AIMS: Benefits of universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome (LS), the most common form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), will be realized only if patients are interested in genetic counseling and testing. This study explores interest in genetic testing for hereditary CRC among CRC patients who have never received genetic counseling or testing. METHODS: Using results from a cross-sectional survey of CRC patients (n=91) at varying categories of risk for hereditary CRC, bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to compare positive and negative attitudinal beliefs regarding genetic testing, risk perceptions, demographics, and tumor stage of those who were interested in genetic testing (n=61) and those who were not interested or were not sure (n=30). RESULTS: Although significant at the bivariate level, gender, perceived relative risk of hereditary cancer, employment status, and belief that genetic testing would help in preparing for the future were not significantly related to interest in genetic testing when controlling for all other variables in a logistic regression model. The two factors that remained significant include a single-item question measuring the belief that genetic testing is warranted based on personal/family history and a positive attitudinal scale regarding the utility of genetic testing in medical decision making and cancer prevention. CONCLUSION: Results have potential implications for policies regarding universal tumor screening for LS.
AIMS: Benefits of universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome (LS), the most common form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), will be realized only if patients are interested in genetic counseling and testing. This study explores interest in genetic testing for hereditary CRC among CRCpatients who have never received genetic counseling or testing. METHODS: Using results from a cross-sectional survey of CRCpatients (n=91) at varying categories of risk for hereditary CRC, bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to compare positive and negative attitudinal beliefs regarding genetic testing, risk perceptions, demographics, and tumor stage of those who were interested in genetic testing (n=61) and those who were not interested or were not sure (n=30). RESULTS: Although significant at the bivariate level, gender, perceived relative risk of hereditary cancer, employment status, and belief that genetic testing would help in preparing for the future were not significantly related to interest in genetic testing when controlling for all other variables in a logistic regression model. The two factors that remained significant include a single-item question measuring the belief that genetic testing is warranted based on personal/family history and a positive attitudinal scale regarding the utility of genetic testing in medical decision making and cancer prevention. CONCLUSION: Results have potential implications for policies regarding universal tumor screening for LS.
Authors: Heather Hampel; Wendy L Frankel; Edward Martin; Mark Arnold; Karamjit Khanduja; Philip Kuebler; Mark Clendenning; Kaisa Sotamaa; Thomas Prior; Judith A Westman; Jenny Panescu; Dan Fix; Janet Lockman; Jennifer LaJeunesse; Ilene Comeras; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S W Vernon; E R Gritz; S K Peterson; C A Perz; S Marani; C I Amos; W F Baile Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: J G Park; H F Vasen; K J Park; P Peltomaki; M Ponz de Leon; M A Rodriguez-Bigas; J Lubinski; N E Beck; M L Bisgaard; M Miyaki; J T Wijnen; S Baba; H T Lynch Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Asad Umar; C Richard Boland; Jonathan P Terdiman; Sapna Syngal; Albert de la Chapelle; Josef Rüschoff; Richard Fishel; Noralane M Lindor; Lawrence J Burgart; Richard Hamelin; Stanley R Hamilton; Robert A Hiatt; Jeremy Jass; Annika Lindblom; Henry T Lynch; Païvi Peltomaki; Scott D Ramsey; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; Hans F A Vasen; Ernest T Hawk; J Carl Barrett; Andrew N Freedman; Sudhir Srivastava Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-02-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M J Esplen; L Madlensky; M Aronson; H Rothenmund; S Gallinger; K Butler; B Toner; J Wong; M Manno; J McLaughlin Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: D Ramsoekh; M E van Leerdam; C M J Tops; D Dooijes; E W Steyerberg; E J Kuipers; A Wagner Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2007-10-07 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Monika Keller; Ralf Jost; Martina Kadmon; Hans-Peter Wüllenweber; Carrie Mastromarino Haunstetter; Frank Willeke; Christine Jung; Johannes Gebert; Christian Sutter; Christian Herfarth; Markus W Büchler Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Glenn E Palomaki; Monica R McClain; Stephanie Melillo; Heather L Hampel; Stephen N Thibodeau Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Jessica Ezzell Hunter; Jamilyn M Zepp; Mari J Gilmore; James V Davis; Elizabeth J Esterberg; Kristin R Muessig; Susan K Peterson; Sapna Syngal; Louise S Acheson; Georgia L Wiesner; Jacob A Reiss; Katrina A B Goddard Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: E Tomiak; A Samson; N Spector; M Mackey; C Gilpin; E Smith; D Jonker; J Allanson; T Asmis Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.375