1
|
Fang SY, Hsieh LL, Hung CF, Wang YA. Uptake of genetic testing among patients seeking cancer genetic counseling in Taiwan. J Genet Couns 2024; 33:322-328. [PMID: 37194127 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1723] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2023] [Revised: 04/09/2023] [Accepted: 04/22/2023] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Abstract
Genetic testing is becoming increasingly available and affordable. Understanding the reasons for individual decisions about genetic testing may assist in the identification of clinically appropriate use of genetic counseling and genetic testing resources. With the ongoing development of cancer genetic counseling services in Taiwan, we conducted this study to understand the characteristics of those seeking cancer genetic counseling and genetic testing and the predictors for undergoing genetic testing after counseling. Cross-sectional with correlational design was used in this study. Surveys completed by patients visiting the genetic counseling clinic at the cancer center included demographics, personal and family history of cancer, and questions on attitudes toward genetic counseling and genetic testing. Multinomial logistic regression was used to analyze the predictors of decision to undergo genetic testing. A total of 120 participants between the years 2018 and 2021 were analyzed, of which 54.2% were referred by health care professionals. The majority (76.7%) had a personal history of cancer and 50% had breast cancer. Over half (53.3%) had a strong family history of cancer defined as two or more 1st-degree relatives having cancer at a young age. Only 35.8% decided to receive genetic testing right after counseling and 47.5% were undecided. The main reason for hesitation or not pursuing testing was cost (41.4%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that a positive attitude toward genetic counseling was significantly associated with the uptake of genetic testing (Odds ratio 7.60, 95% CI 2.34-24.66, p < 0.001). Given the significant number of individuals undecided about genetic testing after counseling, decision aid could be developed to support genetic counseling and increase satisfaction with the testing decision.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Su-Ying Fang
- Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
- Department of Nursing, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
| | | | - Chen-Fang Hung
- Koo Foundation Sun-Yat Sen Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yong Alison Wang
- Koo Foundation Sun-Yat Sen Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan
- National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dibble KE, K. M. Donorfio L, Britner PA, Bellizzi KM. Perceptions and Care Recommendations from Previvors: Qualitative Analysis of Female BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers’ Experience with Genetic Testing and Counseling. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2022; 41:100989. [PMID: 35540028 PMCID: PMC9079684 DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2022.100989] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2022] [Revised: 04/20/2022] [Accepted: 04/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BRCA1/2-positive women listed negative and positive aspects of testing/counseling. A wide range of emotions concerning healthcare experiences existed post-testing. Improved patient-oriented care and communication was recommended.
Introduction It is estimated that 12.5% of women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 1.10% with ovarian cancer during their lifetime. Although less common, women with these mutations have a 11–72% increased risk of breast/ovarian cancers and are hereditary. Genetic testing/counseling presents the opportunity to identify carriers of BRCA1/2 genetic mutations before a cancer diagnosis. Methods Thirty-four BRCA1/2-positive women (with and without histories of breast/ovarian cancers) were recruited through online national support groups to gain a better understanding of their genetic testing/counseling perceptions and experiences. After confirming eligibility, they were invited to participate in either a telephone or webcam interview. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic text analysis and descriptive coding techniques. Results Six major themes emerged, capturing the perceptions and experiences of genetic testing/counseling for these women: 1) Emotional Reactions to Results and Genetic Counseling, 2) Future Recommendations, 3) Family Solidarity and Support, 4) Experiences with the Healthcare System, 5) Preventive Concerns and Decisions, and 6) Sources Affecting Perceived Risk. Two subthemes also emerged within the first theme, which are termed “Pre-vivor,” and “Testing Intuition.” Conclusions Participants indicated that genetic testing/counseling improvements would be helpful for women in this population surrounding quality care, including sensitivity training for healthcare professionals involved in testing/counseling, additional educational resources, and increased emotional and financial support. Although these recommendations may be beneficial, more widespread research with greater generalizability to disparate groups may be necessary prior to implementation.
Collapse
|
3
|
Gerrard S, Inglis A, Morris E, Austin J. Relationships between patient- and session-related variables and outcomes of psychiatric genetic counseling. Eur J Hum Genet 2020; 28:907-914. [PMID: 32066934 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-0592-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2019] [Revised: 01/09/2020] [Accepted: 01/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Little data currently exist regarding whether and how different characteristics of a patient and session influence outcomes of genetic counseling (GC). We conducted an exploratory retrospective chart review of data from a specialist psychiatric GC clinic (where patients complete the Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale (GCOS) as part of routine care before and after GC). We used ANOVA and linear regression to analyze GCOS change scores in relation to twelve patient/session-related variables. Three hundred and seven charts were included in analyses. Overall, GCOS scores increased significantly after GC, with large effect size (p < 0.0005, d = 1.10), and significant increases in all GCOS subdomains except adaptation. Significant associations with GCOS change score were identified for three variables: mode of delivery of GC (in-person/telephone/telehealth, p = 0.048, η2 = 0.020), primary indication for the appointment (understanding recurrence risk versus other primary indications, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.037), and baseline GCOS score (p < 0.000, R = 0.353). Our data showing that those with low baseline GCOS scores benefit most from GC could be used to explore the possibility of triaging those referred for GC based on this variable, and/or to identify individuals to refer to GC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Gerrard
- Joan H. Marks Graduate Program in Human Genetics, Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, NY, USA
| | - Angela Inglis
- Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.,Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Emily Morris
- Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.,Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Jehannine Austin
- Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. .,Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Brédart A, Anota A, Dick J, Cano A, De Pauw A, Kop JL, Aaronson NK, Bleiker EM, Brunet J, Devilee P, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Schmutzler R, Dolbeault S. The "Psychosocial Aspects in Hereditary Cancer" questionnaire in women attending breast cancer genetic clinics: Psychometric validation across French-, German- and Spanish-language versions. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2019; 29:e13173. [PMID: 31571365 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13173] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2018] [Revised: 05/23/2019] [Accepted: 09/04/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We performed a comprehensive assessment of the psychometrics of the "Psychosocial Aspects in Hereditary Cancer" (PAHC) questionnaire in French, German and Spanish. METHODS Women consecutively approached in Cancer Genetic Clinics completed the PAHC, distress and satisfaction questionnaires at pre-testing (T1) and after test result disclosure (T2). In addition to standard psychometric attributes, we assessed the PAHC ability to respond to change (i.e. improvement or deterioration from T1 to T2) in perceived difficulties and computed minimal important differences (MID) in PAHC scores as compared with self-reported needs for additional counselling. RESULTS Of 738 eligible counselees, 214 (90%) in France (Paris), 301 (92%) in Germany (Cologne) and 133 (77%) in Spain (Barcelona) completed the PAHC. A six-factor revised PAHC model yielded acceptable CFA goodness-of-fit indexes and good all scales internal consistencies. PAHC scales demonstrated expected conceptual differences with distress and satisfaction with counselling. Different levels of psychosocial difficulties were evidenced between counselees' subgroups and over time (p-values < .05). MID estimates ranged from 8 to 15 for improvement and 9 to 21 for deterioration. CONCLUSION The PAHC French, German and Spanish versions are reliable and valid for evaluating the psychosocial difficulties of women at high BC risk attending genetic clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Brédart
- Supportive Care Department, Psycho-oncology Unit, Psychopathology and Health Process Laboratory, EA 4047, Psychology Institute, Institut Curie, University Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - Amélie Anota
- Methodology and Quality of Life in Oncology unit (INSERM UMR 1098), University Hospital of Besançon and French National Platform Quality of Life and Cancer, Besançon, France
| | - Julia Dick
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Alejandra Cano
- Clinical and Health Psychology Department, University Autónoma of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Jean-Luc Kop
- Université de Lorraine, 2LPN (CEMA), Nancy, France
| | - Neil K Aaronson
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline M Bleiker
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joan Brunet
- Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Peter Devilee
- Department of Human Genetics & Division of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | | | - Rita Schmutzler
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Sylvie Dolbeault
- Institut Curie, Supportive Care Department, Psycho-oncology Unit, Paris and CESP, University Paris-Sud, UVSQ, INSERM, University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Affiliation(s)
- Jess G Fiedorowicz
- Departments of Psychiatry, Epidemiology and Internal Medicine, Abboud Cardiovascular Research Center, Obesity Research and Education Initiative, Iowa Neuroscience Institute, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kargo AS, Coulter A, Jensen PT, Steffensen KD. Proactive use of PROMs in ovarian cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Ovarian Res 2019; 12:63. [PMID: 31307510 PMCID: PMC6631969 DOI: 10.1186/s13048-019-0538-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2018] [Accepted: 07/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) has increased during the past decade, and the focus on how to use them has resulted in a more proactive application. Studies have shown that proactive use of PROMs during treatment improves patient-clinician communication, leads to better symptom management and may prolong survival among advanced cancer patients. Ovarian cancer is a serious disease in which the majority of patients experience recurrence during the follow-up period and suffer from a number of severe symptoms from underlying disease. This systematic review was conducted to assess the evidence on the proactive use of PROMs as a dialogue tool during follow-up of ovarian cancer patients. RESULTS The following databases were searched for relevant literature; PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. The search was conducted in April 2019 without any filters or limits. A total of 643 publications were identified, and 48 studies were found to be potentially eligible. Of the 48 papers, none met the final inclusion criterion of using PROMs proactively as a dialogue tool for ovarian cancer patients during follow-up. CONCLUSION Studies have shown that PROMs can identify otherwise undetected symptoms. Using PROMs proactively during the consultation has been shown to improve symptom management for patients with some other types of cancer. However, we found no studies that had examined the proactive use of PROMs during follow-up of ovarian cancer patients. Future studies should evaluate if the proactive use of PROMs could facilitate a more individualized and more effective follow-up program tailored to the ovarian cancer patient's needs and preferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anette Stolberg Kargo
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Sygehus Lillebalt, Vejle Sygehus, Beriderbakken 4, DK-7100 Vejle, Denmark
- Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Center for Shared Decision Making, Sygehus Lillebalt, Vejle Sygehus, Beriderbakken 4, 7100 Vejle, Denmark
| | - Angela Coulter
- Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Center for Shared Decision Making, Sygehus Lillebalt, Vejle Sygehus, Beriderbakken 4, 7100 Vejle, Denmark
| | - Pernille Tine Jensen
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, J. B. Winsløws Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, 5000 Odense, Denmark
| | - Karina Dahl Steffensen
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Sygehus Lillebalt, Vejle Sygehus, Beriderbakken 4, DK-7100 Vejle, Denmark
- Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Center for Shared Decision Making, Sygehus Lillebalt, Vejle Sygehus, Beriderbakken 4, 7100 Vejle, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Esteban I, Vilaró M, Adrover E, Angulo A, Carrasco E, Gadea N, Sánchez A, Ocaña T, Llort G, Jover R, Cubiella J, Servitja S, Herráiz M, Cid L, Martínez S, Oruezábal-Moreno MJ, Garau I, Khorrami S, Herreros-de-Tejada A, Morales R, Cano JM, Serrano R, López-Ceballos MH, González-Santiago S, Juan-Fita MJ, Alonso-Cerezo C, Casas A, Graña B, Teulé A, Alba E, Antón A, Guillén-Ponce C, Sánchez-Heras AB, Alés-Martínez JE, Brunet J, Balaguer F, Balmaña J. Psychological impact of multigene cancer panel testing in patients with a clinical suspicion of hereditary cancer across Spain. Psychooncology 2018; 27:1530-1537. [PMID: 29498768 DOI: 10.1002/pon.4686] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2017] [Revised: 01/16/2018] [Accepted: 02/16/2018] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Patients' psychological reactions to multigene cancer panel testing might differ compared with the single-gene testing reactions because of the complexity and uncertainty associated with the different possible results. Understanding patients' preferences and psychological impact of multigene panel testing is important to adapt the genetic counselling model. METHODS One hundred eighty-seven unrelated patients with clinical suspicion of hereditary cancer undergoing a 25-gene panel test completed questionnaires after pretest genetic counselling and at 1 week, 3 months, and 12 months after results to elicit their preferences regarding results disclosure and to measure their cancer worry and testing-specific distress and uncertainty. RESULTS A pathogenic variant was identified in 38 patients (34 high penetrance and 4 moderate penetrance variants), and 54 patients had at least one variant of uncertain significance. Overall, cancer panel testing was not associated with an increase in cancer worry after results disclosure (P value = .87). Twelve months after results, carriers of a moderate penetrance variant had higher distress and uncertainty scores compared with carriers of high penetrance variants. Cancer worry prior to genetic testing predicted genetic testing specific distress after results, especially at long term (P value <.001). Most of the patients reported the wish to know all genetic results. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that patients can psychologically cope with cancer panel testing, but distress and uncertainty observed in carriers of moderate penetrance cancer variants in this cohort warrant further research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I Esteban
- Hereditary Cancer Unit, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain.,Genetics Department, Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - M Vilaró
- Oncology Data Science, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| | - E Adrover
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital General de Albacete, Albacete, Spain
| | - A Angulo
- Myriad Genetics Spain, Alcobendas, Spain
| | - E Carrasco
- Hereditary Cancer Unit, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| | - N Gadea
- Medical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - A Sánchez
- Gastroenterology Department, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd)-Institut Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - T Ocaña
- Gastroenterology Department, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd)-Institut Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - G Llort
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Sabadell-Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Spain
| | - R Jover
- Gastroenterlogy Department, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, Spain
| | - J Cubiella
- Gastroenterology Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Galicia Sur, CIBERehd, Ourense, Spain
| | - S Servitja
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - M Herráiz
- Gastroenterology Department, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - L Cid
- Gastroenterology Department, Instituto Investigación Biomédica, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - S Martínez
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital de Mataró, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - I Garau
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Son Llatzer, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
| | - S Khorrami
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
| | - A Herreros-de-Tejada
- Gastroenterlogy Department, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain
| | - R Morales
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital La Mancha Centro, Alcázar de San Juan, Spain
| | - J M Cano
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital General de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain
| | - R Serrano
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Reina Sofia de Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain
| | - M H López-Ceballos
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital San Pedro de Alcántara, Cáceres, Spain
| | - S González-Santiago
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital San Pedro de Alcántara, Cáceres, Spain
| | - M J Juan-Fita
- Medical Oncology Department, Instituto Valencia de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | | | - A Casas
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Virgen del Rocío de Sevilla, Seville, Spain
| | - B Graña
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de A Coruña, La Coruña, Spain
| | - A Teulé
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet, Spain
| | - E Alba
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Spain
| | - A Antón
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Miguel Servet de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
| | - C Guillén-Ponce
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain
| | - A B Sánchez-Heras
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, Spain
| | - J E Alés-Martínez
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital de Nuestra Señora de Sonsoles, Ávila, Spain
| | - J Brunet
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBGI, Girona, Spain
| | - F Balaguer
- Gastroenterology Department, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd)-Institut Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J Balmaña
- Hereditary Cancer Unit, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain.,Genetics Department, Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.,Medical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Patient-Centered Care in Breast Cancer Genetic Clinics. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2018; 15:ijerph15020319. [PMID: 29439543 PMCID: PMC5858388 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15020319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2017] [Revised: 02/01/2018] [Accepted: 02/07/2018] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
With advances in breast cancer (BC) gene panel testing, risk counseling has become increasingly complex, potentially leading to unmet psychosocial needs. We assessed psychosocial needs and correlates in women initiating testing for high genetic BC risk in clinics in France and Germany, and compared these results with data from a literature review. Among the 442 counselees consecutively approached, 212 (83%) in France and 180 (97%) in Germany, mostly BC patients (81% and 92%, respectively), returned the ‘Psychosocial Assessment in Hereditary Cancer’ questionnaire. Based on the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) BC risk estimation model, the mean BC lifetime risk estimates were 19% and 18% in France and Germany, respectively. In both countries, the most prevalent needs clustered around the “living with cancer” and “children-related issues” domains. In multivariate analyses, a higher number of psychosocial needs were significantly associated with younger age (b = −0.05), higher anxiety (b = 0.78), and having children (b = 1.51), but not with country, educational level, marital status, depression, or loss of a family member due to hereditary cancer. These results are in line with the literature review data. However, this review identified only seven studies that quantitatively addressed psychosocial needs in the BC genetic counseling setting. Current data lack understandings of how cancer risk counseling affects psychosocial needs, and improves patient-centered care in that setting.
Collapse
|
9
|
Jones T, McCarthy AM, Kim Y, Armstrong K. Predictors of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among Black women with breast cancer: a population-based study. Cancer Med 2017. [PMID: 28627138 PMCID: PMC5504315 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1120] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Evidence shows that Black women diagnosed with breast cancer are substantially less likely to undergo BRCA testing and other multipanel genetic testing compared to White women, despite having a higher incidence of early-age onset breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Our study identifies predictors of BRCA testing among Black women treated for breast cancer and examines differences between BRCA testers and nontesters. We conducted an analysis of 945 Black women ages 18-64 diagnosed with localized or regional-stage invasive breast cancer in Pennsylvania and Florida between 2007 and 2009. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of BRCA 1/2 testing. Few (27%) (n = 252) of the participants reported having BRCA testing. In the multivariate analysis, we found that perceived benefits of BRCA testing (predisposing factor) ([OR], 1.16; 95% CI: 1.11-1.21; P < 0.001), income (enabling factor) ([OR], 2.10; 95% CI: 1.16-3.80; p = 0.014), and BRCA mutation risk category (need factor) ([OR], 3.78; 95% CI: 2.31-6.19; P < 0.001) predicted BRCA testing. These results suggest that interventions to reduce disparities in BRCA testing should focus on identifying patients with high risk of mutation, increasing patient understanding of the benefits of BRCA testing, and removing financial and other administrative barriers to genetic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tarsha Jones
- Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida.,Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Phyllis F. Cantor Center for Research in Nursing and Patient Care Services, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Anne Marie McCarthy
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.,Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Younji Kim
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Katrina Armstrong
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.,Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lumish HS, Steinfeld H, Koval C, Russo D, Levinson E, Wynn J, Duong J, Chung WK. Impact of Panel Gene Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer on Patients. J Genet Couns 2017; 26:1116-1129. [PMID: 28357778 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0090-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2016] [Accepted: 02/28/2017] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Recent advances in next generation sequencing have enabled panel gene testing, or simultaneous testing for mutations in multiple genes for a clinical condition. With more extensive and widespread genetic testing, there will be increased detection of genes with moderate penetrance without established clinical guidelines and of variants of uncertain significance (VUS), or genetic variants unknown to either be disease-causing or benign. This study surveyed 232 patients who underwent genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to examine the impact of panel gene testing on psychological outcomes, patient understanding, and utilization of genetic information. The survey used standardized instruments including the Impact of Event Scale (IES), Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA), Satisfaction with Decision Instrument (SWD), Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (AT-20), genetics knowledge, and utilization of genetic test results. Study results suggested that unaffected individuals with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer who received positive results were most significantly impacted by intrusive thoughts, avoidance, and distress. However, scores were also modestly elevated among unaffected patients with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer who received VUS, highlighting the impact of ambiguous results that are frequent among patients undergoing genetic testing with large panels of genes. Potential risk factors for increased genetic testing-specific distress in this study included younger age, black or African American race, Hispanic origin, lower education level, and lower genetic knowledge and highlight the need for developing strategies to provide effective counseling and education to these communities, particularly when genetic testing utilizes gene panels that more commonly return VUS. More detailed pre-test education and counseling may help patients appreciate the probability of various types of test results and how results would be used clinically, and allow them to make more informed decisions about the type of genetic testing to select.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heidi S Lumish
- College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Hallie Steinfeld
- College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Carrie Koval
- Division of Clinical Genetics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Donna Russo
- Division of Clinical Genetics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Elana Levinson
- Division of Clinical Genetics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Julia Wynn
- Division of Clinical Genetics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - James Duong
- Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Wendy K Chung
- Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. .,Division of Molecular Genetics, 1150 St. Nicholas Avenue, Room 620, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Rhodes R. Resisting Paternalism in Prenatal Whole-Genome Sequencing. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2017; 17:35-37. [PMID: 27996904 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2016.1251662] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
|