Literature DB >> 22943881

Psychological outcomes of familial ovarian cancer screening: no evidence of long-term harm.

Kate E Brain1, Kate J Lifford, Lindsay Fraser, Adam N Rosenthal, Mark T Rogers, Deborah Lancastle, Ceri Phelps, Eila K Watson, Alison Clements, Usha Menon.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Ovarian cancer screening for women at increased genetic risk in the UK involves 4-monthly CA125 tests and annual ultrasound, with further tests prompted by an abnormal result. The study evaluated the longer-term psychological and behavioural effects of frequent ovarian screening.
METHODS: Women completed T1 questionnaires before their first routine 4-monthly CA125 test, and T2 follow-up questionnaires one week after their result. Women with abnormal results completed a further questionnaire one week after return to routine screening (T3 primary end-point). T4 questionnaires were sent at nine months. Measures included cancer distress, general anxiety/depression, reassurance, and withdrawal from screening.
RESULTS: A total 1999 (62%) of 3224 women completed T1 questionnaires. T2 questionnaires were completed by 1384/1609 participants (86%): 1217 (89%) with normal results and 167/242 (69%) with abnormal results. T3 questionnaires were completed by 141/163 (87%) women, with 912/1173 (78%) completing T4 questionnaires. Analysis of covariance indicated that, compared to women with normal results, women with abnormal results reported moderate cancer distress (F = 27.47, p ≤ .001, η(2) = 0.02) one week after their abnormal result and were significantly more likely to withdraw from screening (OR = 4.38, p ≤ .001). These effects were not apparent at T3 or T4. The effect of screening result on general anxiety/depression or overall reassurance was not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Women participating in frequent ovarian screening who are recalled for an abnormal result may experience transient cancer-specific distress, which may prompt reconsideration of risk management options. Health professionals and policy makers may be reassured that frequent familial ovarian screening does not cause sustained psychological harm.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22943881     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.08.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  9 in total

1.  Demographic, clinical, dispositional, and social-environmental characteristics associated with psychological response to a false positive ovarian cancer screening test: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-10-25

2.  Affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes associated with a false positive ovarian cancer screening test result.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-04-21

3.  Long-term positive psychological outcomes in an Australian pancreatic cancer screening program.

Authors:  R S O'Neill; B Meiser; S Emmanuel; D B Williams; A Stoita
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  The double-edged sword of ovarian cancer information for women at increased risk who have previously taken part in screening.

Authors:  Stephanie Smits; Jacky Boivin; Usha Menon; Kate Brain
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2016-06-30

5.  Influences on anticipated time to ovarian cancer symptom presentation in women at increased risk compared to population risk of ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Stephanie Smits; Jacky Boivin; Usha Menon; Kate Brain
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Evidence of Stage Shift in Women Diagnosed With Ovarian Cancer During Phase II of the United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study.

Authors:  Adam N Rosenthal; Lindsay S M Fraser; Susan Philpott; Ranjit Manchanda; Matthew Burnell; Philip Badman; Richard Hadwin; Ivana Rizzuto; Elizabeth Benjamin; Naveena Singh; D Gareth Evans; Diana M Eccles; Andy Ryan; Robert Liston; Anne Dawnay; Jeremy Ford; Richard Gunu; James Mackay; Steven J Skates; Usha Menon; Ian J Jacobs
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Psychological and Behavioral Impact of Participation in Ovarian Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2017-03-08

8.  Increasing awareness of gynaecological cancer symptoms: a GP perspective.

Authors:  Ruth E C Evans; Melanie Morris; Mandeep Sekhon; Marta Buszewicz; Fiona M Walter; Jo Waller; Alice E Simon
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Psychosocial effects of whole-body MRI screening in adult high-risk pathogenic TP53 mutation carriers: a case-controlled study (SIGNIFY).

Authors:  Elizabeth K Bancroft; Sibel Saya; Emma Brown; Sarah Thomas; Natalie Taylor; Jeanette Rothwell; Jennifer Pope; Anthony Chamberlain; Elizabeth Page; Sarah Benafif; Helen Hanson; Alexander Dias; Christos Mikropoulos; Louise Izatt; Lucy Side; Lisa Walker; Alan Donaldson; Jackie A Cook; Julian Barwell; Vicki Wiles; Lauren Limb; Diana M Eccles; Martin O Leach; Susan Shanley; Fiona J Gilbert; David Gallagher; Balashanmugam Rajashanker; Richard W Whitehouse; Dow-Mu Koh; S Aslam Sohaib; D Gareth Evans; Rosalind A Eeles; Leslie G Walker
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 6.318

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.