Literature DB >> 27551110

Psychosocial Adjustment and Perceived Risk Among Adolescent Girls From Families With BRCA1/2 or Breast Cancer History.

Angela R Bradbury1, Linda Patrick-Miller2, Lisa A Schwartz2, Brian L Egleston2, Dare Henry-Moss2, Susan M Domchek2, Mary B Daly2, Lisa Tuchman2, Cynthia Moore2, Paula K Rauch2, Rebecca Shorter2, Kelsey Karpink2, Colleen Burke Sands2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of breast cancer family history and maternal BRCA1/2 mutation on the psychosocial adjustment and perceived risk in girls age 11 to 19 years old.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Girls age 11 to 19 years old with one or more relatives with breast cancer or a familial BRCA1/2 mutation (breast cancer family history [BCFH] positive, n = 208; n = 69 with BRCA1/2-positive mother), peers (BCFH negative, n = 112), and their mothers completed assessments of psychosocial adjustment, breast cancer-specific distress, and perceived risk of breast cancer.
RESULTS: General psychosocial adjustment did not differ significantly between BCFH-positive and BCFH-negative girls, either by self-report or mother report, except for higher self-esteem among BCFH-positive girls (P = .01). BCFH-positive girls had higher breast cancer-specific distress than BCFH-negative girls (P < .001), but girls from BRCA1/2-positive families did not differ from other BCFH-positive peers. BCFH-positive girls were more likely to report themselves at increased self-risk for breast cancer in adulthood than BCFH-negative peers (74% v 33%, respectively; P ≤ .001). Girls from BRCA1/2-positive families were more likely than other BCFH-positive and BCFH-negative peers to report themselves at increased risk (P < .001). In all groups, perceived risk of breast cancer was associated with older age. Higher breast cancer-specific distress among adolescent girls was associated with higher self-perceived risk of breast cancer and higher maternal breast cancer-specific distress.
CONCLUSION: Adolescent girls from BRCA1/2-positive and breast cancer families have higher self-esteem and do not have poorer psychosocial adjustment than peers. However, they do experience greater breast cancer-specific distress and perceived risk of breast cancer, particularly among older girls. Understanding the impact is important to optimize responses to growing up in families at familial and genetic risk for breast cancer, particularly given the debate over the genetic testing of children for cancer susceptibility in adulthood.
© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27551110      PMCID: PMC5035121          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.66.3450

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  50 in total

1.  Using the common sense model to understand perceived cancer risk in individuals testing for BRCA1/2 mutations.

Authors:  Kimberly Kelly; Howard Leventhal; Michael Andrykowski; Deborah Toppmeyer; Judy Much; James Dermody; Monica Marvin; Jill Baran; Marvin Schwalb
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.894

2.  Psychosocial Adjustment in School-age Girls With a Family History of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Angela R Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Lisa Schwartz; Brian Egleston; Colleen Burke Sands; Wendy K Chung; Gord Glendon; Jasmine A McDonald; Cynthia Moore; Paula Rauch; Lisa Tuchman; Irene L Andrulis; Saundra S Buys; Caren J Frost; Theresa H M Keegan; Julia A Knight; Mary Beth Terry; Esther M John; Mary B Daly
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 7.124

3.  Types of stressors that increase susceptibility to the common cold in healthy adults.

Authors:  S Cohen; E Frank; W J Doyle; D P Skoner; B S Rabin; J M Gwaltney
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  Psychological screening of children for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Authors:  P Stallard; R Velleman; S Baldwin
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 8.982

5.  Genetic testing of children for diseases that have onset in adulthood: the limits of family interests.

Authors:  George E Hardart; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  Prevalence and predictors of emotional and behavioural functioning of children where a parent has cancer: a multinational study.

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

7.  Primary care providers' willingness to recommend BRCA1/2 testing to adolescents.

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

8.  A prospective study of age-specific physical activity and premenopausal breast cancer.

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

9.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-04-11       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Development of a communication protocol for telephone disclosure of genetic test results for cancer predisposition.

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
View more
  5 in total

1.  Please Test My Child for a Cancer Gene, but Don't Tell Her.

Authors:  Johan Bester; Maya Sabatello; Clara D M van Karnebeek; John D Lantos
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences.

Authors:  Michelle L McGowan; Cynthia A Prows; Melissa DeJonckheere; William B Brinkman; Lisa Vaughn; Melanie F Myers
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Balancing External Validity and Concern for Psychosocial Harms in Translational Genetic Research.

Authors:  Jessica Mozersky; Michelle N Meyer; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Sean M O'Dell; Adam Buchanan
Journal:  Ethics Hum Res       Date:  2021-03

4.  Discriminating patients with early-stage breast cancer from benign lesions by detection of oxidative DNA damage biomarker in urine.

Authors:  Cheng Guo; Xiaofen Li; Minfeng Ye; Fei Xu; Jiekai Yu; Cong Xie; Xiaoji Cao; Mengzhe Guo; Ying Yuan; Shu Zheng
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-05-12

5.  Pediatric reporting of genomic results study (PROGRESS): a mixed-methods, longitudinal, observational cohort study protocol to explore disclosure of actionable adult- and pediatric-onset genomic variants to minors and their parents.

Authors:  Juliann M Savatt; Jennifer K Wagner; Steven Joffe; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Marc S Williams; Angela R Bradbury; F Daniel Davis; Julie Hergenrather; Yirui Hu; Melissa A Kelly; H Lester Kirchner; Michelle N Meyer; Jessica Mozersky; Sean M O'Dell; Josie Pervola; Andrea Seeley; Amy C Sturm; Adam H Buchanan
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 2.125

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.