Literature DB >> 15948171

Screening and preventive behaviors one year after predictive genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma.

Veronica Collins1, Bettina Meiser, Clara Gaff, D James B St John, Jane Halliday.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prevention benefits from predictive genetic testing for cancer will only be fully realized if appropriate screening is adopted after testing. The current study assessed screening and preventive behaviors during 12 months after predictive genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC) in an Australian clinical cohort.
METHODS: Participants received predictive genetic testing for HNPCC at one of five Australian familial cancer clinics. Data on self-reported screening behaviors (colonoscopy, and endometrial sampling and transvaginal ultrasound for women) and prophylactic surgery (colectomy, and hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy for women) were collected using postal questionnaires before (baseline) and 12 months after receipt of genetic test results. Age, gender, perceived risk of cancer, and cancer-specific distress were assessed as predictors of colonoscopic screening.
RESULTS: In the current study, 114 participants returned baseline questionnaires (32 carriers and 82 noncarriers of an HNPCC mutation). Ninety-eight participants also returned a 12-month follow-up questionnaire. Of those > or = 25 years, 73% reported having had a colonoscopy before genetic testing. At follow-up, 71% (15 of 25) of carriers and 12% (8 of 65) of noncarriers reported having a colonoscopy in the 12 months after receipt of test results. The reduction in colonoscopy among noncarriers was statistically significant (P < 0.001). High perceived risk was associated with colonoscopy at baseline. At follow-up, mutation status was the only variable significantly associated with colonoscopy. Among female mutation carriers, 47% reported having transvaginal ultrasonography and 53% endometrial sampling during follow-up. There was low uptake of prophylactic surgery for colorectal, endometrial, or ovarian carcinomas.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individuals reported appropriate screening behaviors after predictive genetic testing for HNPCC. The small group of noncarriers who had screening after genetic testing might benefit from additional counseling.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15948171     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21183

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  33 in total

Review 1.  Individual-level factors in colorectal cancer screening: a review of the literature on the relation of individual-level health behavior constructs and screening behavior.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Alyssa Bennett; Marie Zaiter; James R Marshall
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 3.894

2.  Choosing not to undergo predictive genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: expanding our understanding of decliners and declining.

Authors:  Louise A Keogh; Heather Niven; Alison Rutstein; Louisa Flander; Clara Gaff; Mark Jenkins
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-02-14

Review 3.  Patient responses to genetic information: studies of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes identify issues for use of genetic testing in nephrology practice.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Semin Nephrol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.299

4.  Considerations for the impact of personal genome information: a study of genomic profiling among genetics and genomics professionals.

Authors:  Julianne M O'Daniel; Susanne B Haga; Huntington F Willard
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Colonoscopy use following mutation detection in Lynch syndrome: exploring a role for cancer screening in adaptation.

Authors:  D W Hadley; S Ashida; J F Jenkins; K A Calzone; I R Kirsch; L M Koehly
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 4.438

6.  Changes in screening behaviors and attitudes toward screening from pre-test genetic counseling to post-disclosure in Lynch syndrome families.

Authors:  A M Burton-Chase; S R Hovick; S K Peterson; S K Marani; S W Vernon; C I Amos; M L Frazier; P M Lynch; E R Gritz
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.438

7.  Effects of hypothetical type 2 diabetes genetic testing on parents' efforts to prevent diabetes in children.

Authors:  Beth A Tarini; William H Herman; Joyce M Lee
Journal:  Clin Pediatr (Phila)       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 1.168

Review 8.  100 years Lynch syndrome: what have we learned about psychosocial issues?

Authors:  Eveline M A Bleiker; Mary Jane Esplen; Bettina Meiser; Helle Vendel Petersen; Andrea Farkas Patenaude
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Colon cancer screening practices and disclosure after receipt of positive or inconclusive genetic test results for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Anne L Ersig; Donald W Hadley; Laura M Koehly
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Primary care providers' willingness to recommend BRCA1/2 testing to adolescents.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Beth N Peshkin; George Luta; Anisha Abraham; Leslie R Walker; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2009-04-24       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.