Cecelia A Bellcross1, Lucy A Peipins2, Frances A McCarty3, Juan L Rodriguez2, Nikki A Hawkins2, Sharon Hensley Alford4, Steven Leadbetter2. 1. Department of Human Genetics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 2. Epidemiology and Applied Research Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 3. National Center for Health Statistics, Office of Public Health Science Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA. 4. Josephine Ford Cancer Center, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence shows underutilization of cancer genetics services. To explore the reasons behind this underutilization, this study evaluated characteristics of women who were referred for genetic counseling and/or had undergone BRCA1/2 testing. METHODS: An ovarian cancer risk perception study stratified 16,720 eligible women from the Henry Ford Health System into average-, elevated-, and high-risk groups based on family history. We randomly selected 3,307 subjects and interviewed 2,524 of them (76.3% response rate). RESULTS: Among the average-, elevated-, and high-risk groups, 2.3, 10.1, and 20.2%, respectively, reported genetic counseling referrals, and 0.8, 3.3, and 9.5%, respectively, reported having undergone BRCA testing. Personal breast cancer history, high risk, and perceived ovarian cancer risk were associated with both referral and testing. Discussion of family history with a doctor predicted counseling referral, whereas belief that family history influenced risk was the strongest BRCA testing predictor. Women perceiving their cancer risk as much higher than other women their age were twice as likely (95% confidence interval: 2.0-9.6) to report genetic counseling referral. CONCLUSION: In a health system with ready access to cancer genetic counseling and BRCA testing, women who were at high risk underutilized these services. There were strong associations between perceived ovarian cancer risk and genetic counseling referral, and between a belief that family history influenced risk and BRCA testing.
BACKGROUND: Evidence shows underutilization of cancer genetics services. To explore the reasons behind this underutilization, this study evaluated characteristics of women who were referred for genetic counseling and/or had undergone BRCA1/2 testing. METHODS: An ovarian cancer risk perception study stratified 16,720 eligible women from the Henry Ford Health System into average-, elevated-, and high-risk groups based on family history. We randomly selected 3,307 subjects and interviewed 2,524 of them (76.3% response rate). RESULTS: Among the average-, elevated-, and high-risk groups, 2.3, 10.1, and 20.2%, respectively, reported genetic counseling referrals, and 0.8, 3.3, and 9.5%, respectively, reported having undergone BRCA testing. Personal breast cancer history, high risk, and perceived ovarian cancer risk were associated with both referral and testing. Discussion of family history with a doctor predicted counseling referral, whereas belief that family history influenced risk was the strongest BRCA testing predictor. Women perceiving their cancer risk as much higher than other women their age were twice as likely (95% confidence interval: 2.0-9.6) to report genetic counseling referral. CONCLUSION: In a health system with ready access to cancer genetic counseling and BRCA testing, women who were at high risk underutilized these services. There were strong associations between perceived ovarian cancer risk and genetic counseling referral, and between a belief that family history influenced risk and BRCA testing.
Authors: Ellen Warner; Kimberley Hill; Petrina Causer; Donald Plewes; Roberta Jong; Martin Yaffe; William D Foulkes; Parviz Ghadirian; Henry Lynch; Fergus Couch; John Wong; Frances Wright; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeffrey N Weitzel; Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J MacDonald; Julie O Culver; Kenneth Offit Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Christina D Williams; Alyssa Jasmine Bullard; Meghan O'Leary; Reana Thomas; Thomas S Redding; Karen Goldstein Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2019-04-08
Authors: Danielle S Chun; Brygida Berse; Vickie L Venne; Scott L DuVall; Kelly K Filipski; Michael J Kelley; Laurence J Meyer; Michael S Icardi; Julie A Lynch Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Sarah Knerr; Erin J A Bowles; Kathleen A Leppig; Diana S M Buist; Hongyuan Gao; Karen J Wernli Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kent F Hoskins; Silvia Tejeda; Ganga Vijayasiri; Ifeanyi Beverly Chukwudozie; Mylene H Remo; Hiral A Shah; Ivy E Abraham; Lara E Balay; Tara K Maga; Ericka R Searles; Veena J Korah; Alana Biggers; Melinda R Stolley; Richard B Warnecke Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Susan L Stewart; Celia P Kaplan; Robin Lee; Galen Joseph; Leah Karliner; Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Rena J Pasick Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Debra T Linfield; Michael B Rothberg; Elizabeth R Pfoh; Ryan Noss; Lydia Cassard; Joseph C Powers; Laura Lipold; Kathryn A Martinez Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-07-16 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Karin Kast; Julia Häfner; Evelin Schröck; Arne Jahn; Carmen Werner; Cornelia Meisel; Pauline Wimberger Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 2.268