Angela R Bradbury1, Linda Patrick-Miller2, Lisa Schwartz3, Brian Egleston4, Colleen Burke Sands5, Wendy K Chung6, Gord Glendon7, Jasmine A McDonald8, Cynthia Moore9, Paula Rauch9, Lisa Tuchman10, Irene L Andrulis11, Saundra S Buys12, Caren J Frost13, Theresa H M Keegan14, Julia A Knight15, Mary Beth Terry16, Esther M John14, Mary B Daly17. 1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, and Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, The Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; angela.bradbury@uphs.upenn.edu. 2. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, and the Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics and Global Health, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; 3. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Oncology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 4. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Facility, and. 5. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, and. 6. Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine. 7. Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada; 8. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; 9. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; 10. Department of Adolescent Medicine, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia; 11. Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Departments of Molecular Genetics and Laboratory Medicine, and. 12. Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, The University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; 13. College of Social Work, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; 14. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, California; and Department of Health Research and Policy (Epidemiology), Stanford University School of Medicine, and Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California. 15. Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; 16. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, and. 17. Department of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Understanding how young girls respond to growing up with breast cancer family histories is critical given expansion of genetic testing and breast cancer messaging. We examined the impact of breast cancer family history on psychosocial adjustment and health behaviors among >800 girls in the multicenter LEGACY Girls Study. METHODS: Girls aged 6 to 13 years with a family history of breast cancer or familial BRCA1/2 mutation (BCFH+), peers without a family history (BCFH-), and their biological mothers completed assessments of psychosocial adjustment (maternal report for 6- to 13-year-olds, self-report for 10- to 13-year-olds), breast cancer-specific distress, perceived risk of breast cancer, and health behaviors (10- to 13-year-olds). RESULTS: BCFH+ girls had better general psychosocial adjustment than BCFH- peers by maternal report. Psychosocial adjustment and health behaviors did not differ significantly by self-report among 10- to 13-year-old girls. BCFH+ girls reported higher breast cancer-specific distress (P = .001) and were more likely to report themselves at increased breast cancer risk than BCFH- peers (38.4% vs 13.7%, P < .001), although many girls were unsure of their risk. In multivariable analyses, higher daughter anxiety was associated with higher maternal anxiety and poorer family communication. Higher daughter breast cancer-specific distress was associated with higher maternal breast cancer-specific distress. CONCLUSIONS: Although growing up in a family at risk for breast cancer does not negatively affect general psychosocial adjustment among preadolescent girls, those from breast cancer risk families experience greater breast cancer-specific distress. Interventions to address daughter and mother breast cancer concerns and responses to genetic or familial risk might improve psychosocial outcomes of teen daughters.
OBJECTIVE: Understanding how young girls respond to growing up with breast cancer family histories is critical given expansion of genetic testing and breast cancer messaging. We examined the impact of breast cancer family history on psychosocial adjustment and health behaviors among >800 girls in the multicenter LEGACY Girls Study. METHODS:Girls aged 6 to 13 years with a family history of breast cancer or familial BRCA1/2 mutation (BCFH+), peers without a family history (BCFH-), and their biological mothers completed assessments of psychosocial adjustment (maternal report for 6- to 13-year-olds, self-report for 10- to 13-year-olds), breast cancer-specific distress, perceived risk of breast cancer, and health behaviors (10- to 13-year-olds). RESULTS: BCFH+ girls had better general psychosocial adjustment than BCFH- peers by maternal report. Psychosocial adjustment and health behaviors did not differ significantly by self-report among 10- to 13-year-old girls. BCFH+ girls reported higher breast cancer-specific distress (P = .001) and were more likely to report themselves at increased breast cancer risk than BCFH- peers (38.4% vs 13.7%, P < .001), although many girls were unsure of their risk. In multivariable analyses, higher daughter anxiety was associated with higher maternal anxiety and poorer family communication. Higher daughter breast cancer-specific distress was associated with higher maternal breast cancer-specific distress. CONCLUSIONS: Although growing up in a family at risk for breast cancer does not negatively affect general psychosocial adjustment among preadolescent girls, those from breast cancer risk families experience greater breast cancer-specific distress. Interventions to address daughter and mother breast cancer concerns and responses to genetic or familial risk might improve psychosocial outcomes of teen daughters.
Authors: Diana Harris; Linda Patrick-Miller; Lisa Schwartz; John Lantos; Chris Daugherty; Mary Daly; Irene L Andrulis; Saundra S Buys; Wendy K Chung; Caren J Frost; Esther M John; Theresa H M Keegan; Julia A Knight; Mary Beth Terry; Angela R Bradbury Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Mikael Thastum; Maggie Watson; Christian Kienbacher; Jorma Piha; Barbara Steck; Robert Zachariae; Christiane Baldus; Georg Romer Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Beth N Peshkin; George Luta; Anisha Abraham; Leslie R Walker; Kenneth P Tercyak Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Sonia S Maruti; Walter C Willett; Diane Feskanich; Bernard Rosner; Graham A Colditz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-05-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: K Monshouwer; Z Harakeh; P Lugtig; A Huizink; H E Creemers; S A Reijneveld; A F De Winter; F Van Oort; J Ormel; W A M Vollebergh Journal: J Abnorm Child Psychol Date: 2012-08
Authors: Angela R Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Lisa A Schwartz; Brian L Egleston; Dare Henry-Moss; Susan M Domchek; Mary B Daly; Lisa Tuchman; Cynthia Moore; Paula K Rauch; Rebecca Shorter; Kelsey Karpink; Colleen Burke Sands Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kenneth P Tercyak; Suzanne M Bronheim; Nicole Kahn; Hillary A Robertson; Bruno J Anthony; Darren Mays; Suzanne C O'Neill; Susan K Peterson; Susan Miesfeldt; Beth N Peshkin; Tiffani A DeMarco Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Lauren C Houghton; Julia A Knight; Ying Wei; Russell D Romeo; Mandy Goldberg; Irene L Andrulis; Angela R Bradbury; Saundra S Buys; Mary B Daly; Esther M John; Wendy K Chung; Regina M Santella; Frank Z Stanczyk; Mary Beth Terry Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-02-01