Literature DB >> 24068317

More breast cancer patients prefer BRCA-mutation testing without prior face-to-face genetic counseling.

Aisha S Sie1, Wendy A G van Zelst-Stams, Liesbeth Spruijt, Arjen R Mensenkamp, Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg, Han G Brunner, Judith B Prins, Nicoline Hoogerbrugge.   

Abstract

Currently, most breast cancer (BC) patients receive face-to-face genetic counseling (DNA-intake) prior to BRCA-mutation testing, with generic information regarding hereditary BC and BRCA-mutation testing. This prospective study evaluated a novel format: replacing the intake consultation with telephone, written and digital information sent home, and face-to-face contact following BRCA-mutation testing (DNA-direct). From August 2011 to February 2012, 161 of 233 eligible BC patients referred to our Human Genetics department chose between DNA-direct (intervention) or DNA-intake (control). Exclusion criteria were psychological problems (n = 33), difficulty with Dutch text (n = 5), known BRCA-family (n = 3), non-BRCA-referral (n = 1). 30 declined genetic counseling or study participation. Participants received questionnaires including satisfaction and psychological distress. 59 % chose DNA-direct (p = 0.03), of whom 90 % were satisfied and would choose DNA-direct again (including 6/8 BRCA-mutation carriers); although 27 % hesitated to recommend DNA-direct to other patients. General distress (GHQ-12, p = 0.001) and heredity-specific distress (IES, p = 0.02) scored lower in DNA-direct than DNA-intake, both at baseline and follow-up 2 weeks after BRCA-result disclosure; all scores remained below clinical relevance. DNA-direct participants reported higher website use (53 vs. 32 %, p = 0.01), more referrer information about personal consequences (41 vs. 20 %, p = 0.004) and lower decisional conflict (median 20 [0-88] vs. 25 [0-50], p = 0.01). Processing time in DNA-direct was reduced by 1 month. Mutation detection rate was 8 % in both groups. All BRCA-mutation carriers fulfilled current testing criteria. In conclusion, more BC patients preferred DNA-direct over intake consultation prior to BRCA-mutation testing, the majority being strongly to moderately satisfied with the procedure followed, without increased distress.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24068317     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-013-9686-z

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


  30 in total

1.  [Waiting times in breast disease clinics and psychological well-being: speedy care is better care].

Authors:  Inge Henselmans; Robbert Sanderman; Ans Smink; Adelita V Ranchor; Jakob de Vries
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  2010

2.  Cancer information sources used by patients to inform and influence treatment decisions.

Authors:  Matthew C Walsh; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Tracy A Schroepfer; Douglas J Reding; Bruce Campbell; Mary L Foote; Stephanie Kaufman; Morgan Barrett; Patrick L Remington; James F Cleary
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2010-06

3.  The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care.

Authors:  D P Goldberg; R Gater; N Sartorius; T B Ustun; M Piccinelli; O Gureje; C Rutter
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 7.723

4.  Long-term psychological impact of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation and prophylactic surgery: a 5-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Iris van Oostrom; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Litanja N Lodder; Hugo J Duivenvoorden; Arthur R van Gool; Caroline Seynaeve; Conny A van der Meer; Jan G M Klijn; Bert N van Geel; Curt W Burger; Juriy W Wladimiroff; Aad Tibben
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-10-15       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress.

Authors:  M Horowitz; N Wilner; W Alvarez
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 4.312

6.  Disparities in BRCA testing: when insurance coverage is not a barrier.

Authors:  Windy Olaya; Pamela Esquivel; Jan H Wong; John W Morgan; Adam Freeberg; Sharmila Roy-Chowdhury; Sharon S Lum
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance.

Authors:  Sining Chen; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-04-10       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Cancer genetic risk assessment for individuals at risk of familial breast cancer.

Authors:  Jennifer S Hilgart; Bernadette Coles; Rachel Iredale
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-02-15

9.  Shortened time interval between colorectal cancer diagnosis and risk testing for hereditary colorectal cancer is not related to higher psychological distress.

Authors:  K M Landsbergen; J B Prins; H G Brunner; N Hoogerbrugge
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.375

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
  19 in total

1.  Evaluation of telephone genetic counselling to facilitate germline BRCA1/2 testing in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Erin Tutty; Lara Petelin; Joanne McKinley; Mary-Anne Young; Bettina Meiser; Victoria M Rasmussen; Rowan Forbes Shepherd; Paul A James; Laura E Forrest
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Cost-effectiveness evaluation of pre-counseling telephone interviews before face-to-face genetic counseling in cancer genetics.

Authors:  Gaëlle Collet; Nathalie Parodi; Kevin Cassinari; Zoe Neviere; Fanny Cohen; Céline Gasnier; Afane Brahimi; François Lecoquierre; Jean-Christophe Thery; Isabelle Tennevet; Elodie Lacaze; Pascaline Berthet; Thierry Frebourg
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Development of Breast Cancer Choices: a decision support tool for young women with breast cancer deciding whether to have genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations.

Authors:  Chloe Grimmett; Charlotte Brooks; Alejandra Recio-Saucedo; Anne Armstrong; Ramsey I Cutress; D Gareth Evans; Ellen Copson; Lesley Turner; Bettina Meiser; Claire E Wakefield; Diana Eccles; Claire Foster
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  BRCA to the future: towards best testing practice in the era of personalised healthcare.

Authors:  Ettore Capoluongo
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Patient and genetic counselor perceptions of in-person versus telephone genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Aryana S Jacobs; Marc D Schwartz; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Rachel H Nusbaum; Gillian W Hooker; Tiffani A DeMarco; Jessica E Heinzmann; Wendy McKinnon; Shelley R McCormick; Claire Davis; Andrea D Forman; Alexandra Perez Lebensohn; Emily Dalton; Diana Moglia Tully; Kristi D Graves; Morgan Similuk; Scott Kelly; Beth N Peshkin
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Expanding access to BRCA1/2 genetic counseling with telephone delivery: a cluster randomized trial.

Authors:  Anita Y Kinney; Karin M Butler; Marc D Schwartz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kenneth M Boucher; Lisa M Pappas; Amanda Gammon; Wendy Kohlmann; Sandra L Edwards; Antoinette M Stroup; Saundra S Buys; Kristina G Flores; Rebecca A Campo
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Development and Evaluation of a Telephone Communication Protocol for the Delivery of Personalized Melanoma Genomic Risk to the General Population.

Authors:  Georgina L Fenton; Amelia K Smit; Lucinda Freeman; Caro Badcock; Kate Dunlop; Phyllis N Butow; Judy Kirk; Anne E Cust
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-12-03       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 8.  Cancer Genetic Counseling-Current Practice and Future Challenges.

Authors:  Jaclyn Schienda; Jill Stopfer
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 5.159

9.  BRCA1/2 testing in newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer patients without prior genetic counselling: the DNA-BONus study.

Authors:  Hildegunn Høberg-Vetti; Cathrine Bjorvatn; Bent E Fiane; Turid Aas; Kathrine Woie; Helge Espelid; Tone Rusken; Hans Petter Eikesdal; Wenche Listøl; Marianne T Haavind; Per M Knappskog; Bjørn Ivar Haukanes; Vidar M Steen; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.