Literature DB >> 23604858

Can we test for hereditary cancer at 18 years when we start surveillance at 25? Patient reported outcomes.

Aisha S Sie1, Judith B Prins, Liesbeth Spruijt, C Marleen Kets, Nicoline Hoogerbrugge.   

Abstract

DNA-testing for BRCA1/2 or Lynch syndrome is possible from the age of 18 years, although surveillance usually starts at 25. Some patients regret their decision of testing before age 25. This retrospective study evaluates whether the testing age should be above 25 years to prevent adverse effects such as regret or decisional conflict, by determining the percentage and characteristics of patients reporting these problems. 111 of 219 patients (51%) tested for BRCA1/2 mutations or Lynch syndrome between 18 and 25 years from July 1996 to February 2011, returned self-report surveys. Primary measures were regret, decisional conflict and family influence. Secondary measures included quality of life (QoL), coping style, impact of genetic testing, and risk perception. Median age was 27 [21-40] years, with 86% female. 73% was tested for BRCA1/2, 27% for Lynch syndrome. Only 3% reported regret, however 39% had moderate (32%) to severe (7%) decisional conflict. Regression analysis revealed that decisional conflict was associated with more monitoring/neutral coping style (p < 0.03) or paternal/no family mutation (p < 0.02); there were no differences in QoL, impact or risk perception. 42% were mutation carriers, showing equal decisional conflict to non-carriers. 68% would recommend testing <25 years; 77% desired surveillance <25 years if a mutation carrier. Almost no patient tested for hereditary cancer between 18 and 25 years regretted this decision. A third reported retrospective decisional conflict, especially those actively seeking information when faced with a threat and/or those with a paternal or unknown inheritance. These patients may benefit from decisional support and personalized information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23604858     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-013-9644-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  30 in total

1.  Predictive testing of eighteen year olds: counseling challenges.

Authors:  Clara L Gaff; Elly Lynch; Lesley Spencer
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Comparison of individuals opting for BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing with regard to coping, illness perceptions, illness experiences, family system characteristics and hereditary cancer distress.

Authors:  Iris van Oostrom; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Hugo J Duivenvoorden; Annette H J T Bröcker-Vriends; Christi J van Asperen; Rolf H Sijmons; Caroline Seynaeve; Arthur R Van Gool; Jan G M Klijn; Aad Tibben
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2006-07-26

4.  A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire.

Authors:  David Cella; Chanita Hughes; Amy Peterman; Chih-Hung Chang; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz; Lari Wenzel; Amy Lemke; Alfred C Marcus; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.267

Review 5.  Determining whether a patient is feeling better: pitfalls from the science of human perception.

Authors:  Donald A Redelmeier; Victoria M Dickinson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-02-19       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Monitoring coping style moderates emotional reactions to genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  S Shiloh; L Koehly; J Jenkins; J Martin; D Hadley
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.894

7.  Impact of familial adenomatous polyposis on young adults: quality of life outcomes.

Authors:  L Andrews; S Mireskandari; J Jessen; B Thewes; M Solomon; F Macrae; B Meiser
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.585

Review 8.  The impact of parental cancer on children and the family: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Annemieke Visser; Gea A Huizinga; Winette T A van der Graaf; Harald J Hoekstra; Josette E H M Hoekstra-Weebers
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 12.111

9.  Monitoring and blunting in palliative and curative radiotherapy consultations.

Authors:  Liesbeth M Timmermans; Florence J van Zuuren; Richard W M van der Maazen; Jan Willem H Leer; Floris W Kraaimaat
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.894

10.  Focusing on patient needs and preferences may improve genetic counseling for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Simone Salemink; Nicky Dekker; Carolien M Kets; Erica van der Looij; Wendy A G van Zelst-Stams; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-08-23       Impact factor: 2.537

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Family Communication, Risk Perception and Cancer Knowledge of Young Adults from BRCA1/2 Families: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alison L Young; Phyllis N Butow; Janine Vetsch; Veronica F Quinn; Andrea F Patenaude; Katherine M Tucker; Claire E Wakefield
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study.

Authors:  Joel E Pacyna; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Sarah M Jenkins; Erica J Sutton; Caroline Horrow; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2018-12-22       Impact factor: 6.318

Review 3.  Monitoring style of coping with cancer related threats: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Pagona Roussi; Suzanne M Miller
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2014-02-02

4.  Impact of BRCA1/2 mutation on young women's 5-year parenthood rates: a prospective comparative study (GENEPSO-PS cohort).

Authors:  Julien Mancini; Emmanuelle Mouret-Fourme; Catherine Noguès; Claire Julian-Reynier
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  Experiences of Women Who Underwent Predictive BRCA 1/2 Mutation Testing Before the Age of 30.

Authors:  Kate Brunstrom; Alexandra Murray; Marion McAllister
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 6.  Is there evidence that we should screen the general population for Lynch syndrome with genetic testing? A systematic review.

Authors:  Anya E R Prince; R Jean Cadigan; Gail E Henderson; James P Evans; Michael Adams; Emmanuel Coker-Schwimmer; Dolly C Penn; Marcia Van Riper; Giselle Corbie-Smith; Daniel E Jonas
Journal:  Pharmgenomics Pers Med       Date:  2017-02-20

7.  "It was an important part of my treatment": a qualitative study of Norwegian breast Cancer patients' experiences with mainstreamed genetic testing.

Authors:  Nina Strømsvik; Pernilla Olsson; Berit Gravdehaug; Hilde Lurås; Ellen Schlichting; Kjersti Jørgensen; Teresia Wangensteen; Tone Vamre; Cecilie Heramb; Lovise Mæhle; Eli Marie Grindedal
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 2.857

8.  High Satisfaction and Low Distress in Breast Cancer Patients One Year after BRCA-Mutation Testing without Prior Face-to-Face Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Aisha S Sie; Liesbeth Spruijt; Wendy A G van Zelst-Stams; Arjen R Mensenkamp; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Han G Brunner; Judith B Prins; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 2.537

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.