Literature DB >> 18157792

The counsellees' view of an unclassified variant in BRCA1/2: recall, interpretation, and impact on life.

Joël Vos1, Wilma Otten, Christi van Asperen, Anna Jansen, Fred Menko, Aad Tibben.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Unclassified variants (UVs, variants of uncertain clinical significance) are found in 13% of all BRCA1/2 mutation analyses. Little is known about the counsellees' recall and interpretation of a UV, and its psychosocial/medical impact.
METHOD: Retrospective semi-structured interviews with open questions and five-point Likert scales were carried out in 24 counsellees who received a UV result 3 years before (sd=1.9).
RESULTS: Sixty-seven percent (16/24) recalled the UV result as a non-informative DNA result; 29% recalled a pathogenic result. However, 79% of all counsellees interpreted the UV result as a genetic predisposition for cancer. Variations in recall and interpretation were unexplained by demographics, cancer history of themselves and relatives, and communication aspects of UV disclosure. Sixty-seven percent perceived genetic counselling as completed, whereas 71% expected to receive new DNA information. Although most counsellees reported that UV disclosure had changed their lives in general little, one in three counsellees reported large changes in specific life domains, especially in surveillance behavior and medical decisions. Ten out of 19 participants who interpreted the UV as pathogenic had undergone preventive surgery against none of the 5 counsellees who interpreted the UV as non-informative.
CONCLUSION: Counsellors and researchers need to address discrepancies between the counsellees' factual recall and their subjective interpretation of non-informative BRCA1/2-test results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18157792     DOI: 10.1002/pon.1311

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychooncology        ISSN: 1057-9249            Impact factor:   3.894


  45 in total

1.  Elucidating Genetic Counseling Outcomes from the Perspective of Genetic Counselors.

Authors:  Heather A Zierhut; K M Shannon; D L Cragun; S A Cohen
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Variants of unknown significance on chromosomal microarray analysis: parental perspectives.

Authors:  Stephanie Jez; Megan Martin; Sarah South; Rena Vanzo; Erin Rothwell
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2015-02-10

Review 3.  BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing-pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance.

Authors:  D M Eccles; G Mitchell; A N A Monteiro; R Schmutzler; F J Couch; A B Spurdle; E B Gómez-García
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 4.  Ovarian Cancer Prevention in High-risk Women.

Authors:  Sarah M Temkin; Jennifer Bergstrom; Goli Samimi; Lori Minasian
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.190

5.  Prevalence of alterations in DNA mismatch repair genes in patients with young-onset colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Paul J Limburg; William S Harmsen; Helen H Chen; Steven Gallinger; Robert W Haile; John A Baron; Graham Casey; Michael O Woods; Stephen N Thibodeau; Noralane M Lindor
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2010-11-05       Impact factor: 11.382

6.  From the laboratory to the clinic: sharing BRCA VUS reclassification tools with practicing genetics professionals.

Authors:  Bianca M Augusto; Paige Lake; Courtney L Scherr; Fergus J Couch; Noralane M Lindor; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-11-09

7.  Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance.

Authors:  Sarah K Macklin; Jessica L Jackson; Paldeep S Atwal; Stephanie L Hines
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA testing: evaluation of surgical decisions, risk perception, and cancer distress.

Authors:  J O Culver; C D Brinkerhoff; J Clague; K Yang; K E Singh; S R Sand; J N Weitzel
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 4.438

9.  A simple method for co-segregation analysis to evaluate the pathogenicity of unclassified variants; BRCA1 and BRCA2 as an example.

Authors:  Leila Mohammadi; Maaike P Vreeswijk; Rogier Oldenburg; Ans van den Ouweland; Jan C Oosterwijk; Annemarie H van der Hout; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Marjolijn Ligtenberg; Margreet G Ausems; Rob B van der Luijt; Charlotte J Dommering; Johan J Gille; Senno Verhoef; Frans B Hogervorst; Theo A van Os; Encarna Gómez García; Marinus J Blok; Juul T Wijnen; Quinta Helmer; Peter Devilee; Christi J van Asperen; Hans C van Houwelingen
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  A Novel von Hippel Lindau Gene Intronic Variant and Its Reclassification from VUS to Pathogenic: the Impact on a Large Family.

Authors:  A Sexton; L Rawlings; G McKavanagh; K Simons; I Winship
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.