Literature DB >> 23323793

Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA testing: evaluation of surgical decisions, risk perception, and cancer distress.

J O Culver1, C D Brinkerhoff, J Clague, K Yang, K E Singh, S R Sand, J N Weitzel.   

Abstract

Studies suggest that patients carrying a BRCA variant of uncertain significance (VUS) may have lingering confusion concerning results interpretation. Counseling for uninformative BRCA-negative (UN) results is thought to be more straightforward, despite the fact that both results lead to similar methods of empiric cancer risk counseling. This study compared surgical choices and perceptions between 71 patients with VUS results and 714 patients with UN results. All patients underwent genetic counseling because of a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer between 1997 and 2010, and completed a 2-year follow-up survey. Risk-reducing mastectomy rates in both groups were 7% (p = 1.00) and risk-reducing oophorectomy rates were 5% and 3%, respectively (p = 0.42). The VUS group reported less cancer distress reduction than the UN group (23.0% vs 35.8%, respectively, p = 0.043). Over 90% of both groups found the counseling process helpful. Overall, the study suggests that VUS results disclosed in genetic counseling did not cause excessive surgery or exaggerated cancer distress, though patients with a VUS found counseling somewhat less informative or reassuring. Future research on communication of VUS results, including pre-and post-test counseling, is essential for full realization of the potential for genomic medicine.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BRCA1 gene; BRCA2 gene; genetic counseling; hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome; mutation missense; variant of uncertain significance

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23323793      PMCID: PMC3751990          DOI: 10.1111/cge.12097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genet        ISSN: 0009-9163            Impact factor:   4.438


  44 in total

1.  ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 89. Elective and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Variants of uncertain clinical significance as a result of BRCA1/2 testing: impact of an ambiguous breast cancer risk message.

Authors:  Sandra van Dijk; Christi J van Asperen; Catharina E Jacobi; Geraldine R Vink; Aad Tibben; Martijn H Breuning; Wilma Otten
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2004

3.  Familial risks in second primary breast cancer based on a family cancer database.

Authors:  K Hemminki; P Vaittinen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 9.162

4.  Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Authors:  Bronson D Riley; Julie O Culver; Cécile Skrzynia; Leigha A Senter; June A Peters; Josephine W Costalas; Faith Callif-Daley; Sherry C Grumet; Katherine S Hunt; Rebecca S Nagy; Wendy C McKinnon; Nancie M Petrucelli; Robin L Bennett; Angela M Trepanier
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 5.  Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: State of the Art and Future Directions in the Era of Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Weitzel; Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J MacDonald; Julie O Culver; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Association between clinical characteristics and risk-reduction interventions in women who underwent BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing: a single-institution study.

Authors:  Anne Uyei; Susan K Peterson; Julie Erlichman; Kristine Broglio; Sandra Yekell; Kathkeen Schmeler; Karen Lu; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Chris Amos; Louise Strong; Banu Arun
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  ColoSeq provides comprehensive lynch and polyposis syndrome mutational analysis using massively parallel sequencing.

Authors:  Colin C Pritchard; Christina Smith; Stephen J Salipante; Ming K Lee; Anne M Thornton; Alex S Nord; Cassandra Gulden; Sonia S Kupfer; Elizabeth M Swisher; Robin L Bennett; Akiva P Novetsky; Gail P Jarvik; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Paul J Goodfellow; Mary-Claire King; Jonathan F Tait; Tom Walsh
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 5.568

8.  Dual signaling by innate and adaptive immune receptors is required for TLR7-induced B-cell-mediated autoimmunity.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Walsh; Prapaporn Pisitkun; Elisaveta Voynova; Jonathan A Deane; Bethany L Scott; Rachel R Caspi; Silvia Bolland
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Genetic testing for women previously diagnosed with breast/ovarian cancer: examining the impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation searching.

Authors:  N Hallowell; C Foster; A Ardern-Jones; R Eeles; V Murday; M Watson
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2002

10.  Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and ovarian cancer screening following BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Elizabeth Kaufman; Beth N Peshkin; Claudine Isaacs; Chanita Hughes; Tiffani DeMarco; Clinton Finch; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-11-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  39 in total

1.  Genetic counselors' practices and confidence regarding variant of uncertain significance results and reclassification from BRCA testing.

Authors:  C L Scherr; N M Lindor; T L Malo; F J Couch; S T Vadaparampil
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 4.438

2.  Clinical Variant Classification: A Comparison of Public Databases and a Commercial Testing Laboratory.

Authors:  William Gradishar; KariAnne Johnson; Krystal Brown; Erin Mundt; Susan Manley
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-04-13

Review 3.  Epidemiology of Patients with Ovarian Cancer with and Without a BRCA1/2 Mutation.

Authors:  Elisabete Weiderpass; Jerzy E Tyczynski
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.074

Review 4.  Family-Specific Variants and the Limits of Human Genetics.

Authors:  Brian H Shirts; Colin C Pritchard; Tom Walsh
Journal:  Trends Mol Med       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 11.951

5.  Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance.

Authors:  Sarah K Macklin; Jessica L Jackson; Paldeep S Atwal; Stephanie L Hines
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing: Perspectives of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients and Gynecologic Oncology Healthcare Providers.

Authors:  Margaret I Liang; Deanna H Wong; Christine S Walsh; Robin Farias-Eisner; Joshua G Cohen
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Risk Perception and Psychological Distress in Genetic Counselling for Hereditary Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  G Cicero; R De Luca; P Dorangricchia; G Lo Coco; C Guarnaccia; D Fanale; V Calò; A Russo
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Cancer genetic testing panels for inherited cancer susceptibility: the clinical experience of a large adult genetics practice.

Authors:  Christina G Selkirk; Kristen J Vogel; Anna C Newlin; Scott M Weissman; Shelly M Weiss; Chi-Hsiung Wang; Peter J Hulick
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Predicting the Pathogenic Potential of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Gene Variants Identified in Clinical Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Clare Brookes; Stella Lai; Elaine Doherty; Donald R Love
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2015-05-28

10.  A Novel von Hippel Lindau Gene Intronic Variant and Its Reclassification from VUS to Pathogenic: the Impact on a Large Family.

Authors:  A Sexton; L Rawlings; G McKavanagh; K Simons; I Winship
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.