PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate potential sociodemographic, medical, psychosocial, and behavioral correlates of interest in genetic testing in men from hereditary prostate cancer families. METHODS: Family members affected with prostate cancer (n = 559) and their unaffected male relatives (n = 370) completed a mailed survey. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between potential correlates and interest in genetic testing for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of affected and 56% of unaffected men reported that they definitely would take a genetic test for prostate cancer. More affected men reported high levels of familiarity with genetic testing than unaffected men (46 vs. 25%). There were several variables that were significantly correlated with interest in either affected or unaffected men, but only age and familiarity with genetics were significant in both groups. After controlling for confounding variables, only familiarity remained a significant correlate in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The contrast between low levels of familiarity with genetics and high test interest among unaffected men highlights the need for increased educational efforts targeting hereditary prostate cancer families. Overall, results illuminated several novel characteristics of men from hereditary prostate cancer families that should be considered when developing future informed consent procedures or educational materials for prostate cancer genetic testing.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate potential sociodemographic, medical, psychosocial, and behavioral correlates of interest in genetic testing in men from hereditary prostate cancer families. METHODS: Family members affected with prostate cancer (n = 559) and their unaffected male relatives (n = 370) completed a mailed survey. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between potential correlates and interest in genetic testing for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of affected and 56% of unaffected men reported that they definitely would take a genetic test for prostate cancer. More affected men reported high levels of familiarity with genetic testing than unaffected men (46 vs. 25%). There were several variables that were significantly correlated with interest in either affected or unaffected men, but only age and familiarity with genetics were significant in both groups. After controlling for confounding variables, only familiarity remained a significant correlate in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The contrast between low levels of familiarity with genetics and high test interest among unaffected men highlights the need for increased educational efforts targeting hereditary prostate cancer families. Overall, results illuminated several novel characteristics of men from hereditary prostate cancer families that should be considered when developing future informed consent procedures or educational materials for prostate cancer genetic testing.
Authors: A Wagner; C Tops; J T Wijnen; K Zwinderman; C van der Meer; M Kets; M F Niermeijer; J G M Klijn; A Tibben; H F A Vasen; H Meijers-Heijboer Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Julius Gudmundsson; Patrick Sulem; Valgerdur Steinthorsdottir; Jon T Bergthorsson; Gudmar Thorleifsson; Andrei Manolescu; Thorunn Rafnar; Daniel Gudbjartsson; Bjarni A Agnarsson; Adam Baker; Asgeir Sigurdsson; Kristrun R Benediktsdottir; Margret Jakobsdottir; Thorarinn Blondal; Simon N Stacey; Agnar Helgason; Steinunn Gunnarsdottir; Adalheidur Olafsdottir; Kari T Kristinsson; Birgitta Birgisdottir; Shyamali Ghosh; Steinunn Thorlacius; Dana Magnusdottir; Gerdur Stefansdottir; Kristleifur Kristjansson; Yu Bagger; Robert L Wilensky; Muredach P Reilly; Andrew D Morris; Charlotte H Kimber; Adebowale Adeyemo; Yuanxiu Chen; Jie Zhou; Wing-Yee So; Peter C Y Tong; Maggie C Y Ng; Torben Hansen; Gitte Andersen; Knut Borch-Johnsen; Torben Jorgensen; Alejandro Tres; Fernando Fuertes; Manuel Ruiz-Echarri; Laura Asin; Berta Saez; Erica van Boven; Siem Klaver; Dorine W Swinkels; Katja K Aben; Theresa Graif; John Cashy; Brian K Suarez; Onco van Vierssen Trip; Michael L Frigge; Carole Ober; Marten H Hofker; Cisca Wijmenga; Claus Christiansen; Daniel J Rader; Colin N A Palmer; Charles Rotimi; Juliana C N Chan; Oluf Pedersen; Gunnar Sigurdsson; Rafn Benediktsson; Eirikur Jonsson; Gudmundur V Einarsson; Jose I Mayordomo; William J Catalona; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Rosa B Barkardottir; Jeffrey R Gulcher; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Augustine Kong; Kari Stefansson Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: June A Peters; Susan T Vadaparampil; Joan Kramer; Richard P Moser; Lori Jo Peterson Court; Jennifer Loud; Mark H Greene Journal: Genet Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Kunal Sanghavi; W Gregory Feero; Debra J H Mathews; Anya E R Prince; Lori Lyn Price; Edison T Liu; Kyle B Brothers; J Scott Roberts; Charles Lee Journal: Front Genet Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Ana Catarina Freitas; Ana Opinião; Sofia Fragoso; Hugo Nunes; Madalena Santos; Ana Clara; Sandra Bento; Ana Luis; Jorge Silva; Cecília Moura; Bruno Filipe; Patrícia Machado; Sidónia Santos; Saudade André; Paula Rodrigues; Joana Parreira; Fátima Vaz Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2018-01-30