Literature DB >> 24322567

Perceived risk following melanoma genetic testing: a 2-year prospective study distinguishing subjective estimates from recall.

Lisa G Aspinwall1, Jennifer M Taber, Wendy Kohlmann, Samantha L Leaf, Sancy A Leachman.   

Abstract

A major goal of predictive genetic testing is to alert people to their risk before illness onset; however, little is known about how risk perceptions change following genetic testing and whether information is recalled accurately over time. In the United States, a CDKN2A/p16 mutation confers 76 % lifetime risk of melanoma. Following genetic counseling and test reporting, subjective risk estimates and recall of counselor-provided risk estimates were assessed 5 times over the next 2 years among 60 adult members of 2 extended CDKN2A/p16 kindreds. No sustained changes from baseline in risk perceptions were reported. Unaffected carriers (n = 15) consistently reported significantly lower subjective risk estimates (46 %) than they were actually given (76 %, p < 0.001) or recalled having been given (60 %, p < 0.001). Noncarriers' (n = 27) risk estimates decreased following results disclosure, but rebounded, with both subjective and recalled estimates subsequently exceeding what they were told by the counselor (both ps < 0.001). Affected carriers' (n = 18) risk estimates for developing a new melanoma corresponded well to counselor-provided information (p = 0.362). For all 3 patient groups, results were consistent across multiple risk measures and remained similar when demographic, phenotypic, and baseline behavioral contributors to melanoma risk were statistically controlled. These findings are consistent with other studies of risk perception, but additional studies of more diverse populations are needed to understand the reasons behind both the persistence of initial risk estimates and their divergence from information provided by the counselor during genetic counseling. Additionally, determining whether holding subjective risk perceptions that differ from counselor-provided information ultimately affects adherence to management recommendations will help guide the presentation of risk information in genetic counseling practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24322567      PMCID: PMC4028391          DOI: 10.1007/s10897-013-9676-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  37 in total

Review 1.  Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  R T Croyle; C Lerman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1999

2.  Genetic testing for melanoma.

Authors:  Richard Kefford; Julia Newton Bishop; Margaret Tucker; Brigitte Bressac-de Paillerets; Giovanna Bianchi-Scarrá; Wilma Bergman; Alisa Goldstein; Susana Puig; Rona Mackie; David Elder; Johan Hansson; Nicholas Hayward; David Hogg; Håkan Olsson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 41.316

3.  Missing data: our view of the state of the art.

Authors:  Joseph L Schafer; John W Graham
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2002-06

4.  Interpretation of genetic risk feedback among African American smokers with low socioeconomic status.

Authors:  Isaac M Lipkus; Colleen M McBride; Kathryn I Pollak; Pauline Lyna; Gerold Bepler
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.267

5.  Melanoma genetic counseling and test reporting improve screening adherence among unaffected carriers 2 years later.

Authors:  Lisa G Aspinwall; Jennifer M Taber; Samantha L Leaf; Wendy Kohlmann; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 6.  Is there a role for genetic testing in patients with melanoma?

Authors:  Richard F Kefford; Graham J Mann
Journal:  Curr Opin Oncol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.645

Review 7.  Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Jon Emery; Fiona Walter; A Toby Prevost; Stephen Sutton
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-01-21       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Geographical variation in the penetrance of CDKN2A mutations for melanoma.

Authors:  D Timothy Bishop; Florence Demenais; Alisa M Goldstein; Wilma Bergman; Julia Newton Bishop; Brigitte Bressac-de Paillerets; Agnès Chompret; Paola Ghiorzo; Nelleke Gruis; Johan Hansson; Mark Harland; Nicholas Hayward; Elizabeth A Holland; Graham J Mann; Michela Mantelli; Derek Nancarrow; Anton Platz; Margaret A Tucker
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-06-19       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Assignment of a locus for familial melanoma, MLM, to chromosome 9p13-p22.

Authors:  L A Cannon-Albright; D E Goldgar; L J Meyer; C M Lewis; D E Anderson; J W Fountain; M E Hegi; R W Wiseman; E M Petty; A E Bale
Journal:  Science       Date:  1992-11-13       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 10.  Clinical germline genetic testing for melanoma.

Authors:  Christopher B Hansen; Lisa M Wadge; Katrina Lowstuter; Kenneth Boucher; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  20 in total

1.  Genetic test reporting enhances understanding of risk information and acceptance of prevention recommendations compared to family history-based counseling alone.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; Lisa G Aspinwall; Tammy K Stump; Wendy Kohlmann; Marjan Champine; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-07-16

2.  A primer in genomics for social and behavioral investigators.

Authors:  Erin Turbitt; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 3.  Barriers to risk-understanding and risk-reduction behaviors among individuals with a family history of melanoma.

Authors:  Laura Fitzpatrick; Jennifer L Hay
Journal:  Melanoma Manag       Date:  2014-12-04

4.  Impact of melanoma genetic test reporting on perceived control over melanoma prevention.

Authors:  Lisa G Aspinwall; Tammy K Stump; Jennifer M Taber; Wendy Kohlmann; Samantha L Leaf; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-03-31

5.  An experiment assessing effects of personalized feedback about genetic susceptibility to obesity on attitudes towards diet and exercise.

Authors:  Woo-Kyoung Ahn; Matthew S Lebowitz
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 3.868

6.  Genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk perceptions for breast and colorectal cancer: Results from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Erin Turbitt; Megan C Roberts; Jennifer M Taber; Erika A Waters; Timothy S McNeel; Barbara B Biesecker; William M P Klein
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  A Qualitative Study to Explore the Views and Attitudes towards Prenatal Testing in Adults Who Have Muenke Syndrome and their Partners.

Authors:  Julie Phipps; Heather Skirton
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Genomic Information may Inhibit Weight-Related Behavior Change Inclinations Among Individuals in a Fear State.

Authors:  Susan Persky; Rebecca A Ferrer; William M P Klein
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2016-06

9.  The role of conviction in personal disease risk perceptions: What can we learn from research on attitude strength?

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein
Journal:  Soc Personal Psychol Compass       Date:  2016-04-03

10.  Genetic test reporting of CDKN2A provides informational and motivational benefits for managing melanoma risk.

Authors:  Lisa G Aspinwall; Tammy K Stump; Jennifer M Taber; Danielle M Drummond; Wendy Kohlmann; Marjan Champine; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.