PURPOSE: Germline CDH1 pathogenic variants (PV) are associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer. Although prevalence of CDH1 PV is low in the general population, detection of these variants is increasing with the growing use of multigene panel testing. Little is known about the experiences of individuals tested for CDH1 variants in the multigene panel testing era. METHODS: Participants recruited from the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing completed a cross-sectional self-report survey regarding CDH1 genetic testing experiences, medical management, and psychosocial adaptation. RESULTS: Discordance existed in interpretations of CDH1 results; 13.3% of cases had disagreements in variant classifications among commercial laboratories, and 21.4% had disagreements between participant self-report and ClinVar classification. Survey data were available from 57 individuals reporting either PV (n = 16) or variants of uncertain significance (VUS; n = 41). Those with PV were more likely than those with VUS to report receiving a recommendation for prophylactic gastrectomy, although only 40.0% of those with PV received this recommendation. Participants with VUS were less satisfied with their health care providers' knowledge and reported less CDH1 knowledge, distress, and worry about discrimination. Participants with PV perceived greater breast cancer risks, but similar gastric cancer risks, as those with VUS. CONCLUSION: Few individuals with CDH1 PV report receiving recommendations for prophylactic gastrectomy, and no differences in perceived gastric cancer risk were observed based on participants' CDH1 results, suggesting serious unmet informational needs.
PURPOSE: Germline CDH1 pathogenic variants (PV) are associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer. Although prevalence of CDH1PV is low in the general population, detection of these variants is increasing with the growing use of multigene panel testing. Little is known about the experiences of individuals tested for CDH1 variants in the multigene panel testing era. METHODS:Participants recruited from the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing completed a cross-sectional self-report survey regarding CDH1 genetic testing experiences, medical management, and psychosocial adaptation. RESULTS: Discordance existed in interpretations of CDH1 results; 13.3% of cases had disagreements in variant classifications among commercial laboratories, and 21.4% had disagreements between participant self-report and ClinVar classification. Survey data were available from 57 individuals reporting either PV (n = 16) or variants of uncertain significance (VUS; n = 41). Those with PV were more likely than those with VUS to report receiving a recommendation for prophylactic gastrectomy, although only 40.0% of those with PV received this recommendation. Participants with VUS were less satisfied with their health care providers' knowledge and reported less CDH1 knowledge, distress, and worry about discrimination. Participants with PV perceived greater breast cancer risks, but similar gastric cancer risks, as those with VUS. CONCLUSION: Few individuals with CDH1PV report receiving recommendations for prophylactic gastrectomy, and no differences in perceived gastric cancer risk were observed based on participants' CDH1 results, suggesting serious unmet informational needs.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: David Cella; Chanita Hughes; Amy Peterman; Chih-Hung Chang; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz; Lari Wenzel; Amy Lemke; Alfred C Marcus; Caryn Lerman Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Alice Woo; Amit Sadana; David T Mauger; Maria J Baker; Terri Berk; Thomas J McGarrity Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2008-07-05 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Jamie C Brehaut; Annette M O'Connor; Timothy J Wood; Thomas F Hack; Laura Siminoff; Elisa Gordon; Deb Feldman-Stewart Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Pardeep Kaurah; Andrée MacMillan; Niki Boyd; Janine Senz; Alessandro De Luca; Nicki Chun; Gianpaolo Suriano; Sonya Zaor; Lori Van Manen; Cathy Gilpin; Sarah Nikkel; Mary Connolly-Wilson; Scott Weissman; Wendy S Rubinstein; Courtney Sebold; Robert Greenstein; Jennifer Stroop; Dwight Yim; Benoit Panzini; Wendy McKinnon; Marc Greenblatt; Debrah Wirtzfeld; Daniel Fontaine; Daniel Coit; Sam Yoon; Daniel Chung; Gregory Lauwers; Antonio Pizzuti; Carlos Vaccaro; Maria Ana Redal; Carla Oliveira; Marc Tischkowitz; Sylviane Olschwang; Steven Gallinger; Henry Lynch; Jane Green; James Ford; Paul Pharoah; Bridget Fernandez; David Huntsman Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-06-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Richard Hardwick; David Huntsman; Fatima Carneiro; Parry Guilford; Vanessa Blair; Daniel C Chung; Jeff Norton; Krishnadath Ragunath; J Han Van Krieken; Sarah Dwerryhouse; Carlos Caldas Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Ibrahim H Shah; Erin E Salo-Mullen; Kimberly A Amoroso; David Kelsen; Zsofia K Stadler; Jada G Hamilton Journal: Hered Cancer Clin Pract Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 2.164