Literature DB >> 24081834

Misperceptions of ovarian cancer risk in women at increased risk for hereditary ovarian cancer.

Bettina Meiser1, Melanie A Price, Phyllis N Butow, Belinda Rahman, Kathy Tucker, Benjamin Cheah, Adrian Bickerstaffe, John Hopper, Kelly-Anne Phillips.   

Abstract

This study assessed the sociodemographic, medical and psychological predictors of accuracy of perceived risk in women at increased genetic risk for ovarian cancer. Women participating in a large cohort study who were at increased risk of ovarian and fallopian tube cancer, had no personal history of cancer and had ≥1 ovary in situ at cohort enrollment, were eligible. Women completed self-administered questionnaires and attended an interview at enrollment. Of 2,868 women unaffected with cancer at cohort enrollment, 561 were eligible. 335 women (59.8 %) overestimated their ovarian cancer risk, while 215 women (38.4 %) accurately estimated their risk, and 10 (1.8 %) underestimated it. Women who did not know their mutation status were more likely to overestimate their risk (OR 1.74, 95 % CI 1.10, 2.77, p = 0.018), as were those with higher cancer-specific anxiety (OR 1.05, 95 % CI 1.02, 1.08, p < 0.001) and/or a mother who had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer (OR 1.98, 95 % CI 1.23, 3.18, p = 0.005). Amongst the group of women who did not know their mutation status, 63.3 % overestimated their risk and the mean perceived lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer was 42.1 %, compared to a mean objective risk of 6.4 %. A large number of women at increased risk for ovarian cancer overestimate their risk. This is of concern especially in women who are at moderately increased risk only; for this sub-group of women, interventions are needed to reduce potentially unnecessary psychological distress and minimise engagement in unnecessary surgery or screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24081834     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-013-9687-y

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


  43 in total

1.  Deciding about prophylactic oophorectomy: what is important to women at increased risk of ovarian cancer?

Authors:  A Fry; R Rush; C Busby-Earle; A Cull
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Psychometric properties of the Impact of Event Scale amongst women at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer.

Authors:  B Thewes; B Meiser; I B Hickie
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.894

3.  Younger women at increased risk for breast cancer: perceived risk, psychological well-being, and surveillance behavior.

Authors:  C Lerman; K Kash; M Stefanek
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1994

4.  Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.

Authors:  M F Scheier; C S Carver
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 4.267

5.  Anxiety/uncertainty reduction as a motivation for interest in prophylactic oophorectomy in women with a family history of ovarian cancer.

Authors:  K E Hurley; S M Miller; J W Costalas; D Gillespie; M B Daly
Journal:  J Womens Health Gend Based Med       Date:  2001-03

6.  Psychological impact of screening for familial ovarian cancer: reactions to initial assessment.

Authors:  G Erlick Robinson; B P Rosen; L N Bradley; W G Rockert; M L Carr; D E Cole; K J Murphy
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  BRCA mutation frequency and patterns of treatment response in BRCA mutation-positive women with ovarian cancer: a report from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group.

Authors:  Kathryn Alsop; Sian Fereday; Cliff Meldrum; Anna deFazio; Catherine Emmanuel; Joshy George; Alexander Dobrovic; Michael J Birrer; Penelope M Webb; Colin Stewart; Michael Friedlander; Stephen Fox; David Bowtell; Gillian Mitchell
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  D Ford; D F Easton; M Stratton; S Narod; D Goldgar; P Devilee; D T Bishop; B Weber; G Lenoir; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; M D Teare; J Struewing; A Arason; S Scherneck; J Peto; T R Rebbeck; P Tonin; S Neuhausen; R Barkardottir; J Eyfjord; H Lynch; B A Ponder; S A Gayther; M Zelada-Hedman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Psychological distress and surveillance behaviors of women with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  K M Kash; J C Holland; M S Halper; D G Miller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1992-01-01       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Attitudes to prophylactic surgery and chemoprevention in Australian women at increased risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  B Meiser; P Butow; M Price; B Bennett; G Berry; K Tucker
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.681

View more
  2 in total

1.  Two novel sequence variants in MSH2 gene in a patient who underwent cancer genetic counseling for a very early-onset epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Matilde Pensabene; Caterina Condello; Chiara Carlomagno; Sabino De Placido; Raffaella Liccardo; Francesca Duraturo
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 2.857

2.  Decision-making for Risk-reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in Southeast Asian BRCA Mutation Carriers With Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Hamizah Sa'at; Yew-Kong Lee; Sook-Yee Yoon; Siu Wan Wong; Yin Ling Woo; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Nur Aishah Mohd Taib
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2021-03-31
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.