Literature DB >> 32642924

Knowledge, Attitudes, Willingness to Pay, and Patient Preferences About Genetic Testing and Subsequent Risk Management for Cancer Prevention.

Fangjian Guo1,2, Jacqueline M Hirth3,4, Erika L Fuchs3,4, Leslie E Cofie5, Veronica Brown3,4, Yong-Fang Kuo4,6,7, Maria E Fernandez8, Abbey B Berenson3,4.   

Abstract

Knowledge, attitudes, and patient preferences about genetic testing and subsequent risk management for cancer prevention among average risk populations are understudied, especially among Hispanics. This study was to assess these items by conducting an in-person survey in this understudied population. We conducted in-person surveys using a self-administered, structured questionnaire among young women in 2017. Survey questions were adapted from other validated surveys. This study had 677 participants in the final analyses. Data were collected in 2017 and analyzed in 2018 and 2019. Participants had little knowledge about genes or breast cancer risk, but most felt that genetic testing for cancer prevention is "a good idea" (87.0%), "a reassuring idea" (84.0%), and that "everyone should get the test" (87.7%). Most (64.0%) of these women would pay up to $25 for the test, 29.3% would pay $25-$500, and < 10% would pay more than $500 for the test. When asked about a hypothetical scenario of high breast cancer risk, 34.2% Hispanics and 24.5% non-Hispanics would choose chemoprevention. Women would be less likely to choose risk reduction procedures, such as mastectomy (19.6% among Hispanics and 15.1% among non-Hispanics) and salpingo-oophorectomy (11.8% among Hispanics and 10.7% among non-Hispanics). In this low-income, mostly Hispanic population, knowledge about genetic testing and cancer risk is poor, but most have positive opinions about genetic testing for cancer prevention. However, their strong preference for chemoprevention and lesser preference for prophylactic surgeries in a hypothetical scenario underscore the importance of genetic counseling and education.
© 2020. American Association for Cancer Education.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Cancer risk; Genetic testing; Hispanic; Risk management

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 32642924      PMCID: PMC7794087          DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01823-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  38 in total

1.  Cancer statistics, 2018.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  Screen positive rates among six family history screening protocols for breast/ovarian cancer in four cohorts of women.

Authors:  Monica R McClain; Glenn E Palomaki; Heather Hampel; Judith A Westman; James E Haddow
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2008-02-23       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 3.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  Mark E Robson; Courtney D Storm; Jeffrey Weitzel; Dana S Wollins; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-01-11       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and other hereditary syndromes: using technology to identify carriers.

Authors:  Brian Drohan; Constance A Roche; James C Cusack; Kevin S Hughes
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Knowledge, attitudes, and interest in breast-ovarian cancer gene testing: a survey of a large African-American kindred with a BRCA1 mutation.

Authors:  A Y Kinney; R T Croyle; W N Dudley; C A Bailey; M K Pelias; S L Neuhausen
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Population BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation frequencies and cancer penetrances: a kin-cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Harvey A Risch; John R McLaughlin; David E C Cole; Barry Rosen; Linda Bradley; Isabel Fan; James Tang; Song Li; Shiyu Zhang; Patricia A Shaw; Steven A Narod
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-12-06       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  L C Hartmann; T A Sellers; D J Schaid; T S Frank; C L Soderberg; D L Sitta; M H Frost; C S Grant; J H Donohue; J E Woods; S K McDonnell; C W Vockley; A Deffenbaugh; F J Couch; R B Jenkins
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-11-07       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening?

Authors:  Matthijs van den Berg; Danielle R M Timmermans; Leo P Ten Kate; John M G van Vugt; Gerrit van der Wal
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Timothy R Rebbeck; Noah D Kauff; Susan M Domchek
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Screen-positive rates and agreement among six family history screening protocols for breast/ovarian cancer in a population-based cohort of 21- to 55-year-old women.

Authors:  Glenn E Palomaki; Monica R McClain; Klaus Steinort; Randa Sifri; Leigh LoPresti; James E Haddow
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  2 in total

1.  Influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings.

Authors:  Grace A Lin; Julia R Trosman; Michael P Douglas; Christine B Weldon; Maren T Scheuner; Allison Kurian; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  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
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.