Literature DB >> 16341803

Patient satisfaction of BRCA1/2 genetic testing by women at high risk for breast cancer participating in a prevention trial.

Jennifer R Klemp1, Anne O'Dea, Carolyn Chamberlain, Carol J Fabian.   

Abstract

With the increasing availability of cancer risk counseling and genetic testing, we need to determine the most effective way to provide complex and sensitive information to patients. This study was designed to determine the satisfaction of results delivery in women who participated in a breast cancer prevention trial and chose to undergo free and confidential BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Self-selected women at high-risk for breast cancer who were eligible to participate in a phase II chemoprevention trial, were offered free and confidential pre-test counseling and BRCA1/2 full sequencing. Subjects were not randomized but rather had the option of in person or telephone results disclosure. Those subjects with an identified germline alteration were required to follow-up with an in person consultation; this was optional for those with a negative result. A satisfaction survey was mailed to subjects after receiving their results. Ninety-seven percent (116/119) of the eligible subjects underwent genetic testing. Ninety-one percent (105/116) of those women tested responded to the follow-up survey. Twenty-four of the 26 women with an identified germline alteration responded. Nearly all of the responders were satisfied with the counseling and testing process. All of the respondents felt they made a wise decision in having the testing and would recommend that other women in a similar situation undergo genetic testing. We found that the majority of women at high risk for breast cancer participating in a prevention trial will choose to undergo anonymous and free BRCA1/2 genetic testing, be informed of the results, and are accepting of receiving results initially by phone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16341803     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-005-1474-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  11 in total

1.  Anticipated versus actual emotional reactions to disclosure of results of genetic tests for cancer susceptibility: findings from p53 and BRCA1 testing programs.

Authors:  M Dorval; A F Patenaude; K A Schneider; S A Kieffer; L DiGianni; K J Kalkbrenner; J I Bromberg; L A Basili; K Calzone; J Stopfer; B L Weber; J E Garber
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  What you don't know can hurt you: adverse psychologic effects in members of BRCA1-linked and BRCA2-linked families who decline genetic testing.

Authors:  C Lerman; C Hughes; S J Lemon; D Main; C Snyder; C Durham; S Narod; H T Lynch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Psychosocial aspects of cancer genetics: women at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  K M Kash; K Ortega-Verdejo; M K Dabney; J C Holland; D G Miller; M P Osborne
Journal:  Semin Surg Oncol       Date:  2000-06

4.  Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, Adopted on February 20, 1996.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  A phase II breast cancer chemoprevention trial of oral alpha-difluoromethylornithine: breast tissue, imaging, and serum and urine biomarkers.

Authors:  Carol J Fabian; Bruce F Kimler; Deborah A Brady; Matthew S Mayo; C H Joseph Chang; John A Ferraro; Carola M Zalles; Annette L Stanton; Shahla Masood; William E Grizzle; Norman F Boyd; Dora W Arneson; Karen A Johnson
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Short-term breast cancer prediction by random periareolar fine-needle aspiration cytology and the Gail risk model.

Authors:  C J Fabian; B F Kimler; C M Zalles; J R Klemp; S Kamel; S Zeiger; M S Mayo
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-08-02       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Genetic counseling for hereditary cancer: a pilot study on experiences of patients and family members.

Authors:  E M Bleiker; N K Aaronson; F H Menko; D E Hahn; C J van Asperen; E J Rutgers; L P ten Kate; N J Leschot
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1997 Sep-Oct

8.  Distress and psychiatric morbidity among women from high-risk breast and ovarian cancer families.

Authors:  J C Coyne; N R Benazon; C G Gaba; K Calzone; B L Weber
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2000-10

9.  Psychological responses to BRCA1 mutation testing: preliminary findings.

Authors:  R T Croyle; K R Smith; J R Botkin; B Baty; J Nash
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.267

10.  Women's receptivity to testing for a genetic susceptibility to breast cancer.

Authors:  H Chaliki; S Loader; J C Levenkron; W Logan-Young; W J Hall; P T Rowley
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 9.308

View more
  12 in total

1.  Genetic counselor opinions of, and experiences with telephone communication of BRCA1/2 test results.

Authors:  A R Bradbury; L Patrick-Miller; D Fetzer; B Egleston; S A Cummings; A Forman; L Bealin; C Peterson; M Corbman; J O'Connell; M B Daly
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 4.438

2.  Predictive Genetic Testing and Alternatives to Face to Face Results Disclosure: A Retrospective Review of Patients Preference for Alternative Modes of BRCA 1 and 2 Results Disclosure in the Republic of Ireland.

Authors:  Rosie O'Shea; Marie Meany; Cliona Carroll; Nuala Cody; David Healy; Andrew Green; Sally Ann Lynch
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Retrospective comparison of patient outcomes after in-person and telephone results disclosure counseling for BRCA1/2 genetic testing.

Authors:  Courtney Doughty Rice; Jennifer Gamm Ruschman; Lisa J Martin; Jennifer B Manders; Erin Miller
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 4.  Controversies in communication of genetic screening results for cancer: a report from the American Society of Preventive Oncology's Screening Special Interest Group (ASPO's 33rd Annual Meeting, March 8 to 10, 2009, Tampa, Florida).

Authors:  Linda Patrick-Miller; Angela R Bradbury; Mary Beth Terry
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Returning individual research results: development of a cancer genetics education and risk communication protocol.

Authors:  J Scott Roberts; David I Shalowitz; Kurt D Christensen; Jessica N Everett; Scott Y H Kim; Leon Raskin; Stephen B Gruber
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  Implementation and outcomes of telephone disclosure of clinical BRCA1/2 test results.

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

7.  Telephoned BRCA1/2 genetic test results: prevalence, practice, and patient satisfaction.

Authors:  L Baumanis; J P Evans; N Callanan; L R Susswein
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-05-22       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Low rates of African American participation in genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1/2 mutations: racial disparities or just a difference?

Authors:  Chanita Hughes Halbert; Lisa Kessler; Aliya Collier; Benita Weathers; Jill Stopfer; Susan Domchek; Jasmine A McDonald
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Changes to perceptions of the pros and cons of genetic susceptibility testing after APOE genotyping for Alzheimer disease risk.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; J Scott Roberts; Wendy R Uhlmann; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Clinicians' expectations for gene-driven cancer therapy.

Authors:  Antti Jekunen
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Oncol       Date:  2014-12-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.