Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-03-2011

Shortened time interval between colorectal cancer diagnosis and risk testing for hereditary colorectal cancer is not related to higher psychological distress

Authors: K. M. Landsbergen, J. B. Prins, H. G. Brunner, N. Hoogerbrugge

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 1/2011

Abstract

Current diagnostic practices have shortened the interval between colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and genetic analysis for Lynch syndrome by MSI-testing. We studied the relation of time between MSI-testing since CRC diagnosis (MSI–CRC interval) and psychological distress. We performed a cross-sectional study in 89 patients who had previously been treated for CRC. Data were collected during MSI-testing after genetic counseling. Psychological distress was measured with the IES, the SCL-90 and the POMS; social issues with the ISS, ISB and the ODHCF. The median time of MSI–CRC interval was 24 months (range 0–332), with 23% of the patients diagnosed less than 12 months and 42% more than 36 months prior to MSI-testing. In 34% of the patients cancer specific distress was high (IES scores >26). Mean psychopathology (SCL-90) scores were low, mean mood states (POMS) scores were moderate. Interval MSI–CRC was not related to psychological distress. High cancer specific distress was reported by 24% of patients diagnosed with CRC less than 12 months ago versus 39 and 35% by those diagnosed between 12 and 36 months and more than 36 months ago respectively. Distress was positively related to female gender (P = 0.04), religiousness (P = 0.01), low social support (P = 0.02) and difficulties with family communication (P < 0.001). Shortened time interval between CRC diagnosis and MSI-testing is not associated with higher psychological distress. Females, religious persons, those having low social support and those reporting difficulties communicating hereditary colorectal cancer with relatives are at higher risk for psychological distress.

VIKC Colorectal Cancer Incidence in 2009 in The Netherlands. (2009) http://nkr.ikcnet.nl

Lynch HT, De.La Chapelle A (2003) Hereditary colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 348:919–932CrossRefPubMed

Vasen HF, Wijnen JT, Menko FH et al (1996) Cancer risk in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer diagnosed by mutation analysis. Gastroenterology 110:1020–1027CrossRefPubMed

Vasen HF, Moslein G, Alonso A et al (2007) Guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis cancer). J Med Genet 44:353–362CrossRefPubMed

Jarvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H et al (2000) Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 118:829–834CrossRefPubMed

VKGN Vereniging Klinische Genetica Nederland. (2008) www.vkgn.nl

Jadoulle V, Rokbani L, Ogez D et al (2006) Coping and adapting to breast cancer: a six-month prospective study. Bull Cancer 93:E67–E72PubMed

Bjorvatn C, Eide GE, Hanestad BR et al (2009) Intrusion and avoidance in subjects undergoing genetic investigation and counseling for hereditary cancer. Support Care Cancer 17:1371–1381CrossRefPubMed

Neville K (1998) The relationships among uncertainty, social support, and psychological distress in adolescents recently diagnosed with cancer. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 15:37–46PubMed

10.

Dorval M, Patenaude AF, Schneider KA et al (2000) Anticipated versus actual emotional reactions to disclosure of results of genetic tests for cancer susceptibility: findings from p53 and BRCA1 testing programs. J Clin Oncol 18:2135–2142PubMed

11.

Bleiker EM, Menko FH, Kluijt I et al (2007) Colorectal cancer in the family: psychosocial distress and social issues in the years following genetic counselling. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 5:59–66CrossRefPubMed

12.

Claes E, Denayer L, Evers-Kiebooms G et al (2004) Predictive testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: motivation, illness representations and short-term psychological impact. Patient Educ Couns 55:265–274CrossRefPubMed

13.

Gritz ER, Peterson SK, Vernon SW et al (2005) Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:1902–1910CrossRefPubMed

14.

Meiser B, Collins V, Warren R et al (2004) Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Clin Genet 66:502–511CrossRefPubMed

15.

The Dutch Association of Comprehensive Cancer Centres Dutch Guideline Hereditary Colorectal Cancer. http://www.oncoline.nl. 9-1-2008

16.

Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W (1979) Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med 41:209–218PubMed

17.

van der Ploeg E, Mooren TT, Kleber RJ et al (2004) Construct validation of the Dutch version of the impact of event scale. Psychol Assess 16:16–26CrossRefPubMed

18.

Hatcher MB, Fallowfield L, A’Hern R (2001) The psychosocial impact of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: prospective study using questionnaires and semistructured interviews. BMJ 322:76CrossRefPubMed

19.

Reichelt JG, Heimdal K, Moller P et al (2004) BRCA1 testing with definitive results: a prospective study of psychological distress in a large clinic-based sample. Fam Cancer 3:21–28CrossRefPubMed

20.

Thewes B, Meiser B, Hickie IB (2001) Psychometric properties of the impact of event scale amongst women at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer. Psychooncology 10:459–468CrossRefPubMed

21.

Arindell WA, Ettema JHM (1986) SCL-90, Handleiding bij een multidimensionele psychopathologie-indicator. Swets & Zeitlinger B.V, Amsterdam

22.

McNair DM, (Dutch translation by Wald & Mellenbergh 1990) (1971) Manual for the profile of mood states. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego

23.

van Dam-Baggen R, Kraaimaat FW (1992) Inventory social support (ISB). Gedragstherapie 25:27–46

24.

Mesters I, van den Borne H, McCormick L et al (1997) Openness to discuss cancer in the nuclear family: scale, development, and validation. Psychosom Med 59:269–279PubMed

25.

van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Lodder LN et al (2003) Long-term psychological impact of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation and prophylactic surgery: a 5-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol 21:3867–3874CrossRefPubMed

26.

Gould RV, Brown SL, Bramwell R (2010) Psychological adjustment to gynaecological cancer: patients’ illness representations, coping strategies and mood disturbance. Psychol Health 25(5):633–646

27.

Baker F, Denniston M, Zabora J et al (2002) A POMS short form for cancer patients: psychometric and structural evaluation. Psychooncology 11:273–281CrossRefPubMed

28.

Helgeson VS, Reynolds KA, Tomich PL (2006) A meta-analytic review of benefit finding and growth. J Consult Clin Psychol 74:797–816CrossRefPubMed

29.

Henselmans I, Helgeson VS, Seltman H et al (2010) Identification and prediction of distress trajectories in the first year after a breast cancer diagnosis. Health Psychol 29:160–168CrossRefPubMed

30.

van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ et al (2007) The common sense model of self-regulation and psychological adjustment to predictive genetic testing: a prospective study. Psychooncology 16:1121–1129CrossRefPubMed

31.

Reichelt JG, Moller P, Heimdal K et al (2008) Psychological and cancer-specific distress at 18 months post-testing in women with demonstrated BRCA1 mutations for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. Fam Cancer 7:245–254CrossRefPubMed

32.

Schlich-Bakker KJ, Warlam-Rodenhuis CC, van Echtelt J et al (2006) Short term psychological distress in patients actively approached for genetic counselling after diagnosis of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 42:2722–2728CrossRefPubMed

33.

DudokdeWit AC, Tibben A, Duivenvoorden HJ et al (1998) Predicting adaptation to presymptomatic DNA testing for late onset disorders: who will experience distress? Rotterdam Leiden genetics workgroup. J Med Genet 35:745–754CrossRefPubMed

34.

Landsbergen KM, Prins JB, Brunner HG et al (2009) Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome in the first year of colorectal cancer: a review of the psychological impact. Fam Cancer 8:325–337CrossRefPubMed

35.

Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB (2001) Handbook of religion and health. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York

36.

White MT (2009) Making sense of genetic uncertainty: the role of religion and spirituality. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 151C:68–76CrossRefPubMed

37.

Kinney AY, Coxworth JE, Simonson SE et al (2009) Religiosity, spirituality, and psychological distress in African-Americans at risk for having a hereditary cancer predisposing gene mutation. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 151C:13–21CrossRefPubMed

38.

Esplen MJ, Madlensky L, Aronson M et al (2007) Colorectal cancer survivors undergoing genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: motivational factors and psychosocial functioning. Clin Genet 72:394–401CrossRefPubMed

39.

Wagner A, Tops C, Wijnen JT et al (2002) Genetic testing in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer families with a MSH2, MLH1, or MSH6 mutation. J Med Genet 39:833–837CrossRefPubMed

40.

van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ et al (2007) Family system characteristics and psychological adjustment to cancer susceptibility genetic testing: a prospective study. Clin Genet 71:35–42CrossRefPubMed

41.

Hallowell N, Foster C, Eeles R et al (2004) Accommodating risk: responses to BRCA1/2 genetic testing of women who have had cancer. Soc Sci Med 59:553–565CrossRefPubMed

42.

Rini C, Jandorf L, Valdimarsdottir H et al (2008) Distress among inflammatory bowel disease patients at high risk for colorectal cancer: a preliminary investigation of the effects of family history of cancer, disease duration, and perceived social support. Psychooncology 17:354–362CrossRefPubMed

43.

Audrain J, Schwartz MD, Lerman C et al (1997) Psychological distress in women seeking genetic counseling for breast-ovarian cancer risk: the contributions of personality and appraisal. Ann Behav Med 19:370–377CrossRefPubMed

Title: Shortened time interval between colorectal cancer diagnosis and risk testing for hereditary colorectal cancer is not related to higher psychological distress
Authors: K. M. Landsbergen
J. B. Prins
H. G. Brunner
N. Hoogerbrugge
Publication date: 01-03-2011
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Familial Cancer / Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-010-9387-9

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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

Sharing genetic risk with next generation: mutation-positive parents’ communication with their offspring in Lynch Syndrome

What I wish I’d known before surgery: BRCA carriers’ perspectives after bilateral salipingo-oophorectomy

An exploration of the communication preferences regarding genetic testing in individuals from families with identified breast/ovarian cancer mutations

Gene expression in response to ionizing radiation and family history of gastric cancer

A whisper-game perspective on the family communication of DNA-test results: a retrospective study on the communication process of BRCA1/2-test results between proband and relatives

Identification of a large rearrangement in CYLD as a cause of familial cylindromatosis

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer