Literature DB >> 30418620

Predictors of risk-reducing surgery intentions following genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Mary Kathleen Ladd1,2, Beth N Peshkin1,2, Leigha Senter3, Shari Baldinger4, Claudine Isaacs1,2, Hannah Segal1,2, Samantha Philip1,2, Chloe Phillips1,2, Kate Shane3, Aimee Martin1,2, Veronique Weinstein1,2, Robert Pilarski3, Joanne Jeter3, Kevin Sweet3, Bonnie Hatten4, Elisabeth J Wurtmann4, Shanda Phippen4, Della Bro4, Marc D Schwartz1,2.   

Abstract

Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) are increasingly used to reduce breast and ovarian cancer risk following BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. However, little is known about how genetic counseling influences decisions about these surgeries. Although previous studies have examined intentions prior to counseling, few have examined RRM and RRSO intentions in the critical window between genetic counseling and test result disclosure. Previous research has indicated that intentions at this time point predict subsequent uptake of surgery, suggesting that much decision-making has taken place prior to result disclosure. This period may be a critical time to better understand the drivers of prophylactic surgery intentions. The aim of this study was to examine predictors of RRM and RRSO intentions. We hypothesized that variables from the Health Belief Model would predict intentions, and we also examined the role of affective factors. Participants were 187 women, age 21-75, who received genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We utilized multiple logistic regression to identify independent predictors of intentions. 49.2% and 61.3% of participants reported intentions for RRM and RRSO, respectively. Variables associated with RRM intentions include: newly diagnosed with breast cancer (OR = 3.63, 95% CI = 1.20-11.04), perceived breast cancer risk (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17-1.81), perceived pros (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.38-2.32) and cons of RRM (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.65-0.996), and decision conflict (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66-0.98). Variables associated with RRSO intentions include: proband status (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09-0.89), perceived pros (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.11-1.63) and cons of RRSO (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.59-0.89), and ambiguity aversion (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.65-0.95). These data provide support for the role of genetic counseling in fostering informed decisions about risk management, and suggest that the role of uncertainty should be explored further. © Society of Behavioral Medicine 2018. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision-making; Genetic counseling; Hereditary breast/ovarian cancer; Intentions; Risk-reducing mastectomy; Risk-reducing oophorectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 30418620      PMCID: PMC7394490          DOI: 10.1093/tbm/iby101

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Behav Med        ISSN: 1613-9860            Impact factor:   3.046


  42 in total

1.  Uncertainty in BRCA1 cancer susceptibility testing.

Authors:  Bonnie J Baty; William N Dudley; Adrian Musters; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 3.908

2.  Risk management options elected by women after testing positive for a BRCA mutation.

Authors:  Christine Garcia; Jacqueline Wendt; Liisa Lyon; Jennifer Jones; Ramey D Littell; Mary Anne Armstrong; Tina Raine-Bennett; C Bethan Powell
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-12-16       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Validation of a decisional conflict scale.

Authors:  A M O'Connor
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Long-term outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing: risk reduction and surveillance.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Claudine Isaacs; Kristi D Graves; Elizabeth Poggi; Beth N Peshkin; Christy Gell; Clinton Finch; Scott Kelly; Kathryn L Taylor; Lauren Perley
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 5.  Effect of bilateral oophorectomy on women's long-term health.

Authors:  William H Parker; Vanessa Jacoby; Donna Shoupe; Walter Rocca
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2009-09

6.  Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress.

Authors:  M Horowitz; N Wilner; W Alvarez
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 4.312

Review 7.  Women's decision making about risk-reducing strategies in the context of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  A Fuchsia Howard; Lynda G Balneaves; Joan L Bottorff
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-10-03       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Time to prophylactic surgery in BRCA1/2 carriers depends on psychological and other characteristics.

Authors:  Claire Julian-Reynier; Anne-Déborah Bouhnik; Emanuelle Mouret-Fourme; Marion Gauthier-Villars; Pascaline Berthet; Christine Lasset; Jean-Pierre Fricker; Olivier Caron; Paul Gesta; Elisabeth Luporsi; Laurence Faivre; Michel Longy; Laurence Gladieff; Marc Frenay; Héléne Dreyfus; Hagay Sobol; Philippe Vennin; Catherine Nogués
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers.

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

10.  Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 counseling and testing on newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Caryn Lerman; Barbara Brogan; Beth N Peshkin; Chanita Hughes Halbert; Tiffani DeMarco; William Lawrence; David Main; Clinton Finch; Colette Magnant; Marie Pennanen; Theodore Tsangaris; Shawna Willey; Claudine Isaacs
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-04-05       Impact factor: 50.717

View more
  6 in total

1.  Predictors of genetic testing uptake in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Mary K Ladd; Beth N Peshkin; Claudine Isaacs; Gillian Hooker; Shawna Willey; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Tiffani DeMarco; Suzanne O'Neill; Savannah Binion; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 2.  Systemic Barriers to Risk-Reducing Interventions for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Implications for Health Care Inequities.

Authors:  Kathleen F Mittendorf; Sarah Knerr; Tia L Kauffman; Nangel M Lindberg; Katherine P Anderson; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Marian J Gilmore; Jessica Ezzell Hunter; Galen Joseph; Stephanie A Kraft; Jamilyn M Zepp; Sapna Syngal; Benjamin S Wilfond; Katrina A B Goddard
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2021-11-03

3.  The Genetic Education for Men (GEM) Trial: Development of Web-Based Education for Untested Men in BRCA1/2-Positive Families.

Authors:  Beth N Peshkin; Mary Kate Ladd; Claudine Isaacs; Hannah Segal; Aryana Jacobs; Kathryn L Taylor; Kristi D Graves; Suzanne C O'Neill; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Attitudes and interest in incorporating BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility testing into reproductive carrier screening for Ashkenazi Jewish men and women.

Authors:  Melanie W Hardy; Beth N Peshkin; Esther Rose; Mary Kathleen Ladd; Savannah Binion; Mara Tynan; Colleen M McBride; Karen A Grinzaid; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-04-29

5.  Uptake of bilateral-risk-reducing-mastectomy: Prospective analysis of 7195 women at high-risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  D Gareth Evans; Ashu Gandhi; Julie Wisely; Tara Clancy; Emma R Woodward; James Harvey; Lyndsey Highton; John Murphy; Lester Barr; Sacha J Howell; Fiona Lalloo; Elaine F Harkness; Anthony Howell
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 4.380

6.  Attitudes toward Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy among Young, Unmarried, Healthy Women in Korea.

Authors:  Boyoung Park; Dongwon Kim; Jiyoung Kim; Bom Yi Lee; Junghyun Yoon; Sung-Won Kim
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-08-09       Impact factor: 4.679

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.