Literature DB >> 28127677

Lynch Syndrome Limbo: Patient Understanding of Variants of Uncertain Significance.

Ilana Solomon1, Elizabeth Harrington2, Gillian Hooker3, Lori Erby4, Jennifer Axilbund5, Heather Hampel6, Kara Semotiuk7, Amie Blanco8, William M P Klein9, Francis Giardiello10, Lori Leonard11.   

Abstract

Providers and patients encounter challenges related to the management of Variants of Unknown Significance (VUS). A VUS introduces new counseling dilemmas for the understanding and psychosocial impact of uncertain genetic test results. This descriptive study uses Mishel's theory of uncertainty in illness to explore the experience of individuals who have received a VUS as part of the genetic testing process. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 adult individuals who received a VUS for Lynch syndrome mismatch repair genes between 2002 and 2013. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed. Most individuals recalled their result and perceived various types of uncertainty associated with their VUS. Half of the participants appraised their variant as a danger and implemented coping strategies to reduce the threat of developing cancer. Mobilizing strategies to reduce their risk included vigilant cancer surveillance, information seeking and notifying relatives. The majority of participants were unaware of the possibility of a VUS before receiving their result and expected reclassification over time. These results provide insight into the ways healthcare providers can support patients who receive VUS for Lynch syndrome. Findings also provide direction for future work that can further explicate the impact of receiving a VUS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer genetics; HNPCC; Lynch syndrome; Uncertainty; VUS

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28127677     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0066-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  41 in total

1.  More genes, more problems? Benefits and risks of multiplex genetic testing.

Authors:  Barbara M Norquist; Elizabeth M Swisher
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Rescreening for genetic mutations using multi-gene panel testing in patients who previously underwent non-informative genetic screening.

Authors:  Melissa K Frey; Sarah H Kim; Rebecca Yee Bassett; Jessica Martineau; Emily Dalton; Jing-Yi Chern; Stephanie V Blank
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Commentary: ambiguity and uncertainty: neglected elements of medical education curricula?

Authors:  Vera P Luther; Sonia J Crandall
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 6.893

4.  Variants of uncertain clinical significance as a result of BRCA1/2 testing: impact of an ambiguous breast cancer risk message.

Authors:  Sandra van Dijk; Christi J van Asperen; Catharina E Jacobi; Geraldine R Vink; Aad Tibben; Martijn H Breuning; Wilma Otten
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2004

5.  Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics.

Authors:  C H Braddock; K A Edwards; N M Hasenberg; T L Laidley; W Levinson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999 Dec 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Tolerance for uncertainty and perceived risk among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 test results.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Tiffani DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Sarah Rogers; Jessica Rispoli; Karen Brown; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 3.908

7.  The common sense model of self-regulation and psychological adjustment to predictive genetic testing: a prospective study.

Authors:  Iris van Oostrom; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Hugo J Duivenvoorden; Annette H J T Bröcker-Vriends; Christi J van Asperen; Rolf H Sijmons; Caroline Seynaeve; Arthur R Van Gool; Jan G M Klijn; Aad Tibben
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.894

8.  Family communication matters: the impact of telling relatives about unclassified variants and uninformative DNA-test results.

Authors:  Joël Vos; Anna M Jansen; Fred Menko; Christi J van Asperen; Anne M Stiggelbout; Aad Tibben
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Genetic testing for women previously diagnosed with breast/ovarian cancer: examining the impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation searching.

Authors:  N Hallowell; C Foster; A Ardern-Jones; R Eeles; V Murday; M Watson
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2002

10.  Development of a tiered and binned genetic counseling model for informed consent in the era of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility.

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

View more
  22 in total

1.  Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Emilia Niemiec; Heidi Carmen Howard; Pascal Borry
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance.

Authors:  Sarah K Macklin; Jessica L Jackson; Paldeep S Atwal; Stephanie L Hines
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Effective communication in the era of precision medicine: A pilot intervention with low health literacy patients to improve genetic counseling communication.

Authors:  Galen Joseph; Robin Lee; Rena J Pasick; Claudia Guerra; Dean Schillinger; Sara Rubin
Journal:  Eur J Med Genet       Date:  2018-12-13       Impact factor: 2.708

Review 4.  The changing landscape of Lynch syndrome due to PMS2 mutations.

Authors:  J Blount; A Prakash
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 4.438

5.  Perceptions of genetic variant reclassification in patients with inherited cardiac disease.

Authors:  Eugene K Wong; Kirsten Bartels; Julie Hathaway; Charlotte Burns; Laura Yeates; Christopher Semsarian; Andrew D Krahn; Alice Virani; Jodie Ingles
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 6.  Patients' views on variants of uncertain significance across indications.

Authors:  Kristin Clift; Sarah Macklin; Colin Halverson; Jennifer B McCormick; Abd Moain Abu Dabrh; Stephanie Hines
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-08-20

7.  "I wish that there was more info": characterizing the uncertainty experienced by carriers of pathogenic ATM and/or CHEK2 variants.

Authors:  Kathryn G Reyes; Cheyla Clark; Meredith Gerhart; Ainsley J Newson; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Cancer Patient Experience of Uncertainty While Waiting for Genome Sequencing Results.

Authors:  Nicci Bartley; Christine E Napier; Zoe Butt; Timothy E Schlub; Megan C Best; Barbara B Biesecker; Mandy L Ballinger; Phyllis Butow
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-04-22

9.  Observed frequency and challenges of variant reclassification in a hereditary cancer clinic.

Authors:  Sarah Macklin; Nisha Durand; Paldeep Atwal; Stephanie Hines
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chloe Mighton; Salma Shickh; Elizabeth Uleryk; Petros Pechlivanoglou; Yvonne Bombard
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.