Laura L Holman1, Karen H Lu2, Robert C Bast3, Mary A Hernandez3, Diane C Bodurka1, Steven Skates4, Charlotte C Sun1. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 2. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: khlu@mdanderson.org. 3. Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated baseline knowledge of ovarian cancer risk and perceptions toward ovarian cancer screening (OCS) by initiating the normal risk ovarian screening study. STUDY DESIGN: Average-risk, postmenopausal women were enrolled between 2001 and 2011 as they entered the normal risk ovarian screening study. Participants completed baseline surveys of risk perception, cancer worry (Cancer Worry Scale), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), health and well-being survey (SF-36 HEALTH SURVEY), and acceptability of OCS. RESULTS: Of the 1242 women who were enrolled, 925 women (74.5%) completed surveys. The respondents estimated a mean lifetime risk of ovarian cancer of 29.9%, which is much higher than the actual risk of 1.4% for women in the United States. Only 2.8% of participants correctly estimated their risk; 35.4% of the participants reported their lifetime risk to be ≥50%. Cancer worry was low, with a median Cancer Worry Scale score of 7 of 24. Anxiety was comparable with published norms for women in this age group, with median STAI-State and STAI-Trait scores of 30 and 29 of 80, respectively. Overall, women reported good physical and mental well-being. In terms of OCS acceptability, 97.2% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that "the benefits of screening outweigh the difficulties." Very few women were reluctant to undergo OCS because of time constraints (1.1%), pain (2.0%), or embarrassment (1.9%). CONCLUSION: Average-risk women who underwent OCS highly overestimated their risk of ovarian cancer. Despite this, participants reported low cancer worry and anxiety. The discrepancy between knowledge of and attitudes toward ovarian cancer risk highlights the need for educational efforts in this area.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated baseline knowledge of ovarian cancer risk and perceptions toward ovarian cancer screening (OCS) by initiating the normal risk ovarian screening study. STUDY DESIGN: Average-risk, postmenopausal women were enrolled between 2001 and 2011 as they entered the normal risk ovarian screening study. Participants completed baseline surveys of risk perception, cancer worry (Cancer Worry Scale), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), health and well-being survey (SF-36 HEALTH SURVEY), and acceptability of OCS. RESULTS: Of the 1242 women who were enrolled, 925 women (74.5%) completed surveys. The respondents estimated a mean lifetime risk of ovarian cancer of 29.9%, which is much higher than the actual risk of 1.4% for women in the United States. Only 2.8% of participants correctly estimated their risk; 35.4% of the participants reported their lifetime risk to be ≥50%. Cancer worry was low, with a median Cancer Worry Scale score of 7 of 24. Anxiety was comparable with published norms for women in this age group, with median STAI-State and STAI-Trait scores of 30 and 29 of 80, respectively. Overall, women reported good physical and mental well-being. In terms of OCS acceptability, 97.2% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that "the benefits of screening outweigh the difficulties." Very few women were reluctant to undergo OCS because of time constraints (1.1%), pain (2.0%), or embarrassment (1.9%). CONCLUSION: Average-risk women who underwent OCS highly overestimated their risk of ovarian cancer. Despite this, participants reported low cancer worry and anxiety. The discrepancy between knowledge of and attitudes toward ovarian cancer risk highlights the need for educational efforts in this area.
Authors: Barbara A Goff; Kimberly A Lowe; Jeannette C Kane; Marissa D Robertson; Marcia A Gaul; M Robyn Andersen Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-11-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: A P M Heintz; F Odicino; P Maisonneuve; M A Quinn; J L Benedet; W T Creasman; H Y S Ngan; S Pecorelli; U Beller Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Usha Menon; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Rachel Hallett; Andy Ryan; Matthew Burnell; Aarti Sharma; Sara Lewis; Susan Davies; Susan Philpott; Alberto Lopes; Keith Godfrey; David Oram; Jonathan Herod; Karin Williamson; Mourad W Seif; Ian Scott; Tim Mould; Robert Woolas; John Murdoch; Stephen Dobbs; Nazar N Amso; Simon Leeson; Derek Cruickshank; Alistair McGuire; Stuart Campbell; Lesley Fallowfield; Naveena Singh; Anne Dawnay; Steven J Skates; Mahesh Parmar; Ian Jacobs Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Karen H Lu; Steven Skates; Mary A Hernandez; Deepak Bedi; Therese Bevers; Leroy Leeds; Richard Moore; Cornelius Granai; Steven Harris; William Newland; Olasunkanmi Adeyinka; Jeremy Geffen; Michael T Deavers; Charlotte C Sun; Nora Horick; Herbert Fritsche; Robert C Bast Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Shuhei Nomura; Masaharu Tsubokura; Akihiko Ozaki; Michio Murakami; Susan Hodgson; Marta Blangiardo; Yoshitaka Nishikawa; Tomohiro Morita; Tomoyoshi Oikawa Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-04-09 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Courtney Macdonald; Danielle Mazza; Martha Hickey; Morgan Hunter; Louise A Keogh; kConFab Investigators; Sandra C Jones; Christobel Saunders; Stephanie Nesci; Roger L Milne; Sue-Anne McLachlan; John L Hopper; Michael L Friedlander; Jon Emery; Kelly-Anne Phillips Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2020-12-08