OBJECTIVE: Genetic testing is increasingly part of routine clinical care for women with a family history of breast cancer. Given their substantially elevated risk for breast cancer, BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers must make the difficult decision whether or not to opt for risk reducing mastectomy. To help BRCA1/2 carriers make this decision, the authors developed a computer-based interactive decision aid that was tested against usual care in a randomized controlled trial. DESIGN: After the completion of genetic counseling, 214 female (aged 21-75) BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers were randomized to Usual Care (UC; N = 114) or Usual Care plus Decision Aid (DA; N = 100) arms. UC participants received no additional intervention. DA participants were sent the CD-ROM DA to view at home. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The authors measured final management decision, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, and receipt of risk reducing mastectomy at 1-, 6-, and 12-months postrandomization. RESULTS: Longitudinal analyses revealed that the DA was effective among carriers who were initially undecided about how to manage their breast cancer risk. Within this group, the DA led to an increased likelihood of reaching a management decision (OR = 3.09, 95% CI = 1.62, 5.90; p < .001), decreased decisional conflict (B = -.46, z = -3.1, p <002), and increased satisfaction (B = .27, z = 3.1, p = .002) compared to UC. Among carriers who had already made a management decision by the time of randomization, the DA had no benefit relative to UC. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers who are having difficulty making a breast cancer risk management decision can benefit from adjunct decision support. (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Genetic testing is increasingly part of routine clinical care for women with a family history of breast cancer. Given their substantially elevated risk for breast cancer, BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers must make the difficult decision whether or not to opt for risk reducing mastectomy. To help BRCA1/2 carriers make this decision, the authors developed a computer-based interactive decision aid that was tested against usual care in a randomized controlled trial. DESIGN: After the completion of genetic counseling, 214 female (aged 21-75) BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers were randomized to Usual Care (UC; N = 114) or Usual Care plus Decision Aid (DA; N = 100) arms. UC participants received no additional intervention. DA participants were sent the CD-ROM DA to view at home. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The authors measured final management decision, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, and receipt of risk reducing mastectomy at 1-, 6-, and 12-months postrandomization. RESULTS: Longitudinal analyses revealed that the DA was effective among carriers who were initially undecided about how to manage their breast cancer risk. Within this group, the DA led to an increased likelihood of reaching a management decision (OR = 3.09, 95% CI = 1.62, 5.90; p < .001), decreased decisional conflict (B = -.46, z = -3.1, p <002), and increased satisfaction (B = .27, z = 3.1, p = .002) compared to UC. Among carriers who had already made a management decision by the time of randomization, the DA had no benefit relative to UC. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers who are having difficulty making a breast cancer risk management decision can benefit from adjunct decision support. (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Jeffrey R Botkin; Ken R Smith; Robert T Croyle; Bonnie J Baty; Jean E Wylie; Debra Dutson; Anna Chan; Heidi A Hamann; Caryn Lerman; Jamie McDonald; Vickie Venne; John H Ward; Elaine Lyon Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2003-04-30 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Kenneth P Tercyak; Kathryn L Taylor; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: S Molenaar; M A Sprangers; E J Rutgers; E J Luiten; J Mulder; P M Bossuyt; J J van Everdingen; P Oosterveld; H C de Haes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Noah D Kauff; Jaya M Satagopan; Mark E Robson; Lauren Scheuer; Martee Hensley; Clifford A Hudis; Nathan A Ellis; Jeff Boyd; Patrick I Borgen; Richard R Barakat; Larry Norton; Mercedes Castiel; Khedoudja Nafa; Kenneth Offit Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K A Metcalfe; A Poll; A O'Connor; S Gershman; S Armel; A Finch; R Demsky; B Rosen; S A Narod Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Kelly Metcalfe; Henry T Lynch; Parviz Ghadirian; Nadine Tung; Ivo Olivotto; Ellen Warner; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Andrea Eisen; Barbara Weber; Jane McLennan; Ping Sun; William D Foulkes; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Madeleine Tilanus-Linthorst; Leon Verhoog; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Karina Bartels; Marian Menke-Pluymers; Alexander Eggermont; Jan Klijn; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Theo van der Kwast; Cecile Brekelmans Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Gillian W Hooker; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Tiffani DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Clinton Finch; Erica Wahl; Jessica Rispoli Joines; Karen Brown; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Tiffani A Demarco; Beth N Peshkin; Kristi D Graves; Karen Brown; Karen E Hurley; Claudine Isaacs; Sharon Hecker; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Sharon L Manne; Barbara L Smith; Sara Frederick; Anna Mitarotondo; Deborah A Kashy; Laurie J Kirstein Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046