Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Familial Cancer 2/2010

01-06-2010

Retrospective comparison of patient outcomes after in-person and telephone results disclosure counseling for BRCA1/2 genetic testing

Authors: Courtney Doughty Rice, Jennifer Gamm Ruschman, Lisa J. Martin, Jennifer B. Manders, Erin Miller

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 2/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 molecular genetic test results has been proposed as a feasible alternative to traditional in-person results disclosure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between method of result disclosure with the patient outcome variables of knowledge, cancer worry, cancer risk perception, satisfaction, and cancer screening and prophylactic surgery behaviors. Study participants included 228 women who completed retrospective, self-administered, mailed surveys regarding their pre-test genetic counseling and results disclosure. No significant relationships were found between result disclosure method and the outcome variables investigated. A majority (90%) of individuals who received positive results by telephone returned for follow up visits. Factors which genetic counselors believed influenced their clinical decision to offer telephone disclosure, such as history of breast cancer, a priori risk of genetic mutation and family history of known mutation were not shown to significantly impact the actual disclosure method. This study suggests that telephone results disclosure is clinically appropriate when counselors utilize their clinical judgment to determine which patients are appropriate candidates.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sakorafas GH, Krespis E, Pavlakis G (2002) Risk estimation for breast cancer development: a clinical perspective. Surg Oncol 10:183–192CrossRefPubMed Sakorafas GH, Krespis E, Pavlakis G (2002) Risk estimation for breast cancer development: a clinical perspective. Surg Oncol 10:183–192CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Lux M, Fasching P (2006) Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: review and future perspectives. J Mol Med 84:16–28CrossRefPubMed Lux M, Fasching P (2006) Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: review and future perspectives. J Mol Med 84:16–28CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Claus E, Schidkraut J, Thompson WD et al (1996) The genetic attributable risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer 77:2318–2324CrossRefPubMed Claus E, Schidkraut J, Thompson WD et al (1996) The genetic attributable risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer 77:2318–2324CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Lynch H, Silva E, Snyder C et al (2008) Hereditary breast cancer: part I. Diagnosing hereditary breast cancer syndromes. Breast J 14(1):3–13CrossRefPubMed Lynch H, Silva E, Snyder C et al (2008) Hereditary breast cancer: part I. Diagnosing hereditary breast cancer syndromes. Breast J 14(1):3–13CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Hall J, Lee M, Newman B et al (1990) Linkage of early-onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. Science 250(4988):1684–1689CrossRefPubMed Hall J, Lee M, Newman B et al (1990) Linkage of early-onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. Science 250(4988):1684–1689CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Wooster R, Neuhausen S, Mangion J et al (1994) Localization of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, to chromosome 13q12–13. Science 265(5181):2088–2090CrossRefPubMed Wooster R, Neuhausen S, Mangion J et al (1994) Localization of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, to chromosome 13q12–13. Science 265(5181):2088–2090CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Lucassen A, Watson E, Harcourt J et al (2001) Guidelines for referral to a regional genetics service: GPs respond by referring more appropriate cases. Fam Pract 18:135–138CrossRefPubMed Lucassen A, Watson E, Harcourt J et al (2001) Guidelines for referral to a regional genetics service: GPs respond by referring more appropriate cases. Fam Pract 18:135–138CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Scheuner M, Sieverding P, Shekelle P (2008) Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases. JAMA 299:1320–1334CrossRefPubMed Scheuner M, Sieverding P, Shekelle P (2008) Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases. JAMA 299:1320–1334CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference McBride C, Rimer B (1999) Using the telephone to improve health behavior and health service delivery. Patient Educ Couns 37:3–18CrossRefPubMed McBride C, Rimer B (1999) Using the telephone to improve health behavior and health service delivery. Patient Educ Couns 37:3–18CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Wilson K, Williams A (2000) Visualism in community nursing: implications for telephone work with service users. Qual Health Res 10:507–520CrossRefPubMed Wilson K, Williams A (2000) Visualism in community nursing: implications for telephone work with service users. Qual Health Res 10:507–520CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Wilmoth M, Tulman L, Coleman E et al (2006) Women’s perceptions of the effectiveness of telephone support and education on their adjustment to breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 33:138–144CrossRef Wilmoth M, Tulman L, Coleman E et al (2006) Women’s perceptions of the effectiveness of telephone support and education on their adjustment to breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 33:138–144CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Donnelly JM, Kornblith AB, Fleishman S et al (2000) A pilot study of interpersonal psychotherapy by telephone with cancer patients and their partners. Psychoncology 9:44–56CrossRef Donnelly JM, Kornblith AB, Fleishman S et al (2000) A pilot study of interpersonal psychotherapy by telephone with cancer patients and their partners. Psychoncology 9:44–56CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Ormond K, Haun C, Duquette D et al (2000) Recommendations for telephone counseling. J Genet Couns 9:63–71CrossRef Ormond K, Haun C, Duquette D et al (2000) Recommendations for telephone counseling. J Genet Couns 9:63–71CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Wang V (2000) What is and is not telephone counseling. J Genet Couns 9:73–82CrossRef Wang V (2000) What is and is not telephone counseling. J Genet Couns 9:73–82CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Helmes AW, Culver JO, Bowen DJ (2006) Results of a randomized study of telephone versus in-person breast cancer risk counseling. Patient Educ Couns 64:96–103CrossRefPubMed Helmes AW, Culver JO, Bowen DJ (2006) Results of a randomized study of telephone versus in-person breast cancer risk counseling. Patient Educ Couns 64:96–103CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Sangha KK, Dircks A, Langlois S (2003) Assessment of the effectiveness of genetic counseling by telephone compared to a clinic visit. J Genet Couns 12:171–184CrossRef Sangha KK, Dircks A, Langlois S (2003) Assessment of the effectiveness of genetic counseling by telephone compared to a clinic visit. J Genet Couns 12:171–184CrossRef
18.
go back to reference American Society of Clinical Oncology (2003) ASCO policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Am J Clin Oncol 21:2397–2406CrossRef American Society of Clinical Oncology (2003) ASCO policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Am J Clin Oncol 21:2397–2406CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Berline L, Fay A (2007) Risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 16:241–260CrossRef Berline L, Fay A (2007) Risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 16:241–260CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Trepanier A, Ahrens M, McKinnon W et al (2004) Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 13:83–114CrossRefPubMed Trepanier A, Ahrens M, McKinnon W et al (2004) Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 13:83–114CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Baumanis L, Evans JP, Callanan N et al (2009) Telephoned BRCA1/2 genetic test results: prevalence, practice and patient satisfaction. J Genet Couns 18:447–463CrossRefPubMed Baumanis L, Evans JP, Callanan N et al (2009) Telephoned BRCA1/2 genetic test results: prevalence, practice and patient satisfaction. J Genet Couns 18:447–463CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Klemp J, O’Dea A, Chamberlain C et al (2005) Patient satisfaction of BRCA1/2 genetic testing by women at high risk for breast cancer participating in a prevention trail. Fam Cancer 4:279–284CrossRefPubMed Klemp J, O’Dea A, Chamberlain C et al (2005) Patient satisfaction of BRCA1/2 genetic testing by women at high risk for breast cancer participating in a prevention trail. Fam Cancer 4:279–284CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Chen WY, Barber JE, Higham S et al (2002) BRCA1/2 genetic testing in the community setting. Am J Clin Oncol 20:4485–4492CrossRef Chen WY, Barber JE, Higham S et al (2002) BRCA1/2 genetic testing in the community setting. Am J Clin Oncol 20:4485–4492CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Jenkins J, Calzone K, Dimond E et al (2007) Randomized comparison of phone versus in-person BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic test result disclosure counseling. Genet Med 9:487–495CrossRefPubMed Jenkins J, Calzone K, Dimond E et al (2007) Randomized comparison of phone versus in-person BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic test result disclosure counseling. Genet Med 9:487–495CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Frank T, Deffenaugh A, Reid J et al (1997) Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10, 000 individuals. Am J Clin Oncol 70:934–938 Frank T, Deffenaugh A, Reid J et al (1997) Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10, 000 individuals. Am J Clin Oncol 70:934–938
26.
go back to reference Couch F, Blackwood A, Calzone K et al (2002) BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 336:1409–1415CrossRef Couch F, Blackwood A, Calzone K et al (2002) BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 336:1409–1415CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Lerman C, Narod S, Schulman K et al (1996) BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. JAMA 275:1885–1892CrossRefPubMed Lerman C, Narod S, Schulman K et al (1996) BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. JAMA 275:1885–1892CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A et al (2003) 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 116A:11–19CrossRefPubMed Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A et al (2003) 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 116A:11–19CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Pieterse A, Ausems M, Dulmen A et al (2005) Initial cancer genetic counseling consultation: change in counselee’s cognitions and anxiety, and association with addressing their needs and preferences. Am J Med Genet 137A:27–35CrossRef Pieterse A, Ausems M, Dulmen A et al (2005) Initial cancer genetic counseling consultation: change in counselee’s cognitions and anxiety, and association with addressing their needs and preferences. Am J Med Genet 137A:27–35CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Levy A, Shea J, Williams S et al (2006) Measuring perception of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1893–1898CrossRef Levy A, Shea J, Williams S et al (2006) Measuring perception of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1893–1898CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer B et al (1991) Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol 10:259–267CrossRefPubMed Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer B et al (1991) Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol 10:259–267CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference McInerney-Leo A, Hadley D, Kase RG et al (2006) BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families III: risk perception and screening. Am J Med Genet 140A:2198–2206CrossRef McInerney-Leo A, Hadley D, Kase RG et al (2006) BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families III: risk perception and screening. Am J Med Genet 140A:2198–2206CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Shiloh S, Avdor O, Goodman R (1990) Satisfaction with genetic counseling: dimensions and measurement. Am J Med Genet 37:522–529CrossRefPubMed Shiloh S, Avdor O, Goodman R (1990) Satisfaction with genetic counseling: dimensions and measurement. Am J Med Genet 37:522–529CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Retrospective comparison of patient outcomes after in-person and telephone results disclosure counseling for BRCA1/2 genetic testing
Authors
Courtney Doughty Rice
Jennifer Gamm Ruschman
Lisa J. Martin
Jennifer B. Manders
Erin Miller
Publication date
01-06-2010
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9303-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

Familial Cancer 2/2010 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

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