Reshma Jagsi1, Kent A Griffith2, Allison W Kurian2, Monica Morrow2, Ann S Hamilton2, John J Graff2, Steven J Katz2, Sarah T Hawley2. 1. Reshma Jagsi, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan; Kent A. Griffith, Center for Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan; Steven J. Katz, University of Michigan; Sarah T. Hawley, Ann Arbor VA Health Care System, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Allison W. Kurian, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Ann S. Hamilton, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; Monica Morrow, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and John J. Graff, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. rjagsi@med.umich.edu. 2. Reshma Jagsi, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan; Kent A. Griffith, Center for Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan; Steven J. Katz, University of Michigan; Sarah T. Hawley, Ann Arbor VA Health Care System, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Allison W. Kurian, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford; Ann S. Hamilton, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; Monica Morrow, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and John J. Graff, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate preferences for and experiences with genetic testing in a diverse cohort of patients with breast cancer identified through population-based registries, with attention to differences by race/ethnicity. METHODS: We surveyed women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer from 2005 to 2007, as reported to the SEER registries of metropolitan Los Angeles and Detroit, about experiences with hereditary risk evaluation. Multivariable models evaluated correlates of a strong desire for genetic testing, unmet need for discussion with a health care professional, and receipt of testing. RESULTS: Among 1,536 patients who completed the survey, 35% expressed strong desire for genetic testing, 28% reported discussing testing with a health care professional, and 19% reported test receipt. Strong desire for testing was more common in younger women, Latinas, and those with family history. Minority patients were significantly more likely to have unmet need for discussion (failure to discuss genetic testing with a health professional when they had a strong desire for testing): odds ratios of 1.68, 2.44, and 7.39 for blacks, English-speaking Latinas, and Spanish-speaking Latinas compared with whites, respectively. Worry in the long-term survivorship period was higher among those with unmet need for discussion (48.7% v 24.9%; P <.001). Patients who received genetic testing were younger, less likely to be black, and more likely to have a family cancer history. CONCLUSION: Many patients, especially minorities, express a strong desire for genetic testing and may benefit from discussion to clarify risks. Clinicians should discuss genetic risk even with patients they perceive to be at low risk, as this may reduce worry.
PURPOSE: To evaluate preferences for and experiences with genetic testing in a diverse cohort of patients with breast cancer identified through population-based registries, with attention to differences by race/ethnicity. METHODS: We surveyed women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer from 2005 to 2007, as reported to the SEER registries of metropolitan Los Angeles and Detroit, about experiences with hereditary risk evaluation. Multivariable models evaluated correlates of a strong desire for genetic testing, unmet need for discussion with a health care professional, and receipt of testing. RESULTS: Among 1,536 patients who completed the survey, 35% expressed strong desire for genetic testing, 28% reported discussing testing with a health care professional, and 19% reported test receipt. Strong desire for testing was more common in younger women, Latinas, and those with family history. Minority patients were significantly more likely to have unmet need for discussion (failure to discuss genetic testing with a health professional when they had a strong desire for testing): odds ratios of 1.68, 2.44, and 7.39 for blacks, English-speaking Latinas, and Spanish-speaking Latinas compared with whites, respectively. Worry in the long-term survivorship period was higher among those with unmet need for discussion (48.7% v 24.9%; P <.001). Patients who received genetic testing were younger, less likely to be black, and more likely to have a family cancer history. CONCLUSION: Many patients, especially minorities, express a strong desire for genetic testing and may benefit from discussion to clarify risks. Clinicians should discuss genetic risk even with patients they perceive to be at low risk, as this may reduce worry.
Authors: K Armstrong; K Calzone; J Stopfer; G Fitzgerald; J Coyne; B Weber Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Litanja Lodder; Petra G Frets; R Willem Trijsburg; Jan G M Klijn; Caroline Seynaeve; Madeleine M A Tilanus; Carina C M Bartels; E Johanna Meijers-Heijboer; Leon C Verhoog; Martinus F Niermeijer Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2003-06-15 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Andrea Eisen; Kathleen Calzone; Jill Stopfer; Anne Blackwood; Barbara L Weber Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kenneth Offit; Angela Bradbury; Courtney Storm; Jon F Merz; Kevin E Noonan; Rebecca Spence Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mary B Daly; Robert Pilarski; Jennifer E Axilbund; Saundra S Buys; Beth Crawford; Susan Friedman; Judy E Garber; Carolyn Horton; Virginia Kaklamani; Catherine Klein; Wendy Kohlmann; Allison Kurian; Jennifer Litton; Lisa Madlensky; P Kelly Marcom; Sofia D Merajver; Kenneth Offit; Tuya Pal; Boris Pasche; Gwen Reiser; Kristen Mahoney Shannon; Elizabeth Swisher; Nicoleta C Voian; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Alison Whelan; Georgia L Wiesner; Mary A Dwyer; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Mirar Bristol; Susan M Domchek; Peter W Groeneveld; Younji Kim; U Nkiru Motanya; Judy A Shea; Katrina Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Rachel Howell; Rachel Ruckman; Jean A McDougall; Tawny W Boyce; Belinda Vicuña; Ji-Hyun Lee; Dolores D Guest; Randi Rycroft; Patricia A Valverde; Kristina M Gallegos; Angela Meisner; Charles L Wiggins; Antoinette Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Scott T Walters Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Deborah Cragun; Anne Weidner; Courtney Lewis; Devon Bonner; Jongphil Kim; Susan T Vadaparampil; Tuya Pal Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Charles Muller; Sang Mee Lee; William Barge; Shazia M Siddique; Shivali Berera; Gina Wideroff; Rashmi Tondon; Jeremy Chang; Meaghan Peterson; Jessica Stoll; Bryson W Katona; Daniel A Sussman; Joshua Melson; Sonia S Kupfer Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-08-18 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Maija Reblin; Monica L Kasting; Kelli Nam; Courtney L Scherr; Jongphil Kim; Ram Thapa; Cathy D Meade; M Catherine Lee; Tuya Pal; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Breast J Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 2.431