PURPOSE: The Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Aspects of Breast Cancer (kConFab) is a large-scale research study that notifies participants when new, personally relevant, information is discovered. In 2009, the (kConFab) instituted an intensive notification process to ensure at-risk individuals were effectively notified. This study (i) evaluated the impact of intensive notification on genetic testing uptake; (ii) identified those most likely to undergo testing postnotification; and (iii) identified those most likely to acknowledge that they had been notified. METHODS: Clinical/demographic data were retrieved from the (kConFab) database. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify potential predictors of testing uptake and notification acknowledgment using IBM SPSS. RESULTS: A total of 155 of 1,812 individuals underwent testing after standard notification (8.6%). In comparison, 23/291 individuals (7.9%) notified using the "intensive" approach underwent testing (χ(2) = 0.14; P = 0.71). After controlling for notification process, females and participants with a previous cancer were most likely to have undergone testing (P < 0.006). Older individuals (50+ years) were most likely to acknowledge they had been notified (P = 0.038). CONCLUSION: Increasing the intensity of participant follow-up did not increase genetic testing uptake. The challenge to effectively notify participants, and increase the proportion whose risk is managed clinically, remains, particularly for males and individuals unaffected by cancer.Genet Med 2013:15(3):187-194.
PURPOSE: The Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Aspects of Breast Cancer (kConFab) is a large-scale research study that notifies participants when new, personally relevant, information is discovered. In 2009, the (kConFab) instituted an intensive notification process to ensure at-risk individuals were effectively notified. This study (i) evaluated the impact of intensive notification on genetic testing uptake; (ii) identified those most likely to undergo testing postnotification; and (iii) identified those most likely to acknowledge that they had been notified. METHODS: Clinical/demographic data were retrieved from the (kConFab) database. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify potential predictors of testing uptake and notification acknowledgment using IBM SPSS. RESULTS: A total of 155 of 1,812 individuals underwent testing after standard notification (8.6%). In comparison, 23/291 individuals (7.9%) notified using the "intensive" approach underwent testing (χ(2) = 0.14; P = 0.71). After controlling for notification process, females and participants with a previous cancer were most likely to have undergone testing (P < 0.006). Older individuals (50+ years) were most likely to acknowledge they had been notified (P = 0.038). CONCLUSION: Increasing the intensity of participant follow-up did not increase genetic testing uptake. The challenge to effectively notify participants, and increase the proportion whose risk is managed clinically, remains, particularly for males and individuals unaffected by cancer.Genet Med 2013:15(3):187-194.
Authors: Kate A McBride; Nina Hallowell; Martin H N Tattersall; Judy Kirk; Mandy L Ballinger; David M Thomas; Gillian Mitchell; Mary-Anne Young Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2015-05-26
Authors: Amanda M Willis; Sian K Smith; Bettina Meiser; Mandy L Ballinger; David M Thomas; Martin Tattersall; Mary-Anne Young Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2018-02-17 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Bettina Meiser; Melanie A Price; Phyllis N Butow; Belinda Rahman; Kathy Tucker; Benjamin Cheah; Adrian Bickerstaffe; John Hopper; Kelly-Anne Phillips Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Rachel Delahunty; Linh Nguyen; Stuart Craig; Belinda Creighton; Dinuka Ariyaratne; Dale W Garsed; Elizabeth Christie; Sian Fereday; Lesley Andrews; Alexandra Lewis; Sharne Limb; Ahwan Pandey; Joy Hendley; Nadia Traficante; Natalia Carvajal; Amanda B Spurdle; Bryony Thompson; Michael T Parsons; Victoria Beshay; Mila Volcheck; Timothy Semple; Richard Lupat; Kenneth Doig; Jiaan Yu; Xiao Qing Chen; Anna Marsh; Christopher Love; Sanela Bilic; Maria Beilin; Cassandra B Nichols; Christina Greer; Yeh Chen Lee; Susan Gerty; Lynette Gill; Emma Newton; Julie Howard; Rachel Williams; Christie Norris; Andrew N Stephens; Erin Tutty; Courtney Smyth; Shona O'Connell; Thomas Jobling; Colin J R Stewart; Adeline Tan; Stephen B Fox; Nicholas Pachter; Jason Li; Jason Ellul; Gisela Mir Arnau; Mary-Anne Young; Louisa Gordon; Laura Forrest; Marion Harris; Karen Livingstone; Jane Hill; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Paul A Cohen; Penelope M Webb; Michael Friedlander; Paul James; David Bowtell; Kathryn Alsop Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Amber L Johns; Skye H McKay; Jeremy L Humphris; Mark Pinese; Lorraine A Chantrill; R Scott Mead; Katherine Tucker; Lesley Andrews; Annabel Goodwin; Conrad Leonard; Hilda A High; Katia Nones; Ann-Marie Patch; Neil D Merrett; Nick Pavlakis; Karin S Kassahn; Jaswinder S Samra; David K Miller; David K Chang; Marina Pajic; John V Pearson; Sean M Grimmond; Nicola Waddell; Nikolajs Zeps; Anthony J Gill; Andrew V Biankin Journal: Genome Med Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Angela R Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Kara N Maxwell; Laura DiGiovanni; Jamie Brower; Dominique Fetzer; Jill Bennett Gaieski; Amanda Brandt; Danielle McKenna; Jessica Long; Jacquelyn Powers; Jill E Stopfer; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-04-16