Sari Lieberman1,2, Amnon Lahad1,3, Ariela Tomer1,2, Carmit Cohen1,2, Ephrat Levy-Lahad1,2, Aviad Raz4. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. 2. Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Clalit Health Services, Jerusalem, Israel. 4. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Population screening for BRCA1/BRCA2. mutations is being considered for Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) because 2.5% carry recurrent deleterious mutations and effective cancer prevention exists. This study aimed to provide a qualitative focus on perspectives of individuals, particularly carriers, who were tested through a screening trial. In this trial, the pretest process included only written information. METHODS: Interviews were performed with 26 carriers and 10 noncarriers who participated in a BRCA population screening trial for AJ. RESULTS: Attitudes toward screening were generally positive. The main motivator for testing was knowledge of BRCA status to enable cancer risk reduction. Knowledge of carrier status, although challenging, was thus viewed as health-empowering. The screening paradigm was sensed as increasing awareness and as overcoming access, referral, and familial barriers. Streamlining the pretest process was positively perceived as offering gradual, stepwise knowledge commensurate with test results. Participants were concerned that health systems provide the necessary conceptual and infrastructural framework and that individual autonomy be maintained. CONCLUSIONS: BRCA screening in AJ is viewed favorably, even by carriers. Stepwise acquisition of knowledge based on test results was viewed as most relevant to the screening context. Screening program development should account for safeguarding autonomy and providing requisite post-test services.Genet Med advance online publication 01 December 2016.
PURPOSE: Population screening for BRCA1/BRCA2. mutations is being considered for Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) because 2.5% carry recurrent deleterious mutations and effective cancer prevention exists. This study aimed to provide a qualitative focus on perspectives of individuals, particularly carriers, who were tested through a screening trial. In this trial, the pretest process included only written information. METHODS: Interviews were performed with 26 carriers and 10 noncarriers who participated in a BRCA population screening trial for AJ. RESULTS: Attitudes toward screening were generally positive. The main motivator for testing was knowledge of BRCA status to enable cancer risk reduction. Knowledge of carrier status, although challenging, was thus viewed as health-empowering. The screening paradigm was sensed as increasing awareness and as overcoming access, referral, and familial barriers. Streamlining the pretest process was positively perceived as offering gradual, stepwise knowledge commensurate with test results. Participants were concerned that health systems provide the necessary conceptual and infrastructural framework and that individual autonomy be maintained. CONCLUSIONS: BRCA screening in AJ is viewed favorably, even by carriers. Stepwise acquisition of knowledge based on test results was viewed as most relevant to the screening context. Screening program development should account for safeguarding autonomy and providing requisite post-test services.Genet Med advance online publication 01 December 2016.
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Christian F Singer; D Gareth Evans; Henry T Lynch; Claudine Isaacs; Judy E Garber; Susan L Neuhausen; Ellen Matloff; Rosalind Eeles; Gabriella Pichert; Laura Van t'veer; Nadine Tung; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Fergus J Couch; Wendy S Rubinstein; Patricia A Ganz; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Gail Tomlinson; Joellen Schildkraut; Joanne L Blum; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kelly A Metcalfe; Aletta Poll; Robert Royer; Marcia Llacuachaqui; Anna Tulman; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sharon S Laing; Andy Bogart; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Beverly B Green Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Johanna Ringwald; Christina Wochnowski; Kristin Bosse; Katrin Elisabeth Giel; Norbert Schäffeler; Stephan Zipfel; Martin Teufel Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Ana F Best; Margaret A Tucker; Megan N Frone; Mark H Greene; June A Peters; Hormuzd A Katki Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kelly M Morgan; Jada G Hamilton; Heather Symecko; Daniella Kamara; Colby Jenkins; Jenny Lester; Kelsey Spielman; Lydia E Pace; Camila Gabriel; Jeffrey D Levin; Prince Rainier Tejada; Anthony Braswell; Vanessa Marcell; Temima Wildman; Bryan Devolder; Robin Camhi Baum; Jeremy N Block; Yuri Fesko; Kylin Boehler; Victoria Howell; Jacob Heitler; Mark E Robson; Katherine L Nathanson; Nadine Tung; Beth Y Karlan; Susan M Domchek; Judy E Garber; Kenneth Offit Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Jeanna M McCuaig; Susan Randall Armel; Melanie Care; Alexandra Volenik; Raymond H Kim; Kelly A Metcalfe Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 6.639