Lucia Lombardi1, Sonia M Bramanti1, Alessandra Babore2, Liborio Stuppia1, Carmen Trumello1, Ivana Antonucci1, Alessandra Cavallo1. 1. Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University "G. d'Annunzio", via dei Vestini, 31, 66100, Chieti, Italy. 2. Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University "G. d'Annunzio", via dei Vestini, 31, 66100, Chieti, Italy. a.babore@unich.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of short-, intermediate- and long-term psychological effects, such as anxiety, depression and distress, on individuals undergoing genetic testing to determine BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation. The different instruments used for the measurement of each construct were reported. In addition, risk and protective factors associated with psychological outcomes of genetic tests were explored. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched for studies published over the period 1998-2018. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method, 21 articles were selected for the current review. RESULTS: Overall, the collected data revealed rather diverse results, although most studies reported higher levels of distress, anxiety and depression in carriers, as compared to non-carriers. The two genders were not equally represented, with men constituting only 6% of the sample. Risk factors and protective factors that may influence psychological outcomes and adjustment to genetic tests are highlighted and discussed in this review. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of developing cancer associated with positive genetic testing results may be experienced as traumatic by many patients, although not all individuals with positive genetic testing results will experience increased distress. Hence, future studies should consider specific risk factors in order to select those who are more likely to be in need of psychological support. Finally, it is necessary to increase the number of male samples to better understand the male experience related to genetic testing outcomes.
PURPOSE: The primary aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of short-, intermediate- and long-term psychological effects, such as anxiety, depression and distress, on individuals undergoing genetic testing to determine BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation. The different instruments used for the measurement of each construct were reported. In addition, risk and protective factors associated with psychological outcomes of genetic tests were explored. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched for studies published over the period 1998-2018. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method, 21 articles were selected for the current review. RESULTS: Overall, the collected data revealed rather diverse results, although most studies reported higher levels of distress, anxiety and depression in carriers, as compared to non-carriers. The two genders were not equally represented, with men constituting only 6% of the sample. Risk factors and protective factors that may influence psychological outcomes and adjustment to genetic tests are highlighted and discussed in this review. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of developing cancer associated with positive genetic testing results may be experienced as traumatic by many patients, although not all individuals with positive genetic testing results will experience increased distress. Hence, future studies should consider specific risk factors in order to select those who are more likely to be in need of psychological support. Finally, it is necessary to increase the number of male samples to better understand the male experience related to genetic testing outcomes.
Authors: C Borreani; S Manoukian; E Bianchi; C Brunelli; B Peissel; A Caruso; G Morasso; M A Pierotti Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Kelly A Metcalfe; Nida Mian; Melissa Enmore; Aletta Poll; Marcia Llacuachaqui; Sonia Nanda; Ping Sun; Kevin S Hughes; Steven A Narod Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: L Lodder; P G Frets; R W Trijsburg; A Tibben; E J Meijers-Heijboer; H J Duivenvoorden; A Wagner; C A van Der Meer; P Devilee; C J Cornelisse; M F Niermeijer Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Kristi D Graves; Rhoda Gatammah; Beth N Peshkin; Ayelet Krieger; Christy Gell; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Anita Yeomans Kinney; Lindsey E Bloor; Diptasri Mandal; Sara Ellis Simonsen; Bonnie Jeanne Baty; Richard Holubkov; Kate Seggar; Susan Neuhausen; Ken Smith Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: L Stuppia; P Di Fulvio; G Aceto; S Pintor; S Veschi; V Gatta; A Colosimo; E Cianchetti; A Cama; R Mariani-Costantini; P Battista; G Palka Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Pedro Gomes; Giada Pietrabissa; Eunice R Silva; João Silva; Paula Mena Matos; Maria Emília Costa; Vanessa Bertuzzi; Eliana Silva; Maria Carolina Neves; Célia M D Sales Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Eliana Silva; Pedro Gomes; Paula M Matos; Eunice R Silva; João Silva; Catarina Brandão; Fernando Castro; Maria Carolina Neves; Célia M D Sales Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-04-23