scholarly journals Awareness, Perceptions, and Provider Recommendation Related to Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast Cancer Risk among At-Risk Hispanic Women: Similarities and Variations by Sub-Ethnicity

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 618-629 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan T. Vadaparampil ◽  
Jessica McIntyre ◽  
Gwendolyn P. Quinn
BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e031727
Author(s):  
Subash Thapa ◽  
Anja Leppin ◽  
Rikke Kristensen ◽  
Mette Just Bonde ◽  
Arja R Aro

IntroductionThe timely identification of breast cancer-related pathogenic variants can help to identify the risk of potential disease development and determine healthcare choices. However, the uptake rate of genetic testing services for breast cancer risk remains low in many countries. Interventions targeting the uptake of these services among individuals potentially at risk for inherited breast cancer are often complex and have multiple components, and are therefore difficult to implement, replicate and disseminate to new contexts. Our aim is to systematically review studies targeting the uptake of genetic testing services for breast cancer risk and critically assess the quality of implementation outcomes and the reporting of intervention descriptions.Methods and analysisPubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Library and all Campbell Coordinating Group databases will be searched for intervention studies that target individuals' participation in breast cancer genetic testing programmes. Papers published in English within the time period from January 2005 until October 2019 will be considered for inclusion. Titles, abstracts and full papers will be screened for eligibility by two pairs of reviewers independently. For data analysis and synthesis, study-level and intervention-level characteristics will be abstracted. We will present all implementation outcomes that are mentioned in each of the studies and register the number of studies that do not at all look at or report implementation outcomes. The quality of implementation will be checked using a 5-point rubric item, and the quality and completeness of reporting of intervention description will be evaluated using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required to conduct this review. Review findings will be disseminated to academic and non-specialist audiences via peer-reviewed academic journals and presented at appropriate conferences, workshops and meetings to policymakers, practitioners and organisations that work with our population of interest.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018105732.


Author(s):  
Carrie A. Miller ◽  
Alesha N. Henderson ◽  
Jeanine P. D. Guidry ◽  
Kandace P. McGuire ◽  
Bernard F. Fuemmeler

2017 ◽  
Vol 146 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Linton Peters ◽  
Judy E. Garber ◽  
Nadine Tung

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Jingsong Zhao ◽  
Colleen M. McBride ◽  
Yue Guan

<b><i>Purpose:</i></b> In this brief report, we ask whether women’s interpretation of breast cancer risk based on their low likelihood of carrying a <i>BRCA1/2</i> mutation is associated with their information-sharing behavior, and whether misinterpretation is associated with motives for sharing the result. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Women in mammography clinics who completed a brief family history assessment and deemed to be at low likelihood of carrying a <i>BRCA1/2</i> mutation were asked to complete a 1-time online survey between June 2016 and January 2017. <b><i>Results:</i></b> One-third (44/148) of women shared their family history screen result with someone in their social network. Result information was shared largely with a first-degree female relative to express feelings of relief (77%, 33/43). There were no differences in likelihood of sharing based on breast cancer risk interpretation. However, women who misinterpreted the implications of the result for general breast cancer risk reported more motives to share the result with their social network than those who accurately interpreted their breast cancer risk. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> As family history-based screening for hereditary breast cancer is broadly implemented, the communication needs of the majority of women who will be unlikely of carrying a <i>BRCA1/2</i> mutation must be considered. The motives of women who misinterpreted the implications of this result for breast cancer risk suggest the possibility that miscommunication could be spread to the broader family network.


2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Kay Dabney ◽  
Karen Huelsman

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 16-16
Author(s):  
Nimmi S. Kapoor ◽  
Lisa D. Curcio ◽  
Carlee A. Blakemore ◽  
Amy K. Bremner ◽  
Rachel E. McFarland ◽  
...  

16 Background: Recently introduced multi-gene panel testing including BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (BRCA1/2) for hereditary cancer risk has raised concerns with the ability to detect all deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations compared to older methods of sequentially testing BRCA1/2 separately. The purpose of this study is to evaluate rates of pathogenic BRCA1/2mutations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) between previous restricted algorithms of genetic testing and newer approaches of multi-gene testing. Methods: Data was collected retrospectively from 966 patients who underwent genetic testing at one of three sites from a single institution. Test results were compared between patients who underwent BRCA1/2testing only (limited group, n = 629) to those who underwent multi-gene testing with 5-43 cancer-related genes (panel group, n = 337). Results: Deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations were identified in 37 patients, with equivalent rates between limited and panel groups (4.0% vs 3.6%, respectively, p = 0.86). Thirty-nine patients had a BRCA1/2 VUS, with similar rates between limited and panel groups (4.5% vs 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.49). On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in detection of either BRCA1/2 mutations or VUS between both groups. Of patients undergoing panel testing, an additional 3.9% (n = 13) had non-BRCA pathogenic mutations and 13.4% (n = 45) had non-BRCA VUSs. Mutations in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM were the most common non-BRCA mutations identified. Conclusions: Multi-gene panel testing detects pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations at equivalent rates as limited testing and increases the diagnostic yield. Panel testing increases the VUS rate, mainly due to non-BRCA genes. Patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer can safely benefit from upfront, more efficient, multi-gene panel testing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document