BACKGROUND: The recognition of an inherited component to breast cancer has led to an increase in demand for information, reassurance, and genetic testing, resulting in the creation of genetics clinics for familial cancer. The first step for patients referred to a cancer genetic clinic is a risk assessment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of cancer genetic risk assessment services on patients at risk of familial breast cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: The specialised register maintained by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group was searched. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycLIT, CENTRAL, DARE, ASSIA, Web of Science, SIGLE and LILACS. The searches covered the period 1985 to February 2005. We also hand-searched relevant journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials looking at interventions for cancer genetic risk assessment delivery for familial breast cancer were considered for inclusion. Trials assessed outcomes such as understanding of risk, satisfaction and psychological well-being. Studies were excluded if they concerned cancers other than breast cancer or if participants were not at risk of breast cancer. Trials concerning the provision of information or education were also excluded as it was intended to review these separately. Participants could be individuals of any age or gender, with or without a known BRCA mutation, but without a previous history of breast cancer or any other serious illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Additional information was sought from investigators as necessary. Due to the heterogeneity of both the interventions and outcomes, data were analysed descriptively. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-eight papers were identified as relevant to the review, 54 of these were subsequently excluded. The three included trials (pertaining to five papers), provide data on 1251 participants and assessed the impact of cancer genetic risk assessment on outcomes including perceived risk, and psychological distress. This review suggests that cancer genetic risk assessment services help to reduce distress, improve the accuracy of the perceived risk of, and increase knowledge about, breast cancer and genetics. The health professional delivering the risk assessment does not appear to have a significant impact on these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found favourable outcomes for patients' risk assessment for familial breast cancer. However, there were too few papers to make any significant conclusions about how best to deliver cancer genetic risk assessment services. Further research is needed assessing the best means of delivering cancer risk assessment, by different health professionals, in different ways and in alternative locations.
BACKGROUND: The recognition of an inherited component to breast cancer has led to an increase in demand for information, reassurance, and genetic testing, resulting in the creation of genetics clinics for familial cancer. The first step for patients referred to a cancer genetic clinic is a risk assessment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of cancer genetic risk assessment services on patients at risk of familial breast cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: The specialised register maintained by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group was searched. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycLIT, CENTRAL, DARE, ASSIA, Web of Science, SIGLE and LILACS. The searches covered the period 1985 to February 2005. We also hand-searched relevant journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials looking at interventions for cancer genetic risk assessment delivery for familial breast cancer were considered for inclusion. Trials assessed outcomes such as understanding of risk, satisfaction and psychological well-being. Studies were excluded if they concerned cancers other than breast cancer or if participants were not at risk of breast cancer. Trials concerning the provision of information or education were also excluded as it was intended to review these separately. Participants could be individuals of any age or gender, with or without a known BRCA mutation, but without a previous history of breast cancer or any other serious illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Additional information was sought from investigators as necessary. Due to the heterogeneity of both the interventions and outcomes, data were analysed descriptively. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-eight papers were identified as relevant to the review, 54 of these were subsequently excluded. The three included trials (pertaining to five papers), provide data on 1251 participants and assessed the impact of cancer genetic risk assessment on outcomes including perceived risk, and psychological distress. This review suggests that cancer genetic risk assessment services help to reduce distress, improve the accuracy of the perceived risk of, and increase knowledge about, breast cancer and genetics. The health professional delivering the risk assessment does not appear to have a significant impact on these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found favourable outcomes for patients' risk assessment for familial breast cancer. However, there were too few papers to make any significant conclusions about how best to deliver cancer genetic risk assessment services. Further research is needed assessing the best means of delivering cancer risk assessment, by different health professionals, in different ways and in alternative locations.
Authors: Julia Hall; Susan Gray; Roger A'Hern; Susan Shanley; Maggie Watson; Kathryn Kash; Robert Croyle; Rosalind Eeles Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2008-08-05 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Bronson D Riley; Julie O Culver; Cécile Skrzynia; Leigha A Senter; June A Peters; Josephine W Costalas; Faith Callif-Daley; Sherry C Grumet; Katherine S Hunt; Rebecca S Nagy; Wendy C McKinnon; Nancie M Petrucelli; Robin L Bennett; Angela M Trepanier Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; James E Coxworth; Sara E Simonson; Joseph B Fanning Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 3.908