Literature DB >> 28930807

Breadth of Genetic Testing Selected by Patients at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

J Brian Szender, Jasmine Kaur, Katherine Clayback, Mollie L Hutton, June Mikkelson, Kunle Odunsi, Cara Dresbold.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of patients at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome to select the extent of genetic testing personally preferred and the impact of demographic factors on the breadth of testing pursued.
METHODS: A single-institution cohort was enumerated consisting of patients referred for clinical genetic counseling secondary to risk of HBOC syndrome. This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients seen for genetic counseling; all patients completed an epidemiologic questionnaire and provided personal and family medical histories. Patients meeting guidelines for testing were offered testing at 3 levels: single gene/condition (Single), small panels with highly penetrant genes (Plus), and large panels with high and moderately penetrant genes (Next). Associations between personal or family-related factors and breadth of testing selected were investigated. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using Student t and χ tests, as appropriate. Joint classification tables were used to test for effect modification, and a log-binomial model was used to compute rate ratios (RR) with a threshold of P < 0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: We identified 253 patients who underwent genetic counseling for HBOC syndrome. Most patients were personally affected by cancer (63.6%), reported at least some college (79.2%), met the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for BRCA testing (94.5%), and opted to undergo genetic testing (94.1%). Most (84.9%) patients opted for panel testing. An increased likelihood of choosing Next-level testing was found to be associated with patients having any college experience (RR, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.30), as well as being unaffected by cancer (RR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.64).
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical genetic counseling is a highly specialized service, which should be provided to patients at risk of hereditary cancer syndromes. Although some epidemiologic factors can predict a patient's preference for testing breadth, patients were sufficiently able to self-identify the level of testing they were comfortable with after receiving genetic counseling. Most practitioners do not have the time or expertise to provide the degree of counseling needed to enable and empower patients to choose the level of testing they are comfortable with. When available, referral to genetic counselors remains an important component of comprehensive care for women with a personal or family history of cancer suggestive of hereditary risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28930807      PMCID: PMC5734957          DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  18 in total

1.  Factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA1/2 testing.

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

2.  Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes.

Authors:  Louise-Anne McNutt; Chuntao Wu; Xiaonan Xue; Jean Paul Hafner
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2003-05-15       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  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

4.  Usefulness of Multigene Testing: Catching the Train That's Left the Station.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Swisher
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 31.777

5.  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

6.  Adherence patterns to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for referral to cancer genetic professionals.

Authors:  Terri Febbraro; Katina Robison; Jennifer Scalia Wilbur; Jessica Laprise; Amy Bregar; Vrishali Lopes; Robert Legare; Ashley Stuckey
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Utilization and Outcomes of BRCA Genetic Testing and Counseling in a National Commercially Insured Population: The ABOUT Study.

Authors:  Joanne Armstrong; Michele Toscano; Nancy Kotchko; Sue Friedman; Marc D Schwartz; Katherine S Virgo; Kristian Lynch; James E Andrews; Claudia X Aguado Loi; Joseph E Bauer; Carolina Casares; Elizabeth Bourquardez Clark; Matthew R Kondoff; Ashley D Molina; Mehrnaz Abdollahian; Gregg Walker; Rebecca Sutphen
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 31.777

8.  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

9.  Perceptions of high-risk care and barriers to care among women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer following genetic counseling in the community setting.

Authors:  Debra Morgan; Heather Sylvester; F Lee Lucas; Susan Miesfeldt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  NSGC practice guideline: risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Janice L Berliner; Angela Musial Fay; Shelly A Cummings; Brittany Burnett; Todd Tillmanns
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 2.537

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Personalised medicine and population health: breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Steven A Narod
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 4.132

2.  The impact of the number of tests presented and a provider recommendation on decisions about genetic testing for cancer risk.

Authors:  Marci L B Schwartz; William M P Klein; Lori A H Erby; Christy H Smith; Debra L Roter
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-09-18
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.