Literature DB >> 16877736

Clinical characteristics affect the impact of an uninformative DNA test result: the course of worry and distress experienced by women who apply for genetic testing for breast cancer.

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

Abstract

PURPOSE: DNA mutation testing for breast cancer usually yields an uninformative result, which is a negative result in the absence of a known BRCA mutation within the family. However, few data are available on the psychological impact of this result. Moreover, the clinical heterogeneity within this group has not yet been considered. This study provides prospective data about the course of cancer-specific worry and distress for different groups of test applicants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All DNA test applicants (n = 238) completed three questionnaires: before and 1 and 7 months after disclosure of a DNA mutation test. With repeated-measures analysis of variance, differences were assessed between BRCA1/2-positive women (n = 42), BRCA1/2-true-negative women (n = 43), and women with an uninformative test result (n = 153).
RESULTS: On the group level, women with an uninformative result seemed to be reassured after disclosure (P < .001), but to a lesser extent than those women who received a true-negative result. However, not all women with an uninformative result reacted similarly: higher levels of worry and distress could be explained by relatively straightforward clinical variables, namely a personal history of cancer (P < or = .001) and a higher pedigree-based risk (P < or = .005). Furthermore, these clinical variables determined whether these women were either comparable to women who received a true-negative result or to BRCA mutation carriers.
CONCLUSION: Women with an uninformative result form a heterogeneous group of test applicants. The subpopulation of those with both a personal history of cancer and a relatively high pedigree-based risk expressed the highest levels of worry 7 months after DNA testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16877736     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.7259

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  31 in total

1.  Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli M Bollinger; Rachel L Dvoskin; Joan A Scott
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Enhanced counselling for women undergoing BRCA1/2 testing: Impact on knowledge and psychological distress-results from a randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Pagona Roussi; Kerry Anne Sherman; Suzanne Miller; Joanne Buzaglo; Mary Daly; Alan Taylor; Eric Ross; Andrew Godwin
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2010-04

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.  Factors affecting breast cancer patients' need for genetic risk information: From information insufficiency to information need.

Authors:  Soo Jung Hong; Barbara Biesecker; Jennifer Ivanovich; Melody Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Delivery of BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling Compared With In-Person Counseling: 1-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Anita Y Kinney; Laurie E Steffen; Barbara H Brumbach; Wendy Kohlmann; Ruofei Du; Ji-Hyun Lee; Amanda Gammon; Karin Butler; Saundra S Buys; Antoinette M Stroup; Rebecca A Campo; Kristina G Flores; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  BRCA mutation-negative women from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: a qualitative study of the BRCA-negative experience.

Authors:  Alexis D Bakos; Sadie P Hutson; Jennifer T Loud; June A Peters; Ruthann M Giusti; Mark H Greene
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  "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

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.  BRCA1/2 mutation testing in breast cancer patients: a prospective study of the long-term psychological impact of approach during adjuvant radiotherapy.

Authors:  Kathryn J Schlich-Bakker; Margreet G E M Ausems; Maria Schipper; Herman F J Ten Kroode; Carla C Wárlám-Rodenhuis; Jan van den Bout
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 4.872

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.