Top

Published in:

01-06-2014 | Original Article

Misperceptions of ovarian cancer risk in women at increased risk for hereditary ovarian cancer

Authors: Bettina Meiser, Melanie A. Price, Phyllis N. Butow, Belinda Rahman, Kathy Tucker, Benjamin Cheah, Adrian Bickerstaffe, John Hopper, Kelly-Anne Phillips

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 2/2014

Abstract

This study assessed the sociodemographic, medical and psychological predictors of accuracy of perceived risk in women at increased genetic risk for ovarian cancer. Women participating in a large cohort study who were at increased risk of ovarian and fallopian tube cancer, had no personal history of cancer and had ≥1 ovary in situ at cohort enrolment, were eligible. Women completed self-administered questionnaires and attended an interview at enrolment. Of 2,868 women unaffected with cancer at cohort enrolment, 561 were eligible. 335 women (59.8 %) overestimated their ovarian cancer risk, while 215 women (38.4 %) accurately estimated their risk, and 10 (1.8 %) underestimated it. Women who did not know their mutation status were more likely to overestimate their risk (OR 1.74, 95 % CI 1.10, 2.77, p = 0.018), as were those with higher cancer-specific anxiety (OR 1.05, 95 % CI 1.02, 1.08, p < 0.001) and/or a mother who had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer (OR 1.98, 95 % CI 1.23, 3.18, p = 0.005). Amongst the group of women who did not know their mutation status, 63.3 % overestimated their risk and the mean perceived lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer was 42.1 %, compared to a mean objective risk of 6.4 %. A large number of women at increased risk for ovarian cancer overestimate their risk. This is of concern especially in women who are at moderately increased risk only; for this sub-group of women, interventions are needed to reduce potentially unnecessary psychological distress and minimise engagement in unnecessary surgery or screening.

National Breast Cancer Centre (2004) Clinical practice guidelines for the management of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. National Health and Medical Research Council, Sydney

Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Cole DE et al (2006) Population BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation frequencies and cancer penetrance: a kin–cohort study in Ontario. Can J Natl Cancer I 98(23):1694–1706CrossRef

Alsop K, Fereday S, Meldrum C et al (2013) BRCA mutation frequency and patterns of treatment response in BRCA mutation positive women with ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(21):2654–2663CrossRef

Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S et al (2003) Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 72(5):1117–1130PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Schildkraut JM, Thompson WD (1988) Familial ovarian cancer: a population-based case-control study. Am J Epidem 128:456–466

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), Australasian Association of Cancer Registries (AACR) (2004) Cancer in Australia 2001. AIHW Cat. No. CAN 23. Canberra, AIHW (Cancer Series no. 28)

Debeau L (2008) The cell of origin of ovarian epithelial tumours. Lancet 9:1191–1197CrossRef

Cull A, Fry A, Rush R, Steel C (2001) Cancer risk perceptions and distress among women attending a familial ovarian cancer clinic. Psycho-Oncology 84(5):594–599

Robinson GE, Rosen BP, Bradley LN et al (1997) Psychological impact of screening for familial ovarian cancer: reactions to initial assessment. Gynecol Oncol 65:197–205CrossRef

10.

Finch A, Metcalfe K, Lui J et al (2009) Breast and ovarian cancer risk perception after prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy due to an inherited mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. Clin Genet 75:220–224PubMedCrossRef

11.

Leventhal H (1989) Emotional and behavioural responses. In: Johnston M, Wallace L (eds) Stress and medical procedures. Oxford Science and Medical, Oxford, pp 25–57

12.

Gooding H, Organista K, Burack J, Bowles Biesecker B (2006) Genetic susceptibility testing from a stress and coping perspective. Soc Sci Med 62:1880–1890PubMedCrossRef

13.

Marteau T, Weinmann J (2006) Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Soc Sci Med 62:1360–1368PubMedCrossRef

14.

Glanz K, Lewis F, Rimer B (1997) Health behaviour and health education, 2nd edn. Jessey-Bass, San Francisco

15.

Lerman C, Kash K, Stefanek M (1994) Younger women at increased risk for breast cancer: perceived risk, psychological well-being and surveillance behaviour. J Natl Cancer Inst 16:171–176

16.

Kash KM, Holland JC, Halper MS, Miller DG (1992) Psychological distress and surveillance behaviours of women with a family history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:24–30PubMedCrossRef

17.

Lerman C, Daly M, Sands C et al (1993) Mammography adherence and psychological distress among women at risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(13):1074–1080PubMedCrossRef

18.

Andersen M, Peacock S, Nelson J et al (2002) Worry about ovarian cancer risk and use of ovarian cancer screening by women at risk for ovarian cancer. Gyencol Oncol 85:3–8CrossRef

19.

Schwartz MD, Kaufman E, Peshkin BN et al (2003) Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and ovarian cancer screening following BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing. J Clin Oncol 21(21):4034–4041PubMedCrossRef

20.

Stirling D, Evans G, Pichert G et al (2005) Screening for familial ovarian cancer: failure of current protocols to detect ovarian cancer at an early stage according to the international federation of gynecology and obstetrics system. J Clin Oncol 23:5588–5596PubMedCrossRef

21.

Gaarenstroom K, van der Hiel B, Tollenaar R et al (2006) Efficacy of screening women at high risk of hereditary ovarian cancer: results of an 11-year cohort study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16(Suppl. 1):54–59PubMedCrossRef

22.

National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre (2009) Surveillance of women at high or potentially high risk of ovarian cancer: NBOCC position statement

23.

Rebbeck TR, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL et al (2002) Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 346(21):1616–1622PubMedCrossRef

24.

Domcheck S, Weber B (2006) Clinical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Oncogene 25:5825–5831CrossRef

25.

Phillips K-A, Butow P, Stewart A et al (2005) Predictors of participation in clinical and psychosocial follow up of the kConFab breast cancer family study. Fam Cancer 4(2):105–113PubMedCrossRef

26.

Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer: KConFab. http://www.kconfab.org

27.

Mann G, Thorne H, Balleine R et al (2006) Analysis of cancer risk and BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation prevalence in the kConFab familial breast cancer resource. Breast Canc Res 8:R12CrossRef

28.

Wakefield C, Thorne H, Kirk J, Niedermayr E, Doolan E, Tucker K (2013) Improving mutation notification when new genetic information is identified in research: a trial of two strategies in familial breast cancer. Genet Med 15(3):187–194PubMedCrossRef

29.

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

30.

Cella DF, Mahon SM, Donovan MI (1990) Cancer recurrence as a traumatic event. Behav Med 16(1):15–22PubMedCrossRef

31.

Thewes B, Meiser B, Hickie I (2001) Psychometric properties of the Impact of Event Scale amongst women at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology 10(6):459–468PubMedCrossRef

32.

Scheier MF, Carver CS (1985) Optimism, coping and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol 4(3):219–247PubMedCrossRef

33.

Broadhead W, Gehlbach S, De Gruy F, Kaplan B (1988) The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire. Med Care 26(7):709–722PubMedCrossRef

34.

Meiser B, Butow P, Barratt A et al (1999) Attitudes to prophylactic oophorectomy and screening utilization in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 75:122–129PubMedCrossRef

35.

Antoniou A, Cunningham A, Peto J et al (2008) The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer 98:1457–1466. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604305 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

36.

Hosmer D, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, TorontoCrossRef

37.

Meiser B, Price M, Butow P et al (2013) Psychological factors and uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women at high risk for ovarian cancer in the Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Breast Cancer. Fam Cancer 12(1):101–109PubMedCrossRef

38.

Chalmers K, Luker K, Leinster S, Ellis E, Booth K (2001) Information and support needs of women with primary relatives with breast cancer: development of the Information and Support Needs Questionnaire. J Adv Nurs 35(4):497–507PubMedCrossRef

39.

Goldberg J, Piver M, Jishi M, Blumenson L (1997) Age at onset of ovarian cancer in women with a strong family history of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 66:3–9PubMedCrossRef

40.

Katapodi M, Lee K, Facione N, Dodd M (2004) Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between preceived risk and breast cancer screening: a meta-analytic review. Prev Med 38:388–402PubMedCrossRef

41.

Butow P, Lobb E, Meiser B, Barratt A, Tucker K (2000) Psychological aspects of genetic testing and counselling in women at increased risk of developing breast cancer: a summary of the literature for clinicians. Med J Austr 172:126–129

42.

Meiser B, Butow P, Price M et al (2003) Attitudes to prophylactic strategies in Australian women at increased risk for breast cancer. J Women Health 12(8):769–778CrossRef

43.

Meiser B, Butow P, Barratt A et al (2001) Risk perceptions and knowledge of breast cancer genetics in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer. Psychol Health 16(3):297–311CrossRef

44.

Hurley KE, Miller SM, Costalas JW, Gillespie D, Daly MB (2001) Anxiety/uncertainty reduction as a motivation for interest in prophylactic oophorectomy in women with a family history of ovarian cancer. J Women Health 10(2):189–199

45.

Fry A, Rush R, Busby-Earle C, Cull A (2001) Deciding about prophylactic oophorectomy: what is important to women at increased risk of ovarian cancer? Prev Med 33(6):578PubMedCrossRef

46.

Lobb EA, Butow PN, Moore A et al (2006) Development of a communication aid to facilitate risk communication in consultations with unaffected women from high risk breast cancer families: a pilot study. J Genet Counsel 15(5):393–405CrossRef

47.

48.

Stahlbom A, Johansson H, Liljegren A, von Wachenfeldt A, Arver B (2012) Evaluation of the BOADICEA risk assessment model in women with a family history of breast cancer. Fam Cancer 11:33–40PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

49.

Ford D, Easton D, Stratton M et al (1998) Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. Am J Hum Genet 62:676–689PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

50.

King M, Marks J, Mandell J, New York Breast Cancer Study Group (2003) Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 302:643–646PubMedCrossRef

51.

Meiser B, Halliday J (2002) What is the impact of genetic counseling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer: a meta-analytic review. Soc Sci Med 54(10):1463–1470PubMedCrossRef

52.

Smerecnik CMR, Mesters I, Verweij E, de Vries NK, de Vries H (2009) A systematic review of the impact of genetic counselling on risk perception accuracy. J Genet Counsel 18:217–228. doi:10.1007/s10897-008-9210-z CrossRef

Title: Misperceptions of ovarian cancer risk in women at increased risk for hereditary ovarian cancer
Authors: Bettina Meiser
Melanie A. Price
Phyllis N. Butow
Belinda Rahman
Kathy Tucker
Benjamin Cheah
Adrian Bickerstaffe
John Hopper
Kelly-Anne Phillips
Publication date: 01-06-2014
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Familial Cancer / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-013-9687-y

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 2/2014

Inversion of exons 1–7 of the MSH2 gene is a frequent cause of unexplained Lynch syndrome in one local population

Is intraductal tubulopapillary neoplasia a new entity in the spectrum of familial pancreatic cancer syndrome?

Attitudes and knowledge of medical practitioners to hereditary cancer clinics and cancer genetic testing

Evaluation after five years of the cancer genetic counselling programme of Valencian Community (Eastern Spain)

The MUTYH hotspot mutations p.G396D and p.Y179C do not cause substantial genetic susceptibility to biliary cancer

Comparison of attitudes regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis among patients with hereditary cancer syndromes

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer