View Item 

Show simple item record

Individual and family characteristics associated with BRCA1/2 genetic testing in high‐risk families
dc.contributor.authorKatapodi, Maria C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorNorthouse, Laurel L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMilliron, Kara J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Guipengen_US
dc.contributor.authorMerajver, Sofia D.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-06-18T18:32:31Z
dc.date.available2014-08-01T19:11:32Zen_US
dc.date.issued2013-06en_US
dc.identifier.citationKatapodi, Maria C.; Northouse, Laurel L.; Milliron, Kara J.; Liu, Guipeng; Merajver, Sofia D. (2013). "Individual and family characteristics associated with BRCA1/2 genetic testing in high‐risk families." Psycho‐Oncology 22(6): 1336-1343. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/98211>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1057-9249en_US
dc.identifier.issn1099-1611en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/98211
dc.description.abstractBackground Little is known about family members' interrelated decisions to seek genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Methods The specific aims of this cross‐sectional, descriptive, cohort study were (i) to examine whether individual and family characteristics have a direct effect on women's decisions to use genetic testing for hereditary susceptibility to breast cancer and (ii) to explore whether family characteristics moderate the relationships between individual characteristics and the decision to use genetic testing. Participants were women (>18 years old) who (i) received genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer and who agreed to invite one of their female relatives into the study and (ii) female relatives who had NOT obtained genetic testing and were identified by pedigree analysis as having >10% chances of hereditary susceptibility to breast cancer. Results The final sample consisted of 168 English‐speaking, family dyads who completed self‐administered, mailed surveys with validated instruments. Multivariate conditional logistic regression analyses showed that the proposed model explained 62% of the variance in genetic testing. The factors most significantly associated with genetic testing were having a personal history of cancer; perceiving genetic testing to have more benefits than barriers; having greater family hardiness; and perceiving fewer negative consequences associated with a breast cancer diagnosis. No significant interaction effects were observed. Conclusions Findings suggest that both individual and family characteristics are associated with the decision to obtain genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer; hence, there is a need for interventions that foster a supportive family environment for patients and their high‐risk relatives. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.en_US
dc.publisherSpringer Publishing Company, Inc.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherCohort Studyen_US
dc.subject.otherDecision Makingen_US
dc.subject.otherHereditary Breast Canceren_US
dc.subject.otherBRCA1/2en_US
dc.subject.otherGenetic Testingen_US
dc.subject.otherFamily Characteristicsen_US
dc.titleIndividual and family characteristics associated with BRCA1/2 genetic testing in high‐risk familiesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.pmid22826208en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98211/1/pon3139.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pon.3139en_US
dc.identifier.sourcePsycho‐Oncologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLandsbergen K, Verhaak C, Kraaimaat F, Hoogerbrugge N. Genetic uptake in BRCA‐mutation families is related to emotional and behavioral communication characteristics of index patients. Fam Cancer 2005; 4 ( 2 ): 115 – 119.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBieseker BB, Ishibe N, Hadley DW, et al. Psychosocial factors predicting BRCA1/BRCA2 testing decisions in members of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families. Am J Med Genet 2000; 93: 257 – 263.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClaes E, Evers‐Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A, Decruyenaere M, Denayer L, Legius E. Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet 2003; 116 ( A ): 11 – 19.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHughes C, Lerman C, Schwartz M, et al. All in the family: Evaluation of the process and content of sisters' communication about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results. Am J Med Genet 2002; 107 ( 1 ): 143 – 150.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeenan LA, Lesniak KT, Guarnaccia CA, Althaus B, Ethington G, Blum JL. Family environments of women seeking BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic mutation testing: an exploratory analysis. J Genet Couns 2004; 13 ( 2 ): 157 – 176.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWolff LS, Subramanian SV, Acevedo‐Garcia D, Weber D, Kawachi I. Compared to whom? Subjective social status, self‐rated health, and referent group sensitivity in a diverse U.S. sample. Soc Sci Med 2010; 70 ( 12 ): 2019 – 2028.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatapodi MC, Aouizerat B. Do women in the community recognize hereditary and sporadic breast cancer risk factors? Oncol Nurs Forum 2005; 32 ( 3 ): 617 – 623.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang C, Gonzalez R, Milliron KJ, Strecker VJ, Merajver SD. Genetic counseling for BRCA1/2: a randomized controlled trial of two strategies to facilitate the education and counseling process. Am J Med Genet 2005; 134 ( A ): 66 – 73.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoss‐Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie K, Cameron L, Buick D. The revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ‐R). Psychol Health 2002; 17 ( 1 ): 1 – 16.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatapodi MC, Dodd MJ, Facione NC, Humphreys JC, Lee KA. Why some women have an optimistic or a pessimistic bias about breast cancer risk: experiences, heuristics, and knowledge of risk factors. Cancer Nurs 2010; 33 ( 1 ): 64 – 73.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoos RH. Conceptual and empirical approaches to developing family‐based assessment procedures: resolving the case of the Family Environment Scale. Fam Process 1990; 29 ( 1 ): 199 – 208.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcCubbin HI, Thompson AI, McCubbin MA. FPSC: family problem solving communication. In Family Assessment: Resiliency, Coping, and Adaptation, McCubbin HI, Thompson AI, McCubbin MA (eds). University of Wisconsin: Madison, WI, 1996; 639 – 684.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcCubbin HI, Thompson AI, McCubbin MA (eds). FHI: Family Hardiness Index. Family assessment: Resiliency, Coping, and Adaptation. University of Wisconsin: Madison, WI, 1996; 239 – 303.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRubin DB, Schenker N. Multiple imputation in health‐care databases: an overview and some applications. Stat Med 1991; 10 ( 4 ): 585 – 598.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGaff CL, Collins V, Symes T, Halliday J. Facilitating family communication about predictive genetic testing: probands' perceptions. J Genet Couns 2005; 14 ( 2 ): 133 – 140.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAnagnostopoulos F, Spanea E. Assessing illness representations of breast cancer: a comparison of patients with healthy and benign controls. J Psychosom Res 2005; 58 ( 1 ): 327 – 334.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLerman C, Croyle RT, Tercyak KP, Hamann H. Genetic testing: psychological aspects and implications. J Consult Clin Psychol 2002; 70 ( 3 ): 784 – 797.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHagger MS, Orbell S. A meta‐analytic review of the common‐sense model of illness representations. Psychol Health 2003; 18 ( 2 ): 141 – 184.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCameron LD, Muller C. Psychosocial aspects of genetic testing. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2009; 22 ( 2 ): 218 – 223.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcInerney‐Leo A, Biesecker BB, Hadley DW, et al. BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families II: impact on relationships. Am J Med Genet 2005; 133A ( 2 ): 165 – 169.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMellon S, Janisse J, Gold R, et al. Predictors of decision making in families at risk for inherited breast/ovarian cancer. Health Psychol 2009; 28 ( 1 ): 38 – 47.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDaly MB, Barsevick A, Miller SM, et al. Communicating genetic test results to the family: a six‐step, skills‐building strategy. Fam Community Health 2001; 24 ( 3 ): 12 – 26.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcKinnon W, Naud S, Ashikaga T, Colletti R, Wood M. Results of an intervention for individuals and families with BRCA mutations: a model for providing medical updates and psychosocial support following genetic testing. J Genet Couns 2007; 16 ( 4 ): 433 – 456.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFoulkes WD. Inherited susceptibility to common cancers. N Engl J Med 2008; 359 ( 20 ): 2143 – 2153.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRipperger T, Gadzicki D, Meindl A, Schlegelberger B. Breast cancer susceptibility: current knowledge and implications for geneticcounselling. Eur J Hum Genet 2009; 17 ( 6 ): 722 – 731.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFutreal PA, Liu Q, Shattuck‐Eidens D, et al. BRCA1 mutations in primary breast and ovarian carcinomas. Science 1994; 266 ( 5182 ): 120 – 122.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck‐Eidens D, et al. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 1994; 266: 66 – 71.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J, et al. Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature 1995; 378: 789 – 792.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKing MC, Marcs JH, Mandell JB, et al. Breast and ovarian cancer due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 2003; 302 ( 5645 ): 643 – 646.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChen S, Iversen ES, Friebel T, et al. Characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a large United States sample. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24 ( 6 ): 863 – 871.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarroni F, Aretini P, D'Andrea E, et al. Penetrances of breast and ovarian cancer in a large series of families tested for BRCA1/2 mutations. Eur J Hum Genet 2004; 12 ( 11 ): 899 – 906.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMetcalfe K, Lubinski J, Lynch HT, et al. Family history of cancer and cancer risks in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102 ( 24 ): 1874 – 1878.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGraeser M, Engel C, Rhiem K, et al. Contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27 ( 35 ): 5887 – 5892. 10.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePierce LJ, Levin AM, Rebbeck TR, et al. Ten‐year multi‐institutional results of breast‐conserving surgery and radiotheray in BRCA1/2 ‐associated stage I/II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24 ( 16 ): 2437 – 2443.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEisinger F, Charafe‐Jauffret E, Jacquemier J, Bimbaum D, Julian‐Reynier C, Sobol H, et al. Tamoxifen and breast cancer risk in women harboring a BRCA1 germline mutation: computed efficacy, effectiveness and impact. Int J Oncol 2001; 18 ( 1 ): 5 – 10.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFinch A, Beiner M, Lubinski J, et al. Salpingo‐oophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. JAMA 2006; 296 ( 2 ): 185 – 192.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMetcalfe KA, Birenbaum‐Carmeli D, Lubinski J, et al. International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Int J Cancer 2008; 122 ( 9 ): 2017 – 2022.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHalbert CH. Decisions and outcomes of genetic testing for inherited breast cancer risk. Ann Oncol 2004; 15 ( 1 ): 35 – 39.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRopka ME, Wenzel J, Phillips EK, Siadaty M, Philbrick JT. Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006; 15 ( 1 ): 840 – 855.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer Publishing Company, Inc.: New York, NY, 1984.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJanis IL, Mann L, Decision Making. Free Press: New York, NY, 1977.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRolland JS, Williams JK. Toward a biopsychosocial model for 21st century genetics. Fam Process 2005; 44 ( 1 ): 3 – 24.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCappelli MS, Surh L, Humphreys L, et al. Psychological and social determinants of women's decision to undergo genetic counseling and testing for breast cancer. Clin Genet 1999; 55 ( 6 ): 419 – 430.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKelly K, Leventhal L, Andrykowski M, et al. The decision to test in women receiving genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Genet Couns 2004; 13 ( 3 ): 237 – 257.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlandy C, Chabal F, Stoppa‐Lyonnet D, Julian‐Reynier C. Testing participation in BRCA1/2 ‐positive families: initiator role of index cases. Genet Test 2003; 7 ( 3 ): 225 – 233.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchwartz MD, Peshkin BN, Tercyak KP, Taylor KL, Valdimarsdottir H. Decision making and decision support for hereditary breast‐ovarian cancer susceptibility. Health Psychol 2005; 24 ( 4S ): S78 – S84.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGurmankin AD, Domchek S, Stopfer J, Fels C, Armstrong K. Patients' resistance to risk information in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165 ( Mar 14 ): 523 – 529.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJacobsen PB, Valdimarsdottier HB, Brown KL, Offit K. Decision‐making about genetic testing among women at familial risk for breast cancer. Psychosom Med 1997; 59: 459 – 466.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMellon S, Berry‐Bobovski L, Gold R, Levin N, Tainsky MA. Communication and decision‐making about seeking inherited cancer risk information: findings from female survivor‐relative focus groups. Psycho‐Oncology 2006; 15 ( 3 ): 198 – 208.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThompson HS, Valdimarsdottir HB, Duteau‐Buck C, et al. Psychosocial predictors of BRCA counseling and testing decisions among urban African‐American women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002; 11: 1579 – 1585.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHamilton RJ, Bowers BJ, Williams JK. Disclosing genetic test results to family members. J Nurs Scholarsh 2005; 37 ( 1 ): 18 – 24.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNycum G, Avard D, Knoppers BM. Factors influencing intrafamilial communication of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic information. Eur J Hum Genet 2009; 17: 872 – 880.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSeymour KC, Addington‐Hall J, Lucassen AM, Foster CL. What facilitates or impedes family communication following genetic testing for cancer risk? A systematic review and meta‐synthesis of primary qualitative research. J Genet Couns 2010; 19: 330 – 342.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeMarco TA, McKinnon W. Life after BRCA1/2 testing: family communication and support issues. Breast Dis 2006 –2007: 127 – 136.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceErsig AL, Hadley DW, Koehly LM. Understanding patterns of health communication in families at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: examining the effect of conclusive versus indeterminate genetic test results. Health Commun 2011; 26 ( 7 ): 587 – 594.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoehly LM, Peterson SK, Watts BG, Kempf KK, Vernon SW, Gritz ER. A social network analysis of communication about hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer genetic testing and family functioning. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003; 12 ( 4 ): 304 – 313.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpeice J, McDaniel SH, Rowley PT, Loader S. Family issues in a psychoeducation group for women with a BRCA mutation. Clin Genet 2002; 62 ( 2 ): 121 – 127.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCrotser CB, Boehmke M. Survivorship considerations in adults with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome: state of the science. J Cancer Surviv 2009; 3: 21 – 42.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
pon3139.pdf
Size:
433.0KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.