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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Study protocol

Psychosocial and behavioral impact of breast cancer risk assessed by testing for common risk variants: protocol of a prospective study

Authors: Tatiane Yanes, Bettina Meiser, Mary-Anne Young, Rajneesh Kaur, Gillian Mitchell, Kristine Barlow-Stewart, Tony Roscioli, Jane Halliday, Paul James

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The ‘common variant, common disease’ model predicts that a significant component of hereditary breast cancer unexplained by pathogenic variants in moderate or high-penetrance genes is due to the cumulative effect of common risk variants in DNA (polygenic risk). Assessing a woman’s breast cancer risk by testing for common risk variants can provide useful information for women who would otherwise receive uninformative results by traditional monogenic testing. Despite increasing support for the utility of common risk variants in hereditary breast cancer, research findings have not yet been integrated into clinical practice. Translational research is therefore critical to ensure results are effectively communicated, and that women do not experience undue adverse psychological outcomes.

Methods

In this prospective study, 400 women with a personal and/or high risk family history of breast cancer will be recruited from six familial cancer centers (FCCs) in Australia. Eligible women will be invited to attend a FCC and receive their personal polygenic risk result for breast cancer. Genetic health professionals participating in the study will receive training on the return of polygenic risk information and a training manual and visual aids will be developed to facilitate patient communication. Participants will complete up to three self-administered questionnaires over a 12-months period to assess the short-and long-term psychological and behavioral outcomes of receiving or not receiving their personal polygenic risk result.

Discussion

This is the world’s first study to assess the psychological and behavioral impact of offering polygenic risk information to women from families at high risk of breast cancer. Findings from this research will provide the basis for the development of a new service model to provide polygenic risk information in familial cancer clinics.

Trial registration

The study was retrospectively registered on 27th April 2017 with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Group (Registration no: ACTRN12617000594325; clinical trial URL: https://​www.​anzctr.​org.​au/​Trial/​Registration/​TrialReview.​aspx?​id=​372743).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Familial breast cancer: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 52 epidemiological studies including 58,209 women with breast cancer and 101,986 women without the disease. Lancet. 2001;358(9291):1389–99.CrossRef
3.
Domchek S, Friebel T, Singer C. Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA. 2010;304(9):967–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Rebbeck T, Kauff N, Domchek S. Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing Salpingooophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:80–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Visvanathan K, Hurley P, Chlebowski R, Col N, Ropka M, Collyar D, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of pharmacological interventions including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition for breast cancer risk reduction. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(19):3235–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Thompson D, Easton D. The genetic epidemiology of breast cancer genes. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2004;9(3):221–36.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Riley BD, Culver JO, Skrzynia C, Senter LA, Peters JA, Costalas JW, et al. Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of genetic counselors. J Genet Couns. 2012;21(2):151–61.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Mavaddat N, Pharoah PDP, Michailidou K, Tyrer J, Brook MN, Bolla MK, et al. Prediction of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Profiling With Common Genetic Variants. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(5):djv036.
9.
Sawyer S, Mitchell G, McKinley J, Chenevix-Trench G, Beesley J, Chen X, et al. A role for common genomic variants in the assessment of familial breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(35):4330–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Li H, Feng B, Miron A, Chen X, Beesley J, Bimeh E, et al. Breast cancer risk prediction using a polygenic risk score in the familial setting: a prospective study from the Breast Cancer Family Registry and kConFab. Genet Med. 2017;19(1):30–5.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Dite GS, MacInnis RJ, Bickerstaffe A, Dowty JG, Allman R, Apicella C, et al. Breast cancer risk prediction using clinical models and 77 independent risk-associated SNPs for women aged under 50 years: Australian breast cancer family registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2016;25(2):359–65.CrossRef
12.
Muranen TA, Mavaddat N, Khan S, Fagerholm R, Pelttari L, Lee A, et al. Polygenic risk score is associated with increased disease risk in 52 Finnish breast cancer families. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;158(3):463–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Turnbull C, Ahmed S, Morrison J, Pernet D, Renwick A, Maranian M, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies five new breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nat Genet. 2010;42(6):504–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Ghoussaini M, Pharoah P, Easton D. Inherited genetic susceptibility to breast cancer: the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? Am J Pathol. 2013;183(4):1038–51.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Michailidou K, Hall P, Gonzalez-Neira A, Ghoussaini M, Dennis J, Milne RL, et al. Large-scale genotyping identifies 41 new loci associated with breast cancer risk. Nat Genet. 2013;45(4):353–61. 61e1-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Michailidou K, Beesley J, Lindstrom S, Canisius S, Dennis J, Lush MJ, et al. Genome-wide association analysis of more than 120,000 individuals identifies 15 new susceptibility loci for breast cancer. Nat Genet. 2015;47(4):373–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
National Institure for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Familial breast cancer: Classification and care of people at risk of familial breast cancer and management of breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer. 2015. http://​guidance.​nice.​org.​uk/​CG164. Accessed 11 July 2016.
18.
19.
Meiser B. Psychological impact of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: an update of the literature. Psychooncology. 2005;14:1060–74.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Hamilton JG, Lobel M, Moyer A. Emotional distress following genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a meta-analytic review. Health Psychol. 2009;28(4):510–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Reichelt JG, Heimdal K, Moller P, Dahl AA. BRCA1 testing with definitive results: a prospective study of psychological distress in a large clinic-based sample. Familial Cancer. 2004;3:21–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Schwartz M, Peshkin B, Hughs C, Main D, Isaacs C, Lerman C. Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing on psychological distress in a clinic-based sample. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(2):514–20.CrossRefPubMed
23.
van Roosmalen MS, Stalmeier PF, Verhoef LC, Hoekstra-Weebers JE, Oosterwijk JC, Hoogerbrugge N, et al. Impact of BRCA1/2 testing and disclosure of a positive test result on women affected and unaffected with breast or ovarian cancer. Am J Med Genet A. 2004;124(4):346–55.CrossRef
24.
Beery TA, Williams JK. Risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following genetic testing for adult-onset disorders. Genet Test. 2007;11(2):111–23.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Hallowell N, Foster C, Ardern-Jones A, Eeles R, Murday V, Watson M. Genetic testing for women previously diagnosed with breast/ovarian cancer: examining the impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation searching. Genet Test. 2002;6(2):79–87.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Anderson AE, Flores KG, Boonyasiriwat W, Gammon A, Kohlmann W, Birmingham WC, et al. Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk. Public Health Genom. 2014;17(1):48–60.CrossRef
27.
Leventhal K-G, Tuong W, Peshkin BN, Salehizadeh Y, Fishman MB, Eggly S, et al. “is it really worth it to get tested?”: primary care patients’ impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer. J Genet Couns. 2013;22(1):138–51.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Graves KD, Peshkin BN, Luta G, Tuong W, Schwartz MD. Interest in genetic testing for modest changes in breast cancer risk: implications for SNP testing. Public Health Genom. 2011;14(3):178–89.CrossRef
29.
Howe R, Miron-Shatz T, Hanoch Y, Omer ZB, O’Donoghue C, Ozanne EM. Personalized medicine through SNP testing for breast cancer risk: clinical implementation. J Genet Couns. 2015;24(5):744–51.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Hall MJ, Ruth KJ, Chen DY, Gross LM, Giri VN. Interest in genomic SNP testing for prostate cancer risk: a pilot survey. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2015;13(1):1–9.CrossRef
31.
Nusbaum R, Leventhal K-G, Hooker GW, Peshkin BN, Butrick M, Salehizadeh Y, et al. Translational genomic research: protocol development and initial outcomes following SNP testing for colon cancer risk. Transl Behav Med. 2013;3(1):17–29.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Graves KD, Leventhal K-G, Nusbaum R, Salehizadeh Y, Hooker GW, Peshkin BN, et al. Behavioral and psychosocial responses to genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk. Genomics. 2013;102(2):123–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Helmes A. Application of the protection motivation theory to genetic testing for breast cancer risk. Prev Med. 2002;35:453–62.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Fisher A, Bonner C, Biankin A, Juraskova I. Factors influencing intention to undergo whole genome screening in future healthcare: a single-blind parallel-group randomised trial. Prev Med. 2012;55:514–20.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Kasparian N, Meiser B, Butow P, Simpson J, Mann G. Predictive genetic testing for melanoma risk: a three-year prospective cohort study of uptake and outcomes amongst Australian families. Genet Med. 2009;11(4):265–78.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Braithwaite D, Sutton S, Steggles N. Intention to participate in predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer: the role of attitude toward uncertainty. Psycholology and Health. 2002;17:761–72.CrossRef
37.
Brugha T, Cragg D. The list of threatening experiences: the reliability and validity of a brief life events a a questionnaire. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1990;82:77–81.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of events scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41:209–18.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Thewes B, Meiser B, Hickie I. Psychometric properties of the impact of event scale amongst women at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2001;10(6):459–68.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale: an updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52(2):69–77.CrossRefPubMed
41.
42.
Price M, Butow P, Charles M, Bullen T, Meiser B, McKinley J, et al. Predictors of breast cancer screening behavior in women with a strong family history of the disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;124:509–19.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Mak. 2003;23(4):281–92.CrossRef
44.
Cella D, Chang C, Peterman A, Wenzel L, Marcus A, Hughes C, et al. A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the multidimensional impact of cancer risk assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Health Psychol. 2002;21(6):564–72.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Waxler JL, O’Brien KE, Delahanty LM, Meigs JB, Florez JC, Park ER, et al. Genetic counseling as a tool for type 2 diabetes prevention: a genetic counseling framework for common polygenetic disorders. J Genet Couns. 2012;21(5):684–91.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Austin JC, Honer WG. Psychiatric genetic counselling for parents of individuals affected with psychotic disorders: a pilot study. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2008;2(2):80–9.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Peate M, Meiser B, Cheah BC, Saunders C, Butow P, Thewes B, et al. Making hard choices easier: a prospective, multicentre study to assess the efficacy of a fertility-related decision aid in young women with early-stage breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(6):1053–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Meiser B, Butow P, Friedlander M, Barratt A, Schnieden V, Watson M, et al. Psychological impact of genetic testing in women from high-risk breast cancer families. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(15):2025–31.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–92.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Psychosocial and behavioral impact of breast cancer risk assessed by testing for common risk variants: protocol of a prospective study
Authors
Tatiane Yanes
Bettina Meiser
Mary-Anne Young
Rajneesh Kaur
Gillian Mitchell
Kristine Barlow-Stewart
Tony Roscioli
Jane Halliday
Paul James
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3485-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Cancer 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

An orthotopic xenograft model for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer in mice: influence of mouse strain, tumor cell count, dwell time and bladder pretreatment

Research article

The effects of exercise on pain, fatigue, insomnia, and health perceptions in patients with operable advanced stage rectal cancer prior to surgery: a pilot trial

Research article

N-glycosylation of serum proteins for the assessment of patients with IgD multiple myeloma

Research article

Regulation of early growth response 2 expression by secreted frizzled related protein 1

Research article

Respiratory-gated (4D) contrast-enhanced FDG PET-CT for radiotherapy planning of lower oesophageal carcinoma: feasibility and impact on planning target volume

Research article

Intra-tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer has limited impact on transcriptomic-based molecular profiling
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