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.
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.
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
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
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