Literature DB >> 19347608

Cancer prevention and screening practices among women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer after genetic counseling in the community setting.

Debra Morgan1, Heather Sylvester, F Lee Lucas, Susan Miesfeldt.   

Abstract

The context is that there are limited data regarding the management of women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) after genetic counseling in the community setting. The objective of the study is to examine the cancer screening and prevention behaviors among women with diverse risk factors for HBOC, counseled through a non-academic genetic counseling service. This study was designed as a retrospective telephone survey. A community/private-hospital based cancer genetic counseling service was setting. The patients studied were women, at least 21 years of age, who had undergone cancer genetic counseling with: (1) a >or=10% predicted likelihood of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation; (2) a documented BRCA1/2 mutation. A 121-item telephone survey was intervened. Main outcome measures are (1) reason for referral, (2) genetic testing/results, and (3) screening and prevention behaviors. Sixty-nine women participated (31% response rate). Forty-nine (71%) respondents had a history of breast cancer. Forty-three women (62%) reported undergoing BRCA1/2 testing, of these, seven (16%) had a deleterious mutation; 32 (74%) received negative results and four (9%) had "inconclusive" findings. Among the seven with documented mutations; five had a personal history of breast cancer; none had a history of ovarian cancer; all had undergone bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), while five (71%) had undergone bilateral mastectomy. Among those 62 respondents without a documented mutation, pretest likelihood of a BRCA1/2 mutation (based on established models) was as follows: 10-29% likelihood in 38 (61%); 30-59% likelihood in 16 (26%); and >or=60% likelihood in eight (13%). Of these, 16 (26%) had undergone bilateral mastectomy for treatment and/or risk-reduction while 20 (32%) had undergone BSO for risk-reduction or for "other reasons". Almost all who had not undergone bilateral mastectomy were presenting for regular mammograms; fewer were undergoing regular breast MRI imaging. For those who had not undergone risk-reducing BSO; few were having CA-125 levels or transvaginal ultrasounds. Among those studied, the majority underwent genetic testing. A significant percentage elected to undergo risk-reducing mastectomy and BSO. Although prophylactic surgical decisions appeared to be largely influenced by BRCA mutation status, a number of women in the lower risk categories had undergone these procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19347608     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-009-9242-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  42 in total

1.  Primary care physicians' attitudes and practices regarding cancer genetics: a comparison of 2001 with 1996 survey results.

Authors:  Lois C Friedman; H Paul Cooper; John A Webb; Armin D Weinberg; Sharon E Plon
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Genetic testing for a BRCA1 mutation: prophylactic surgery and screening behavior in women 2 years post testing.

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

3.  Breast and ovarian cancer screening practices in healthy women with a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Claudine Isaacs; Beth N Peshkin; Marc Schwartz; Tiffani A Demarco; David Main; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Prophylactic surgery decisions and surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 testing.

Authors:  C Lerman; C Hughes; R T Croyle; D Main; C Durham; C Snyder; A Bonney; J F Lynch; S A Narod; H T Lynch
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  D Ford; D F Easton; M Stratton; S Narod; D Goldgar; P Devilee; D T Bishop; B Weber; G Lenoir; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; M D Teare; J Struewing; A Arason; S Scherneck; J Peto; T R Rebbeck; P Tonin; S Neuhausen; R Barkardottir; J Eyfjord; H Lynch; B A Ponder; S A Gayther; M Zelada-Hedman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 6.  Hereditary breast-ovarian cancer at the bedside: role of the medical oncologist.

Authors:  Henry T Lynch; Carrie L Snyder; Jane F Lynch; Bronson D Riley; Wendy S Rubinstein
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-02-15       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Optimal selection of individuals for BRCA mutation testing: a comparison of available methods.

Authors:  Paul A James; Rebecca Doherty; Marion Harris; Bickol N Mukesh; Alvin Milner; Mary-Anne Young; Clare Scott
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-02-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

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

9.  Cancer Incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Deborah Thompson; Douglas F Easton
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Mortality after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Susan L Neuhausen; Theresa Wagner; Gareth Evans; Claudine Isaacs; Judy E Garber; Mary B Daly; Rosalind Eeles; Ellen Matloff; Gail E Tomlinson; Laura Van't Veer; Henry T Lynch; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Barbara L Weber; Timothy R Rebbeck
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  16 in total

1.  BRCA1/2 test results impact risk management attitudes, intentions, and uptake.

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

2.  Why Is Cancer Genetic Counseling Underutilized by Women Identified as at Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer? Patient Perceptions of Barriers Following a Referral Letter.

Authors:  Alyssa Kne; Heather Zierhut; Shari Baldinger; Karen K Swenson; Pamela Mink; Patricia McCarthy Veach; Michaela L Tsai
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 3.  Population sciences, translational research, and the opportunities and challenges for genomics to reduce the burden of cancer in the 21st century.

Authors:  Muin J Khoury; Steven B Clauser; Andrew N Freedman; Elizabeth M Gillanders; Russ E Glasgow; William M P Klein; Sheri D Schully
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Genetic counseling content: How does it impact health behavior?

Authors:  Kimberly M Kelly; Lee Ellington; Nancy Schoenberg; Thomas Jackson; Stephanie Dickinson; Kyle Porter; Howard Leventhal; Michael Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2014-12-23

5.  Efficient identification and referral of low-income women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer: a practice-based approach.

Authors:  G Joseph; C Kaplan; J Luce; R Lee; S Stewart; C Guerra; R Pasick
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  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

Review 7.  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

8.  Perceptions of high-risk care and barriers to care among women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer following genetic counseling in the community setting.

Authors:  Debra Morgan; Heather Sylvester; F Lee Lucas; Susan Miesfeldt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Barriers and facilitators for utilization of genetic counseling and risk assessment services in young female breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Beth Anderson; Jennifer McLosky; Elizabeth Wasilevich; Sarah Lyon-Callo; Debra Duquette; Glenn Copeland
Journal:  J Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2012-10-22

10.  Pre-counseling education for low literacy women at risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC): patient experiences using the Cancer Risk Education Intervention Tool (CREdIT).

Authors:  Galen Joseph; Mary S Beattie; Robin Lee; Dejana Braithwaite; Carolina Wilcox; Maya Metrikin; Kate Lamvik; Judith Luce
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.