Literature DB >> 19273395

Cancer surveillance behaviors in women presenting for clinical BRCA genetic susceptibility testing.

Lois J Loescher1, Kyung Hee Lim, Ofri Leitner, Jessica Ray, Joyce D'Souza, Cary M Armstrong.   

Abstract

PURPOSE/
OBJECTIVES: To investigate cancer surveillance behaviors of women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) who presented for clinical BRCA cancer susceptibility testing, specifically to describe cancer surveillance behaviors and reasons for not engaging in behaviors, compare surveillance behaviors with existing surveillance guidelines, and evaluate associations of cancer surveillance behaviors with BRCA results.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional, descriptive.
SETTING: Genetic risk-assessment programs in a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center and a community cancer center, both in the southwestern region of the United States. SAMPLE: Purposive sample of 107 at-risk women.
METHODS: Self-report survey. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Breast and ovarian cancer surveillance behaviors and BRCA test results.
FINDINGS: Ninety percent of participants had a personal history of breast cancer; 84% had a negative BRCA result. About 60% of participants engaged in at least the minimum recommended breast cancer surveillance behaviors, but 70% had suboptimal ovarian cancer surveillance behaviors. Lack of physician recommendation was the most frequently reported reason for not having surveillance procedures. BRCA results were not associated with the breast cancer surveillance categories and the ovarian cancer surveillance recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: Although most participants were not carriers of a mutation, the presence of other risk factors for breast and ovarian cancer dictates continued cancer surveillance. At-risk women may not be informed adequately about cancer surveillance. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Healthcare providers should be aware of changing breast and ovarian cancer surveillance recommendations and counsel their at-risk patients accordingly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19273395     DOI: 10.1188/09.onf.e57-e67

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum        ISSN: 0190-535X            Impact factor:   2.172


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Significant differences among physician specialties in management recommendations of BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Authors:  S U Dhar; H P Cooper; T Wang; B Parks; S A Staggs; S Hilsenbeck; S E Plon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 3.  Decision making about cancer screening: an assessment of the state of the science and a suggested research agenda from the ASPO Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Communication Special Interest Group.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Aimee S James; Isaac M Lipkus; Helen I Meissner; Michael Stefanek; Jamie L Studts; John F P Bridges; David R Close; Deborah O Erwin; Resa M Jones; Karen Kaiser; Kathryn M Kash; Kimberly M Kelly; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jason Q Purnell; Laura A Siminoff; Susan T Vadaparampil; Catharine Wang
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Patient compliance based on genetic medicine: a literature review.

Authors:  Kai Insa Schneider; Jörg Schmidtke
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-08-10

5.  Clinical utility of hereditary cancer panel testing: Impact of PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D results on patient management and adherence to provider recommendations.

Authors:  Valentina Vysotskaia; K Eerik Kaseniit; Leslie Bucheit; Kaylene Ready; Kristin Price; Katherine Johansen Taber
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Novel Interactive Tool for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment (Bright Pink Assess Your Risk): Development and Usability Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Hibler; Angela J Fought; Kiarri N Kershaw; Rebecca Molsberry; Virginia Nowakowski; Deborah Lindner
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 7.076

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.