BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk has implications for individuals and families. This study of women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer examines communication of BRCA results and subsequent genetic testing in the family. METHODS: We surveyed 1,103 female BRCA testers at two hospitals, querying for communication of results and testing in relatives. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of participants communicated BRCA results with at least one relative. Communication was negatively associated with older age [odds ratio (OR), 0.66 per decade; 95% confidence interval, (95% CI), 0.4-0.9], Asian race (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.5), and testing at the public hospital versus the cancer center (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.5). Communication was positively associated with increased knowledge of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer screening and risk reduction recommendations (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4) and increased satisfaction with the decision to BRCA test (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.0). Seventy-five percent of BRCA-positive participants reported that at least one relative pursued genetic testing. Family testing was negatively associated with Asian race (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.02-0.8) and positively associated with increased socioeconomic status (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7) and increased satisfaction with decision (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.1). CONCLUSION: Despite high overall rates of communicating BRCA results, underserved and some minority women seem less likely to inform relatives of their BRCA status or have relatives test for a known family mutation. Satisfaction with the decision to BRCA test is positively associated with both outcomes. IMPACT: This study identified several novel predictors of family communication and family genetic testing in a large population of high-risk women. This work can inform clinicians interested in improving family communication regarding cancer predisposition testing. (c)2010 AACR.
BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk has implications for individuals and families. This study of women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer examines communication of BRCA results and subsequent genetic testing in the family. METHODS: We surveyed 1,103 female BRCA testers at two hospitals, querying for communication of results and testing in relatives. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of participants communicated BRCA results with at least one relative. Communication was negatively associated with older age [odds ratio (OR), 0.66 per decade; 95% confidence interval, (95% CI), 0.4-0.9], Asian race (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.5), and testing at the public hospital versus the cancer center (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.5). Communication was positively associated with increased knowledge of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer screening and risk reduction recommendations (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4) and increased satisfaction with the decision to BRCA test (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.0). Seventy-five percent of BRCA-positive participants reported that at least one relative pursued genetic testing. Family testing was negatively associated with Asian race (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.02-0.8) and positively associated with increased socioeconomic status (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7) and increased satisfaction with decision (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.1). CONCLUSION: Despite high overall rates of communicating BRCA results, underserved and some minority women seem less likely to inform relatives of their BRCA status or have relatives test for a known family mutation. Satisfaction with the decision to BRCA test is positively associated with both outcomes. IMPACT: This study identified several novel predictors of family communication and family genetic testing in a large population of high-risk women. This work can inform clinicians interested in improving family communication regarding cancer predisposition testing. (c)2010 AACR.
Authors: Bobbi McGivern; Jessica Everett; Geoffrey G Yager; Robert C Baumiller; Amanda Hafertepen; Howard M Saal Journal: Genet Med Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Erna Claes; Gerry Evers-Kiebooms; Andrea Boogaerts; Marleen Decruyenaere; Lieve Denayer; Eric Legius Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: M Holmes-Rovner; J Kroll; N Schmitt; D R Rovner; M L Breer; M L Rothert; G Padonu; G Talarczyk Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1996 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Josephine Wagner Costalas; Mark Itzen; John Malick; James S Babb; Betsy Bove; Andrew K Godwin; Mary B Daly Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 3.908
Authors: Michael J Green; Susan K Peterson; Maria Wagner Baker; Gregory R Harper; Lois C Friedman; Wendy S Rubinstein; David T Mauger Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-07-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Willem Eijzenga; Daniela E E Hahn; Neil K Aaronson; Irma Kluijt; Eveline M A Bleiker Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2013-08-31 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Fred H Menko; Jacqueline A Ter Stege; Lizet E van der Kolk; Kiki N Jeanson; Winnie Schats; Daoud Ait Moha; Eveline M A Bleiker Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Sungmin Park; Jeong Eon Lee; Jai Min Ryu; Issac Kim; Soo Youn Bae; Se Kyung Lee; Jonghan Yu; Seok Won Kim; Seok Jin Nam Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Claire C Conley; Dana Ketcher; Maija Reblin; Monica L Kasting; Deborah Cragun; Jongphil Kim; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Cheryl L Knott; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Tuya Pal; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Susan V Montgomery; Andrea M Barsevick; Brian L Egleston; Ruth Bingler; Karen Ruth; Suzanne M Miller; John Malick; Terrence P Cescon; Mary B Daly Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Lucy A Peipins; Juan L Rodriguez; Nikki A Hawkins; Ashwini Soman; Mary C White; M Elizabeth Hodgson; Lisa A DeRoo; Dale P Sandler Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 2.681