BACKGROUND: Women who are at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer have 2 major management options to reduce their risk of ovarian cancer: periodic screening (PS) or risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Little is known regarding patient satisfaction levels with risk-reduction strategies. Thus, the authors sought to determine levels of patient satisfaction with PS versus RRSO and to identify factors that may influence satisfaction. METHODS: As part of a larger study, women who received testing for the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 were sent a follow-up questionnaire packet to explore issues related to cancer risk reduction. The authors report on the results from a variety of validated instruments, including the Satisfaction With Decision (SWD) scale, focused on the choice between PS and RRSO. RESULTS: In total, 544 surveys were mailed, and 313 responses were received (58%). The overall satisfaction rate among respondents was high. The median SWD score was significantly higher in the RRSO group compared with the PS group (P < .001). BRCA mutation carriers had higher median SWD scores regardless of management type (P = .01). Low satisfaction scores were associated with high levels of uncertainty and the perception that the decision between PS and RRSO was difficult to make (P = .001). Satisfaction was unrelated to demographics, clinical factors, or concerns of cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, the majority of women who were at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer were satisfied with their choice of risk-reduction strategy. Difficulty with decision making was associated with lower satisfaction levels. Improved education and support through the decision-making process may enhance overall levels of satisfaction.
BACKGROUND:Women who are at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer have 2 major management options to reduce their risk of ovarian cancer: periodic screening (PS) or risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Little is known regarding patient satisfaction levels with risk-reduction strategies. Thus, the authors sought to determine levels of patient satisfaction with PS versus RRSO and to identify factors that may influence satisfaction. METHODS: As part of a larger study, women who received testing for the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 were sent a follow-up questionnaire packet to explore issues related to cancer risk reduction. The authors report on the results from a variety of validated instruments, including the Satisfaction With Decision (SWD) scale, focused on the choice between PS and RRSO. RESULTS: In total, 544 surveys were mailed, and 313 responses were received (58%). The overall satisfaction rate among respondents was high. The median SWD score was significantly higher in the RRSO group compared with the PS group (P < .001). BRCA mutation carriers had higher median SWD scores regardless of management type (P = .01). Low satisfaction scores were associated with high levels of uncertainty and the perception that the decision between PS and RRSO was difficult to make (P = .001). Satisfaction was unrelated to demographics, clinical factors, or concerns of cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, the majority of women who were at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer were satisfied with their choice of risk-reduction strategy. Difficulty with decision making was associated with lower satisfaction levels. Improved education and support through the decision-making process may enhance overall levels of satisfaction.
Authors: Amy Finch; Mario Beiner; Jan Lubinski; Henry T Lynch; Pal Moller; Barry Rosen; Joan Murphy; Parviz Ghadirian; Eitan Friedman; William D Foulkes; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Teresa Wagner; Nadine Tung; Fergus Couch; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Peter Ainsworth; Mary Daly; Babara Pasini; Ruth Gershoni-Baruch; Charis Eng; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Jane McLennan; Beth Karlan; Jeffrey Weitzel; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-07-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Carolyn Y Fang; Carol Cherry; Karthik Devarajan; Tianyu Li; John Malick; Mary B Daly Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Johnathan M Lancaster; C Bethan Powell; Noah D Kauff; Ilana Cass; Lee-May Chen; Karen H Lu; David G Mutch; Andrew Berchuck; Beth Y Karlan; Thomas J Herzog Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Giovanna M da Silva; Tracy Hull; Patricia L Roberts; Dan E Ruiz; Steven D Wexner; Eric G Weiss; Juan J Nogueras; Norma Daniel; Jane Bast; Jeff Hammel; Dana Sands Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Gillian W Hooker; Lesley King; Lauren Vanhusen; Kristi Graves; Beth N Peshkin; Claudine Isaacs; Kathryn L Taylor; Elizabeth Poggi; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Hered Cancer Clin Pract Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 2.857