Literature DB >> 22878783

Understanding how breast cancer patients use risk information from genomic tests.

Jessica T DeFrank1, Lisa A Carey, Noel T Brewer.   

Abstract

We sought to examine how patients' treatment decisions incorporate potentially conflicting information from standard clinical indicators (e.g., tumor size) and genomic tests for breast cancer recurrence risk. Participants were 77 early stage breast cancer survivors who previously received genomic testing. They read six hypothetical vignettes that varied recurrence risk indicated by standard tests (low or high risk) coupled with the genomic test (low, intermediate or high risk). For each vignette, women reported their perceived recurrence risk and treatment preferences. Test results indicating high recurrence risk increased perception of risk and preference for chemotherapy (p < .001 for all). Perceived risk explained (i.e., mediated) the effect of test results on chemotherapy preferences. When test results conflicted, women gave more weight to genomic over standard test results. Hypothetical genomic test results had the intended effect of influencing women's perceptions of recurrence risk and interest in chemotherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22878783      PMCID: PMC3535460          DOI: 10.1007/s10865-012-9449-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Behav Med        ISSN: 0160-7715


  24 in total

Review 1.  Genomic medicine--a primer.

Authors:  Alan E Guttmacher; Francis S Collins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-11-07       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Development and clinical utility of a 21-gene recurrence score prognostic assay in patients with early breast cancer treated with tamoxifen.

Authors:  Soonmyung Paik
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2007-06

3.  Women's experiences with genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk.

Authors:  Janice P Tzeng; Deborah Mayer; Alice R Richman; Isaac Lipkus; Paul K Han; Carmina G Valle; Lisa A Carey; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Patients' resistance to risk information in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2.

Authors:  Andrea D Gurmankin; Susan Domchek; Jill Stopfer; Christina Fels; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-03-14

5.  Prophylactic surgery decisions and surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 testing.

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

6.  When genomic and standard test results diverge: implications for breast cancer patients' preference for chemotherapy.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Alrick S Edwards; Suzanne C O'Neill; Janice P Tzeng; Lisa A Carey; Barbara K Rimer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2008-09-11       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Prospective multicenter study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on medical oncologist and patient adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection.

Authors:  Shelly S Lo; Patricia B Mumby; John Norton; Karen Rychlik; Jeffrey Smerage; Joseph Kash; Helen K Chew; Ellen R Gaynor; Daniel F Hayes; Andrew Epstein; Kathy S Albain
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-01-11       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Gene expression profiling in breast cancer.

Authors:  Shannon R Morris; Lisa A Carey
Journal:  Curr Opin Oncol       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.645

9.  Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study.

Authors:  Mitch Dowsett; Jack Cuzick; Christopher Wale; John Forbes; Elizabeth A Mallon; Janine Salter; Emma Quinn; Anita Dunbier; Michael Baum; Aman Buzdar; Anthony Howell; Roberto Bugarini; Frederick L Baehner; Steven Shak
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-03-08       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients.

Authors:  Laurel A Habel; Steven Shak; Marlena K Jacobs; Angela Capra; Claire Alexander; Mylan Pho; Joffre Baker; Michael Walker; Drew Watson; James Hackett; Noelle T Blick; Deborah Greenberg; Louis Fehrenbacher; Bryan Langholz; Charles P Quesenberry
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2006-05-31       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  10 in total

1.  Patients' understanding of how genotype variation affects benefits of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer.

Authors:  N T Brewer; J T Defrank; W K Chiu; J G Ibrahim; C M Walko; P Rubin; O A Olajide; S G Moore; R E Raab; D R Carrizosa; S W Corso; G Schwartz; J M Peppercorn; H L McLeod; L A Carey; W J Irvin
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Which self-management strategies do health care professionals recommend to their cancer patients? An experimental investigation of patient age and treatment phase.

Authors:  Nadine Ungar; Laura Schmidt; Martina Gabrian; Alexander Haussmann; Angeliki Tsiouris; Monika Sieverding; Karen Steindorf; Joachim Wiskemann
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2018-10-23

3.  Who gets genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk?

Authors:  J T DeFrank; T Salz; K Reeder-Hayes; N T Brewer
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  What Factors Influence Women's Perceptions of their Systemic Recurrence Risk after Breast Cancer Treatment?

Authors:  Kamaria L Lee; Nancy K Janz; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Reshma Jagsi; Lauren P Wallner; Allison W Kurian; Steven J Katz; Paul Abrahamse; Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 2.749

5.  Cognitive-Behavioral Coping, Illness Perception, and Family Adaptability in Oncological Patients with a Family History of Cancer.

Authors:  Roxana Postolica; Magdalena Iorga; Florin Dumitru Petrariu; Doina Azoicai
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  The PiGeOn project: protocol of a longitudinal study examining psychosocial and ethical issues and outcomes in germline genomic sequencing for cancer.

Authors:  Megan Best; Ainsley J Newson; Bettina Meiser; Ilona Juraskova; David Goldstein; Kathy Tucker; Mandy L Ballinger; Dominique Hess; Timothy E Schlub; Barbara Biesecker; Richard Vines; Kate Vines; David Thomas; Mary-Anne Young; Jacqueline Savard; Chris Jacobs; Phyllis Butow
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Genomics and Infectious Diseases: Expert Perspectives on Public Health Considerations regarding Actionability and Privacy.

Authors:  Alexis Walker; Angie Boyce; Priya Duggal; Chloe L Thio; Gail Geller
Journal:  Ethics Hum Res       Date:  2020-05

8.  Patients' perceptions of 70-gene signature testing: commonly changing the initial inclination to undergo or forego chemotherapy and reducing decisional conflict.

Authors:  Julia E C van Steenhoven; Bianca M den Dekker; Anne Kuijer; Paul J van Diest; Peter Nieboer; Johanna M Zuetenhorst; Alex L Th Imholz; Sabine Siesling; Thijs van Dalen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Gene Expression Profiling Tests for Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2020-03-06

10.  How do women trade-off benefits and risks in chemotherapy treatment decisions based on gene expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer? A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; Ken Deal; Yvonne Bombard; Natasha Leighl; Karen V MacDonald; Maureen Trudeau
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.