboer, Aad Tibben, Martijn H Breuning, Job Kievit.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To test the "false-reassurance hypothesis," which suggests that women who receive an uninformative BRCA1/2 test result may incorrectly conclude that they no longer have an elevated risk, with possible harmful consequences for adherence to breast surveillance guidelines.
METHODS: A prospective questionnaire design was used to compare 183 women with an uninformative BRCA test result (94 affected and 89 unaffected) with 41 proven BRCA mutation-carriers and 49 true negatives before and after BRCA1/2 test disclosure.
RESULTS: After DNA-test disclosure, test applicants differed from each other with regard to their perception of the likelihood of carrying a deleterious gene (P < 0.0001). The BRCA mutation carriers reported the highest perceived likelihood and the true negatives reported the lowest. Compared to the predisclosure measures, women who received an uninformative DNA test result reported a lower perceived risk after disclosure (P < 0.0001), suggesting a relatively high level of reassurance because of the test result. However, after DNA-test disclosure, only 12 women concluded that the risk of carrying a mutation was nonexistent, and perceived likelihood was significantly associated with the pedigree-based risk assessment (P = 0.0001). Moreover, despite the significant decrease in perceived likelihood for uninformative women, intention to obtain mammograms did not change (P = 0.71); it remained at the same almost optimal level as for BRCA mutation carriers.
CONCLUSION: No support was found for the suggestion that the nature of uninformative test results is often misunderstood. Moreover, an uninformative test result did not affect the positive mammography intentions of both affected and unaffected women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15834241     DOI: 10.1097/01.gim.0000159902.34833.26

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  16 in total

1.  Female family members lack understanding of indeterminate negative BRCA1/2 test results shared by probands.

Authors:  Deborah O Himes; Deborah K Gibbons; Wendy C Birmingham; Renea L Beckstrand; Amanda Gammon; Anita Y Kinney; Margaret F Clayton
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Facilitators and Challenges in Psychosocial Adaptation to Being at Increased Familial Risk of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Louise Heiniger; Melanie A Price; Margaret Charles; Phyllis N Butow
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  "Grasping the grey": patient understanding and interpretation of an intermediate allele predictive test result for Huntington disease.

Authors:  A Semaka; L G Balneaves; M R Hayden
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Distress among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 results: 12-month outcomes.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Christine Rini; Rachel E Goldsmith; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Lawrence H Cohen; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.894

5.  Colorectal cancer risk perception on the basis of genetic test results in individuals at risk for Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Shilpa Grover; Elena M Stoffel; Rowena C Mercado; Beth M Ford; Wendy K Kohlman; Kristen M Shannon; Peggy G Conrad; Amie M Blanco; Jonathan P Terdiman; Stephen B Gruber; Daniel C Chung; Sapna Syngal
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-07-20       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Quality of life and its relation to cancer-related stress in women of families with hereditary cancer without demonstrated mutation.

Authors:  Amy Østertun Geirdal; Lovise Maehle; Ketil Heimdal; Astrid Stormorken; Pål Møller; Alv A Dahl
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Outcomes of genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer syndromes in unaffected individuals.

Authors:  Shanna L Gustafson; Victoria M Raymond; Monica L Marvin; Tobias Else; Erika Koeppe; Elena M Stoffel; Jessica N Everett
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Patient compliance based on genetic medicine: a literature review.

Authors:  Kai Insa Schneider; Jörg Schmidtke
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-08-10

Review 9.  Women's decision making about risk-reducing strategies in the context of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  A Fuchsia Howard; Lynda G Balneaves; Joan L Bottorff
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-10-03       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Communication, encouragement, and cancer screening in families with and without mutations for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: a pilot study.

Authors:  Anne L Ersig; Janet K Williams; Donald W Hadley; Laura M Koehly
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.