PURPOSE: Short-term reactions to BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic test results have been described in several reports, but the long-terms effects of testing have not been examined extensively. METHODS: We conducted an observational study to characterize the long-term impact of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations in 167 women who had received genetic test results at least 4 years ago. We also evaluated the relationship between genetic testing-specific reactions and breast and ovarian cancer screening to determine the behavioral significance of adverse reactions. RESULTS: Seventy-four percent of women were not experiencing any distress regarding their test result, 41% were not experiencing any uncertainty, and 51% had a score for positive experiences that was suggestive of low levels of adverse reactions in terms of family support and communication. Mutation carriers (odds ratio, 3.96; 95% CI, 1.44 to 10.89; P = .01) were most likely to experience distress. Only less time since disclosure was related significantly to experiencing uncertainty (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.88; P = .008). In terms of cancer screening, 81% of women had a mammogram during the year before study enrollment, 25% had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 20% had a transvaginal ultrasound, and 20% had a CA-125. Experiencing distress was associated significantly with having a CA-125 (χ(2) = 3.89, P = .05), and uncertainty was associated with having an MRI (χ(2) = 8.90, P = .003). CONCLUSION: Our findings show that women are not likely to experience genetic testing concerns several years after receiving BRCA1/2 test results; distress and uncertainty are not likely to have adverse effects on screening among women at risk for hereditary disease.
PURPOSE: Short-term reactions to BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic test results have been described in several reports, but the long-terms effects of testing have not been examined extensively. METHODS: We conducted an observational study to characterize the long-term impact of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations in 167 women who had received genetic test results at least 4 years ago. We also evaluated the relationship between genetic testing-specific reactions and breast and ovarian cancer screening to determine the behavioral significance of adverse reactions. RESULTS: Seventy-four percent of women were not experiencing any distress regarding their test result, 41% were not experiencing any uncertainty, and 51% had a score for positive experiences that was suggestive of low levels of adverse reactions in terms of family support and communication. Mutation carriers (odds ratio, 3.96; 95% CI, 1.44 to 10.89; P = .01) were most likely to experience distress. Only less time since disclosure was related significantly to experiencing uncertainty (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.88; P = .008). In terms of cancer screening, 81% of women had a mammogram during the year before study enrollment, 25% had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 20% had a transvaginal ultrasound, and 20% had a CA-125. Experiencing distress was associated significantly with having a CA-125 (χ(2) = 3.89, P = .05), and uncertainty was associated with having an MRI (χ(2) = 8.90, P = .003). CONCLUSION: Our findings show that women are not likely to experience genetic testing concerns several years after receiving BRCA1/2 test results; distress and uncertainty are not likely to have adverse effects on screening among women at risk for hereditary disease.
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
Authors: David Cella; Chanita Hughes; Amy Peterman; Chih-Hung Chang; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz; Lari Wenzel; Amy Lemke; Alfred C Marcus; Caryn Lerman Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Kristi D Graves; Lari Wenzel; Marc D Schwartz; George Luta; Paul Wileyto; Steven Narod; Beth N Peshkin; Alfred Marcus; David Cella; Susan Powell Emsbo; Denise Barnes; Chanita Hughes Halbert Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 4.254
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
Authors: Iris van Oostrom; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Litanja N Lodder; Hugo J Duivenvoorden; Arthur R van Gool; Caroline Seynaeve; Conny A van der Meer; Jan G M Klijn; Bert N van Geel; Curt W Burger; Juriy W Wladimiroff; Aad Tibben Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C Lerman; S Narod; K Schulman; C Hughes; A Gomez-Caminero; G Bonney; K Gold; B Trock; D Main; J Lynch; C Fulmore; C Snyder; S J Lemon; T Conway; P Tonin; G Lenoir; H Lynch Journal: JAMA Date: 1996-06-26 Impact factor: 56.272
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
Authors: Xuan Zhu; Emma R Leof; Kari G Rabe; Jennifer B McCormick; Gloria M Petersen; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2019-04-18 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Johanna Ringwald; Christina Wochnowski; Kristin Bosse; Katrin Elisabeth Giel; Norbert Schäffeler; Stephan Zipfel; Martin Teufel Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 2.537