Anne L Ersig1, Donald W Hadley, Laura M Koehly. 1. Social and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-2073, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients who receive conclusive genetic test results for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) tend to adopt appropriate colorectal cancer screening behaviors and disclose their test results. However, little is known about the disclosure processes or screening behaviors of individuals who receive inconclusive genetic test results. This study compared endoscopy use and disclosure between individuals with positive and inconclusive genetic test results, within a year after results were received. METHODS: Individuals with a personal history of cancer and suspected of having HNPCC participated in genetics education and counseling, underwent HNPCC testing, and received genetic test results (GCT) within a prospective cohort study. Demographic, psychosocial, and behavioral data were obtained from questionnaires and interviews completed before and after GCT. RESULTS: Index cases with inconclusive genetic test results were less likely to screen within 12 months. Index cases who disclosed test results to children within 6 months were more likely to screen within 12 months, controlling for mutation status. Index cases with inconclusive genetic test results were less likely to share results with a healthcare provider within 6 months. Index cases who disclosed genetic test results to healthcare providers within 6 months were more likely to have endoscopy within 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic test results and disclosure significantly affected colon cancer screening at 12-month follow-up. Interventions to improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening should consider increased education of those receiving inconclusive results and encourage disclosure to healthcare providers and family members.
BACKGROUND:Patients who receive conclusive genetic test results for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) tend to adopt appropriate colorectal cancer screening behaviors and disclose their test results. However, little is known about the disclosure processes or screening behaviors of individuals who receive inconclusive genetic test results. This study compared endoscopy use and disclosure between individuals with positive and inconclusive genetic test results, within a year after results were received. METHODS: Individuals with a personal history of cancer and suspected of having HNPCC participated in genetics education and counseling, underwent HNPCC testing, and received genetic test results (GCT) within a prospective cohort study. Demographic, psychosocial, and behavioral data were obtained from questionnaires and interviews completed before and after GCT. RESULTS: Index cases with inconclusive genetic test results were less likely to screen within 12 months. Index cases who disclosed test results to children within 6 months were more likely to screen within 12 months, controlling for mutation status. Index cases with inconclusive genetic test results were less likely to share results with a healthcare provider within 6 months. Index cases who disclosed genetic test results to healthcare providers within 6 months were more likely to have endoscopy within 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic test results and disclosure significantly affected colon cancer screening at 12-month follow-up. Interventions to improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening should consider increased education of those receiving inconclusive results and encourage disclosure to healthcare providers and family members.
Authors: Megan A Lewis; Colleen M McBride; Kathryn I Pollak; Elaine Puleo; Rita M Butterfield; Karen M Emmons Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Elena M Stoffel; Beth Ford; Rowena C Mercado; Darashana Punglia; Wendy Kohlmann; Peggy Conrad; Amie Blanco; Kristen M Shannon; Mark Powell; Stephen B Gruber; Jonathan Terdiman; Daniel C Chung; Sapna Syngal Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Noralane M Lindor; Gloria M Petersen; Donald W Hadley; Anita Y Kinney; Susan Miesfeldt; Karen H Lu; Patrick Lynch; Wylie Burke; Nancy Press Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-09-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Donald W Hadley; Jean F Jenkins; Seth M Steinberg; David Liewehr; Stephanie Moller; Jean C Martin; Kathleen A Calzone; Peter W Soballe; Ilan R Kirsch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M J Esplen; N Stuckless; S Gallinger; M Aronson; H Rothenmund; K Semotiuk; J Stokes; C Way; J Green; K Butler; H V Petersen; J Wong Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Uri Ladabaum; Grace Wang; Jonathan Terdiman; Amie Blanco; Miriam Kuppermann; C Richard Boland; James Ford; Elena Elkin; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Aunchalee E L Palmquist; Laura M Koehly; Susan K Peterson; Margarette Shegog; Sally W Vernon; Ellen R Gritz Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2010-04-17 Impact factor: 2.537
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
Authors: Jan T Lowery; Dennis J Ahnen; Paul C Schroy; Heather Hampel; Nancy Baxter; C Richard Boland; Randall W Burt; Lynn Butterly; Megan Doerr; Mary Doroshenk; W Gregory Feero; Nora Henrikson; Uri Ladabaum; David Lieberman; Elizabeth G McFarland; Susan K Peterson; Martha Raymond; N Jewel Samadder; Sapna Syngal; Thomas K Weber; Ann G Zauber; Robert Smith Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Aimee S James; Phillip Chisholm; Kathleen Y Wolin; Melanie Baxter; Kimberly Kaphingst; Nicholas O Davidson Journal: J Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-07-29