Angela R Bradbury1,2,3, Linda J Patrick-Miller4,5, Brian L Egleston6, Laura DiGiovanni3, Jamie Brower3, Diana Harris1, Evelyn M Stevens1, Kara N Maxwell1, Abha Kulkarni3, Tyler Chavez1, Amanda Brandt1, Jessica M Long1, Jacquelyn Powers1, Jill E Stopfer3, Katherine L Nathanson3,7,8, Susan M Domchek1,3,8. 1. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 5. Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics and Global Health, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 6. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Facility, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 7. Division of Translational Medicine and Human Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 8. Basser Research Center, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The risks, benefits, and utilities of multiplex panels for breast cancer susceptibility are unknown, and new counseling and informed consent models are needed. We sought to obtain patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex testing. METHODS: BRCA1/2-negative and untested patients completed pre- and posttest counseling and surveys evaluating testing experiences and cognitive and affective responses to multiplex testing. RESULTS: Of 73 patients, 49 (67%) completed pretest counseling. BRCA1/2-negative patients were more likely to proceed with multiplex testing (86%) than those untested for BRCA1/2 (43%; P < 0.01). Many patients declining testing reported concern for uncertainty and distress. Most patients would not change anything about their pre- (76%) or posttest (89%) counseling sessions. Thirty-three patients (72%) were classified as making an informed choice, including 81% of those who proceeded with multiplex testing. Knowledge increased significantly. Anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and cancer worry did not significantly increase with multiplex testing. CONCLUSION: Some patients, particularly those without prior BRCA1/2 testing, decline multiplex testing. Most patients who proceeded with testing did not experience negative psychological responses, but larger studies are needed. The tiered-binned approach is an innovative genetic counseling and informed consent model for further study in the era of multiplex testing.Genet Med 18 1, 25-33.
PURPOSE: The risks, benefits, and utilities of multiplex panels for breast cancer susceptibility are unknown, and new counseling and informed consent models are needed. We sought to obtain patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex testing. METHODS: BRCA1/2-negative and untested patients completed pre- and posttest counseling and surveys evaluating testing experiences and cognitive and affective responses to multiplex testing. RESULTS: Of 73 patients, 49 (67%) completed pretest counseling. BRCA1/2-negative patients were more likely to proceed with multiplex testing (86%) than those untested for BRCA1/2 (43%; P < 0.01). Many patients declining testing reported concern for uncertainty and distress. Most patients would not change anything about their pre- (76%) or posttest (89%) counseling sessions. Thirty-three patients (72%) were classified as making an informed choice, including 81% of those who proceeded with multiplex testing. Knowledge increased significantly. Anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and cancer worry did not significantly increase with multiplex testing. CONCLUSION: Some patients, particularly those without prior BRCA1/2 testing, decline multiplex testing. Most patients who proceeded with testing did not experience negative psychological responses, but larger studies are needed. The tiered-binned approach is an innovative genetic counseling and informed consent model for further study in the era of multiplex testing.Genet Med 18 1, 25-33.
Authors: G Geller; J R Botkin; M J Green; N Press; B B Biesecker; B Wilfond; G Grana; M B Daly; K Schneider; M J Kahn Journal: JAMA Date: 1997-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David Cella; Chanita Hughes; Amy Peterman; Chih-Hung Chang; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz; Lari Wenzel; Amy Lemke; Alfred C Marcus; Caryn Lerman Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride; Christopher Wade; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert Reid; Eric Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Angela R Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Jessica Long; Jacquelyn Powers; Jill Stopfer; Andrea Forman; Christina Rybak; Kristin Mattie; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Wendy K Chung; Jane Churpek; Mary B Daly; Laura Digiovanni; Dana Farengo-Clark; Dominique Fetzer; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Cassandra Gulden; Michael Hall; Lynne Kohler; Kara Maxwell; Shana Merrill; Susan Montgomery; Rebecca Mueller; Sarah Nielsen; Olufunmilayo Olopade; Kimberly Rainey; Christina Seelaus; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Dominique Fetzer; Andrea Forman; Lisa Bealin; Christina Rybak; Candace Peterson; Melanie Corbman; Julio Albarracin; Evelyn Stevens; Mary B Daly; Angela R Bradbury Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2014-10-29
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Della Brown White; Saskia C Sanderson; Isaac M Lipkus; Gerold Bepler; Lori A Bastian; Colleen M McBride Journal: Genet Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Nadia Howlader; Dennis Deapen; Ann S Hamilton; Angela Mariotto; Daniel Miller; Lynne S Penberthy; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jill Oliver Robinson; Thomas M Carroll; Lindsay Z Feuerman; Denise L Perry; Lily Hoffman-Andrews; Rebecca C Walsh; Kurt D Christensen; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2016-02-28 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Angela R Bradbury; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Michael J Hall; Susan M Domchek; Mary B Daly; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominique Fetzer; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Dana F Clark; Andrea Forman; Rikki Gaber; Cassandra Gulden; Janice Horte; Jessica M Long; Terra Lucas; Shreshtha Madaan; Kristin Mattie; Danielle McKenna; Susan Montgomery; Sarah Nielsen; Jacquelyn Powers; Kim Rainey; Christina Rybak; Michelle Savage; Christina Seelaus; Jessica Stoll; Jill E Stopfer; Xinxin Shirley Yao Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michele C Gornick; Aaron M Scherer; Erica J Sutton; Kerry A Ryan; Nicole L Exe; Ming Li; Wendy R Uhlmann; Scott Y H Kim; J Scott Roberts; Raymond G De Vries Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Kerry A Ryan; Raymond G De Vries; Wendy R Uhlmann; J Scott Roberts; Michele C Gornick Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Brandie Heald; Heather Hampel; James Church; Beth Dudley; Michael J Hall; Maureen E Mork; Aparajita Singh; Elena Stoffel; Jessica Stoll; Y Nancy You; Matthew B Yurgelun; Sonia S Kupfer Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 2.375