S F Meisel1, L Side, L Fraser, S Gessler, J Wardle, A Lanceley. 1. Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, UCL Institute for Women's Health and NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Abstract
STUDY PURPOSE: A population-based risk stratification programme for ovarian cancer (OC) may improve OC survival by identifying women at increased risk and implementing an appropriate risk management strategy. The present study explored attitudes towards an OC risk stratification programme incorporating predictive genetic testing and risk-stratified screening as part of a larger study investigating OC screening. METHODS: Focus groups consisting of 56 members of the general public (mean age 45 years; 34% non-white) were conducted using a hypothetical scenario. The group sessions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: There was strong support for the proposed programme. Genetic testing and risk-stratified screening was thought to raise awareness, offer reassurance and offer opportunities for early intervention. Anxiety was only mentioned in relation to receiving a diagnosis of OC and not with screening per se. Perhaps because lay models of cancer already embrace both environmental and genetic factors, a low-risk result was not anticipated to result in a false sense of immunity. Unexpectedly, participants also wanted to receive cancer prevention advice in conjunction with genetic testing; screening alone was not regarded as sufficient. CONCLUSION: The encouraging results from this small study warrant further large-scale research into risk-stratified OC screening.
STUDY PURPOSE: A population-based risk stratification programme for ovarian cancer (OC) may improve OC survival by identifying women at increased risk and implementing an appropriate risk management strategy. The present study explored attitudes towards an OC risk stratification programme incorporating predictive genetic testing and risk-stratified screening as part of a larger study investigating OC screening. METHODS: Focus groups consisting of 56 members of the general public (mean age 45 years; 34% non-white) were conducted using a hypothetical scenario. The group sessions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: There was strong support for the proposed programme. Genetic testing and risk-stratified screening was thought to raise awareness, offer reassurance and offer opportunities for early intervention. Anxiety was only mentioned in relation to receiving a diagnosis of OC and not with screening per se. Perhaps because lay models of cancer already embrace both environmental and genetic factors, a low-risk result was not anticipated to result in a false sense of immunity. Unexpectedly, participants also wanted to receive cancer prevention advice in conjunction with genetic testing; screening alone was not regarded as sufficient. CONCLUSION: The encouraging results from this small study warrant further large-scale research into risk-stratified OC screening.
Authors: Catherine L Saunders; Britt Kilian; Deborah J Thompson; Luke J McGeoch; Simon J Griffin; Antonis C Antoniou; Jon D Emery; Fiona M Walter; Joe Dennis; Xin Yang; Juliet A Usher-Smith Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-02-18
Authors: Sarah M Lima; Meaghan Nazareth; Karen M Schmitt; Andria Reyes; Elaine Fleck; Gary K Schwartz; Mary Beth Terry; Grace C Hillyer Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2022-10-13
Authors: Susanne F Meisel; Nora Pashayan; Belinda Rahman; Lucy Side; Lindsay Fraser; Sue Gessler; Anne Lanceley; Jane Wardle Journal: Breast Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Susanne F Meisel; Maddie Freeman; Jo Waller; Lindsay Fraser; Sue Gessler; Ian Jacobs; Jatinderpal Kalsi; Ranjit Manchanda; Belinda Rahman; Lucy Side; Jane Wardle; Anne Lanceley; Saskia C Sanderson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Katie E J Hann; Madeleine Freeman; Lindsay Fraser; Jo Waller; Saskia C Sanderson; Belinda Rahman; Lucy Side; Sue Gessler; Anne Lanceley Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Belinda Rahman; Susanne F Meisel; Lindsay Fraser; Lucy Side; Sue Gessler; Jane Wardle; Anne Lanceley Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Susanne F Meisel; Belinda Rahman; Lucy Side; Lindsay Fraser; Sue Gessler; Anne Lanceley; Jane Wardle Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Susanne F Meisel; Lindsay Sarah Macduff Fraser; Lucy Side; Sue Gessler; Katie E J Hann; Jane Wardle; Anne Lanceley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Katie E J Hann; Lindsay Fraser; Lucy Side; Sue Gessler; Jo Waller; Saskia C Sanderson; Madeleine Freeman; Ian Jacobs; Anne Lanceley Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 2.809