Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2008

01-01-2008 | Preclinical Study/Clinical Trial/Epidemiology/Invited Commentary

A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women considering genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk

Authors: Claire E. Wakefield, Bettina Meiser, Judi Homewood, Michelle Peate, Alan Taylor, Elizabeth Lobb, Judy Kirk, Mary-Anne Young, Rachel Williams, Tracy Dudding, Kathy Tucker, the AGenDA Collaborative Group

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To measure the effectiveness of a tailored decision aid (DA) designed to help women make informed decisions about genetic testing for breast/ovarian cancer risk.

Methods

A total of 145 women were randomized to receive the DA or a control pamphlet at the end of their first genetic counseling consultation. Of these, 120 (82.8%) completed two questionnaires, 1 week and 6 months post-consultation.

Results

While the DA had no effect on informed choice, post-decisional regret or actual genetic testing decision, the trial showed that women who received the DA had higher knowledge levels and felt more informed about genetic testing than women who received the control pamphlet (χ2(2) = 6.82; P = 0.033; χ2(1) = 4.86; P = 0.028 respectively). The DA also helped women who did not have blood drawn at their first consultation to clarify their values with regards to genetic testing (χ2(1) = 5.27; P = 0.022). Women who received the DA were less likely to share the information with other family members than women in the control condition (χ2(1) = 8.78; P = 0.003).

Conclusions

Decision aids are an effective decision-support strategy for women considering genetic testing for breast/ovarian cancer risk, and are most effective before the patient has made a decision, which is generally at the point of having blood drawn.
Literature
1.
International Breast Cancer Intervention Study Investigators (2002) First results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS-I): a randomised prevention trial. Lancet 360:817–824
2.
Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE et al (1999) Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 340:77–84PubMedCrossRef
3.
Scheuer L, Kauff N, Robson M et al (2002) Outcome and preventive surgery and screening for breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 20:1260–1268PubMedCrossRef
4.
Meijers-Heijboer H, Van Geel B, Van Putten W et al (2001) Breast cancer after prophylactic mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 345:159–164PubMedCrossRef
5.
Levy-Lahad E, Friedman E (2007) Cancer risks among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. BJC 96:11–15PubMed
6.
Lodder LN, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW et al (2002) One year follow-up of women opting for presymptomatic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2: emotional impact of the test outcome and decisions on risk management (surveillance or prophylactic surgery). Breast Cancer Res Treat 73:97–112PubMedCrossRef
7.
Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M et al (1998) Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. Am J Hum Genet 62:676–689PubMedCrossRef
8.
National Health and Medical Research Council (1999) Familial aspects of cancer: A guide to clinical practice. National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, November 1999
9.
Meiser B (2005) Psychological impact of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: an update of the literature. Psychooncology 14:1060–1074PubMedCrossRef
10.
van Dijk S, Otten W, Timmermans DR et al (2005) What’s the message? Interpretation of an uninformative BRCA1/2 test result for women at risk of familial breast cancer. Genet Med 7:239–245PubMedCrossRef
11.
van Dijk S, Timmermans DRM, Meijers-Heijboer H et al (2006) Clinical characteristics affect the impact of an uninformative DNA test result: the course of worry and distress experienced by women who apply for genetic testing for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:3672–3677PubMedCrossRef
12.
Ropka M, Wenzel J, Phillips E et al (2006) Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:840–855PubMedCrossRef
13.
O’Connor AM, Mulley AG Jr, Wennberg JE (2003) Standard consultations are not enough to ensure decision quality regarding preference-sensitive options. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:570–571PubMedCrossRef
14.
O’Connor AM, Rostom A, Fiset V et al (1999) Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ 319:731–734PubMed
15.
O’Connor A, Tugwell P, Welles GA et al (1998) Randomized trial of a portable, self-administered decision aid for postmenopausal women considering long-term preventative hormone replacement therapy. Med Decis Making 18:295–303PubMedCrossRef
16.
O’Connor AM (1999) Decision aids for patients considering options affecting cancer outcomes: evidence of efficacy and policy implications. J Natl Cancer Inst 25:67–80
17.
Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D et al (2006) Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 333:417PubMedCrossRef
18.
Wakefield CE, Meiser B, Homewood J et al (in press) Development and pilot testing of two decision aids for individuals considering genetic testing for cancer risk. J Genet Couns
19.
Australian Cancer Network (1999) Guidelines on familial aspects of cancer. Australian Cancer Network, Sydney, November 1999
20.
National Breast Cancer Centre (2000) Current best advice about familial aspects of breast/ovarian cancer. NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre, Sydney, 2000
21.
Centre for Genetics Education (2007) Centre for Genetics Education. http://​www.​genetics.​com.​au/​.​ Cited 19 Jan 2007
22.
O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V et al (2006) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:1
23.
Rimer BK, Glassman B (1999) Is there a use for tailored print communications in cancer risk communication? J Natl Cancer Inst 25:140–148
24.
Bastani R, Maxwell A, Bradford C et al (1999) Tailored risk notification for women with a family history of breast cancer. Prev Med 29:355–364PubMedCrossRef
25.
26.
Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM (2002) The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Educ Couns 48:87–91PubMedCrossRef
27.
Horowitz MJ, Wilner N, Alvarez W (1979) Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med 41:209–218PubMed
28.
Thewes B, Meiser B, Hickie IB et al (2001) Psychometric properties of the impact of event scale amongst women at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer. Psychooncology 10:459–468PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zigmond A, Snaith R (1983) The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Psychiatr Scand 67:361CrossRef
30.
Hall A, A’Hern R, Fallowfield L (1999) Are we using appropriate self-report questionnaires for detecting anxiety and depression in women with early breast cancer? Eur J Cancer 35:79–85PubMedCrossRef
31.
Johnston M, Pollard B, Hennessey P (2000) Construct validation of the hospital anxiety and depression scale with clinical populations. J Psychosom Res 48:579–584PubMedCrossRef
32.
Ibbotson T, Maguire P, Selby P et al (1994) Screening for anxiety and depression in cancer patients: the effects of disease and treatment. Eur J Cancer 30A:37–40PubMedCrossRef
33.
Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ et al (2003) Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making 23:281–292PubMedCrossRef
34.
SPSS Inc. (2005) Statistical Program for the Social Sciences: Release 14.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL
35.
StataCorp (2005) Stata Statistical software: Release 9.0. StataCorp, College Station, TX
36.
Williams RL (2000) A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics 56:645–646PubMedCrossRef
37.
Bekker HL, Legare F, Stacey D et al (2003) Is anxiety a suitable measure of decision aid effectiveness: a systematic review? Patient Educ Couns 50:255–262PubMedCrossRef
38.
Botkin JR, Smith KR, Croyle RT et al (2003) Genetic testing for a BRCA1 mutation: prophylactic surgery and screening behavior in women 2 years post testing. Am J Med Genet A 118:201–209PubMedCrossRef
39.
Cull A, Anderson EDC, Campbell S et al (1999) The impact of genetic counselling about breast cancer risk on women’s risk perceptions and levels of distress. BJC 79:501–508PubMed
40.
Lerman C, Narod S, Schulman K et al (1996) BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. JAMA 275:1885–1892PubMedCrossRef
41.
Meijers-Heijboer EJ, Verhoog LC, Brekelmans CT et al (2000) Presymptomatic DNA testing and prophylactic surgery in families with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Lancet 335:2015–2020CrossRef
42.
O’Neill SM, Peters JA, Vogel VG et al (2006) Referral to cancer genetic counseling: are there stages of readiness? Am J Med Genet C 142:221–231
43.
Mancini J, Nogues C, Adenis C et al (2006) Impact of an information booklet on satisfaction and decision-making about BRCA genetic testing. Eur J Cancer 42:871–881PubMedCrossRef
44.
Mireskandari S, Meiser B, Sherman K et al (2006) Evaluation of the needs and concerns of partners of women at high risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer. Psychooncology 15:96–108PubMedCrossRef
45.
Manne S, Audrain J, Schwartz M et al (2004) Associations between relationship support and psychological reactions of participants and partners to BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in a clinic-based sample. Ann Behav Med 28:211–225PubMedCrossRef
46.
Schwartz MD, Lerman C, Brogan B et al (2005) Utilization of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14:1003–1007PubMedCrossRef
47.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) Australian social trends 2006. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra
48.
Meiser B, Butow P, Friedlander M et al (2002) Psychological impact of genetic testing for women for breast cancer susceptibility. Eur J Cancer 38:2025–2033PubMed
49.
Tiller K, Meiser B, Gaff C et al (2006) A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women at increased risk of ovarian cancer. Med Decis Making 26:360–372PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women considering genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk
Authors
Claire E. Wakefield
Bettina Meiser
Judi Homewood
Michelle Peate
Alan Taylor
Elizabeth Lobb
Judy Kirk
Mary-Anne Young
Rachel Williams
Tracy Dudding
Kathy Tucker
the AGenDA Collaborative Group
Publication date
01-01-2008
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2008
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9539-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2008

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2008 Go to the issue

Preclinical Study

EZH2 regulates the transcription of estrogen-responsive genes through association with REA, an estrogen receptor corepressor

Preclinical Study

Correlation of levels and patterns of genomic instability with histological grading of invasive breast tumors

Review

Recognition and management of treatment-related side effects for breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy

Review

Insulin-like growth factor binding proteins and breast cancer

Clinical Trial

Impact of chemotherapy beyond the first line in patients with metastatic breast cancer

Erratum

Body size, weight change, fat distribution and breast cancer risk in Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits