C H Halbert1, L Kessler, A B Troxel, J E Stopfer, S Domchek. 1. Center for Community-Based Research and Health Disparities, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. chanita@mail.med.upenn.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited empirical data are available on the effects of genetic counseling and testing among African American women. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of genetic counseling and testing in African American women based on different levels of exposure: (a) women who were randomized toculturally tailored (CTGC) and standard genetic counseling (SGC) to women who declined randomization (non-randomized group), (b) participants and non-participants in genetic counseling, and (c) BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) test result acceptors and decliners. DESIGN: Randomized trial of genetic counselingconducted from February 2003 to November 2006. MEASURES: We evaluated changes in perceived risk of developing breast cancer and cancer worry. RESULTS: Women randomized to CTGC and SGC did not differ in terms of changes in risk perception and cancer worry compared to decliners. However, counseling participants had a significantly greater likelihood of reporting reductions in perceived risk compared to non-participants (p = 0.03). Test result acceptors also had a significantly greater likelihood of reporting decreases in cancer worry (p = 0.03). However, having a cancer history (p = 0.03) and a BRCA1/2 prior probability (p = 0.04) were associated with increases in cancer worry. CONCLUSIONS: Although CTGC did not lead to significant improvements in perceived risk or psychological functioning, African American women may benefit from genetic counseling and testing. Continued efforts should be made to increase access to genetic counseling and testing among African American women at increased risk for hereditary disease. But, follow-up support may be needed for women who have a personal history of cancer and those with a greater prior probability of having a BRCA1/2 mutation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Limited empirical data are available on the effects of genetic counseling and testing among African American women. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of genetic counseling and testing in African American women based on different levels of exposure: (a) women who were randomized to culturally tailored (CTGC) and standard genetic counseling (SGC) to women who declined randomization (non-randomized group), (b) participants and non-participants in genetic counseling, and (c) BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) test result acceptors and decliners. DESIGN: Randomized trial of genetic counseling conducted from February 2003 to November 2006. MEASURES: We evaluated changes in perceived risk of developing breast cancer and cancer worry. RESULTS:Women randomized to CTGC and SGC did not differ in terms of changes in risk perception and cancer worry compared to decliners. However, counseling participants had a significantly greater likelihood of reporting reductions in perceived risk compared to non-participants (p = 0.03). Test result acceptors also had a significantly greater likelihood of reporting decreases in cancer worry (p = 0.03). However, having a cancer history (p = 0.03) and a BRCA1/2 prior probability (p = 0.04) were associated with increases in cancer worry. CONCLUSIONS: Although CTGC did not lead to significant improvements in perceived risk or psychological functioning, African American women may benefit from genetic counseling and testing. Continued efforts should be made to increase access to genetic counseling and testing among African American women at increased risk for hereditary disease. But, follow-up support may be needed for women who have a personal history of cancer and those with a greater prior probability of having a BRCA1/2 mutation.
Authors: Anita Yeomans Kinney; Lindsey E Bloor; Diptasri Mandal; Sara Ellis Simonsen; Bonnie Jeanne Baty; Richard Holubkov; Kate Seggar; Susan Neuhausen; Ken Smith Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Matthew W Kreuter; Celette Sugg-Skinner; Cheryl L Holt; Eddie M Clark; Debra Haire-Joshu; Qiang Fu; Angela C Booker; Karen Steger-May; Dawn Bucholtz Journal: Prev Med Date: 2004-11-26 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Rita Nanda; L Philip Schumm; Shelly Cummings; James D Fackenthal; Lise Sveen; Foluso Ademuyiwa; Melody Cobleigh; Laura Esserman; Noralane M Lindor; Susan L Neuhausen; Olufunmilayo I Olopade Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Darren Mays; McKane E Sharff; Tiffani A DeMarco; Bernice Williams; Beth Beck; Vanessa B Sheppard; Beth N Peshkin; Jennifer Eng-Wong; Kenneth P Tercyak Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Barbara A Athens; Samantha L Caldwell; Kendall L Umstead; Philip D Connors; Ethan Brenna; Barbara B Biesecker Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Claire C Conley; Monica L Kasting; Bianca M Augusto; Jennifer D Garcia; Deborah Cragun; Brian D Gonzalez; Jongphil Kim; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Cheryl L Knott; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Tuya Pal; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Elisa J Gordon; Daniela Amόrtegui; Isaac Blancas; Catherine Wicklund; John Friedewald; Richard R Sharp Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 8.860