Martin P Nilsson1,2, Erik D Nilsson3, Barbro Silfverberg4, Åke Borg5, Niklas Loman5,6. 1. Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. martin.nilsson@med.lu.se. 2. Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. martin.nilsson@med.lu.se. 3. Clinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 4. Department of Clinical Genetics, Laboratory Medicine Region Skåne, Lund, Sweden. 5. Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 6. Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate predictors of testing uptake among unselected breast cancer patients who were offered germline BRCA1/2 testing in a prospective study. METHODS: Pretest information was provided by a standardized invitation letter instead of in-person counseling. Data was abstracted from medical records. Using multivariate logistic regressions, predictors of testing uptake were analyzed. RESULTS: The overall uptake of testing was 67% (539 of 805 patients). Low uptake rates were found for patients aged ≥80 years (33%), and patients born outside of Europe (37%). In adjusted analysis, age ≥80 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.10; P = 0.002), psychiatric disorders (OR 0.46; P = 0.006), occupation requiring at least 3 years of university or college education (OR 2.03; P = 0.003), and breast cancer or ovarian cancer in first-degree or second-degree relatives (OR 1.66; P = 0.02) were independently associated with uptake of BRCA1/2 testing. Somatic comorbidity in patients aged <70 years was associated with lower testing uptake. CONCLUSION: Testing uptake varies across different subgroups according to patient-related factors that are readily available in the medical records. Knowledge about these factors enables health care professionals to identify patients who are less likely to pursue genetic testing.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate predictors of testing uptake among unselected breast cancer patients who were offered germline BRCA1/2 testing in a prospective study. METHODS: Pretest information was provided by a standardized invitation letter instead of in-person counseling. Data was abstracted from medical records. Using multivariate logistic regressions, predictors of testing uptake were analyzed. RESULTS: The overall uptake of testing was 67% (539 of 805 patients). Low uptake rates were found for patients aged ≥80 years (33%), and patients born outside of Europe (37%). In adjusted analysis, age ≥80 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.10; P = 0.002), psychiatric disorders (OR 0.46; P = 0.006), occupation requiring at least 3 years of university or college education (OR 2.03; P = 0.003), and breast cancer or ovarian cancer in first-degree or second-degree relatives (OR 1.66; P = 0.02) were independently associated with uptake of BRCA1/2 testing. Somatic comorbidity in patients aged <70 years was associated with lower testing uptake. CONCLUSION: Testing uptake varies across different subgroups according to patient-related factors that are readily available in the medical records. Knowledge about these factors enables health care professionals to identify patients who are less likely to pursue genetic testing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Genetic testing; Predictors; Uptake; Written information
Authors: D Cragun; D Bonner; J Kim; M R Akbari; S A Narod; A Gomez-Fuego; J D Garcia; S T Vadaparampil; Tuya Pal Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kathryn J Schlich-Bakker; Herman F J ten Kroode; Carla C Wárlám-Rodenhuis; Jan van den Bout; Margreet G E M Ausems Journal: Genet Med Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Hildegunn Høberg-Vetti; Cathrine Bjorvatn; Bent E Fiane; Turid Aas; Kathrine Woie; Helge Espelid; Tone Rusken; Hans Petter Eikesdal; Wenche Listøl; Marianne T Haavind; Per M Knappskog; Bjørn Ivar Haukanes; Vidar M Steen; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Karoline B Kuchenbaecker; John L Hopper; Daniel R Barnes; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Thea M Mooij; Marie-José Roos-Blom; Sarah Jervis; Flora E van Leeuwen; Roger L Milne; Nadine Andrieu; David E Goldgar; Mary Beth Terry; Matti A Rookus; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou; Lesley McGuffog; D Gareth Evans; Daniel Barrowdale; Debra Frost; Julian Adlard; Kai-Ren Ong; Louise Izatt; Marc Tischkowitz; Ros Eeles; Rosemarie Davidson; Shirley Hodgson; Steve Ellis; Catherine Nogues; Christine Lasset; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Jean-Pierre Fricker; Laurence Faivre; Pascaline Berthet; Maartje J Hooning; Lizet E van der Kolk; Carolien M Kets; Muriel A Adank; Esther M John; Wendy K Chung; Irene L Andrulis; Melissa Southey; Mary B Daly; Saundra S Buys; Ana Osorio; Christoph Engel; Karin Kast; Rita K Schmutzler; Trinidad Caldes; Anna Jakubowska; Jacques Simard; Michael L Friedlander; Sue-Anne McLachlan; Eva Machackova; Lenka Foretova; Yen Y Tan; Christian F Singer; Edith Olah; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Brita Arver; Håkan Olsson Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Annelie Augustinsson; Martin P Nilsson; Carolina Ellberg; Ulf Kristoffersson; Håkan Olsson; Hans Ehrencrona Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 4.872