Literature DB >> 16365001

No evidence of false reassurance among women with an inconclusive BRCA1/2 genetic test result.

Michel Dorval1, Geneviève Gauthier, Elizabeth Maunsell, Michel J Dugas, Isabelle Rouleau, Jocelyne Chiquette, Marie Plante, Rachel Laframboise, Michel Gaudet, Peter J Bridge, Jacques Simard.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how women who receive an inconclusive result from BRCA1/2 testing interpret their result. Clinical observations suggest that some of them may be falsely reassured and, consequently, may not adhere to recommended surveillance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether women with inconclusive BRCA1/2 test results are falsely reassured.
METHODS: Participants were adult women with a family history suggestive of a germ-line mutation in either the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene who underwent genetic testing in the context of the interdisciplinary research program INHERIT BRCAs. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires at genetic counseling and 1 month after result disclosure. Reassurance was assessed through indicators of cancer risk perception, cancer worry, relief following result disclosure, painfulness of the test result, and its effect on quality of life.
RESULTS: Five-hundred women (105 carriers, 140 noncarriers, and 255 inconclusive) were included in this analysis. Compared to noncarriers, women with inconclusive results had higher cancer risk perception, were more worried about cancer, were less relieved by their test result, and perceived their quality of life as being more adversely affected by it.
CONCLUSION: The differences observed between noncarriers and women who received an inconclusive result run counter to the hypothesis that the latter are falsely reassured following BRCA1/2 testing. For clinicians, our findings show the value of taking precautions to fully explain to women that inconclusive results do not rule out the possibility that they still may face a higher risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16365001     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0512

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  17 in total

Review 1.  Information processing in the context of genetic risk: implications for genetic-risk communication.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Colin Perrier
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Factors associated with intrusive cancer-related worries in women undergoing cancer genetic risk assessment.

Authors:  Paul Bennett; Clare Wilkinson; Jim Turner; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Barbara France; Gethin Griffith; Gethin Griffin; Jonathon Gray
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2008-11-15       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Is no news good news? Inconclusive genetic test results in BRCA1 and BRCA2 from patients and professionals' perspectives.

Authors:  Audrey Ardern-Jones; Regina Kenen; Elly Lynch; Rebecca Doherty; Rosalind Eeles
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 2.857

4.  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

5.  Analysis of BRCA1 variants in double-strand break repair by homologous recombination and single-strand annealing.

Authors:  William I Towler; Jie Zhang; Derek J R Ransburgh; Amanda E Toland; Chikashi Ishioka; Natsuko Chiba; Jeffrey D Parvin
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 4.878

6.  Self-reported mammography use following BRCA1/2 genetic testing may be overestimated.

Authors:  Geneviève Larouche; Karine Bouchard; Jocelyne Chiquette; Christine Desbiens; Jacques Simard; Michel Dorval
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  Introducing genetic testing for cardiovascular disease in primary care: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Jo B Middlemass; Momina F Yazdani; Joe Kai; Penelope J Standen; Nadeem Qureshi
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Improved health perception after genetic counselling for women at high risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer: construction of new questionnaires--an Italian exploratory study.

Authors:  Chiara Catania; Irene Feroce; Monica Barile; Aron Goldhirsch; Tommaso De Pas; Filippo de Braud; Sabrina Boselli; Laura Adamoli; Davide Radice; Alessandra Rossi; Gianluca Spitaleri; Cristina Noberasco; Bernardo Bonanni
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 4.553

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.