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
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2/2008

01-10-2008 | Original Article

The Trajectory of Psychological Impact in BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing: Does Time Heal?

Authors: Tammy M. Beran, M.A., Annette L. Stanton, Ph.D., Lorna Kwan, M.P.H., Joyce Seldon, M.S., Julienne E. Bower, Ph.D., Andrea Vodermaier, Ph.D., Patricia A. Ganz, M.D.

Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine | Issue 2/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Most research on adjustment of women undergoing genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility has not followed women for more than 6 months after result receipt and has not evaluated curvilinear patterns in general and cancer-specific adjustment.

Purpose

This study’s primary goal was to examine the trajectory of psychological status in women at risk for breast and ovarian cancer prior to undergoing genetic testing through 1 year after BRCA1/2 result receipt.

Methods

Women in the UCLA Familial Cancer Registry completed questionnaires assessing psychological status (i.e., depressive symptoms, negative and positive mood, anxiety, and cancer-related distress) prior to testing and at 1, 6, and 12 months after result receipt.

Results

Of 155 women tested, 117 were BRCA1/2− (96 uninformative negative and 21 true negative) and 38 were BRCA1/2+. Linear mixed model analyses revealed a consistent pattern in adjustment indicators, such that the groups did not differ at baseline, but mutation carriers endorsed significantly more depressive symptoms, negative mood, and cancer-specific distress relative to non-mutation carriers at 1 and 6 months after test result receipt (and less positive mood at 6 months only). At 12 months, negative and positive mood returned to baseline levels for mutation carriers, and depressive symptoms approached baseline. At 12 months, the groups differed significantly only on cancer-specific distress, owing to declining distress in non-carriers. Neither having a previous cancer diagnosis nor receiving a true negative versus uninformative negative result predicted reactions to genetic testing.

Conclusions

Genetic testing prompted an increase in general and cancer-specific distress for BRCA1/2+ women, which remitted by 1 year after result receipt.
Literature
1.
Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, et al. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science. 1994; 266: 66–71.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J, et al. Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature. 1995; 378: 789–792.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al. 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. 2003; 72: 1117–1130.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Easton DF, Ford D, Bishop DT. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet. 1995; 56: 265–271.PubMed
5.
Ford D, Easton DF, Bishop DT, Narod SA, Goldgar DE. Risks of cancer in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Lancet. 1994; 343: 692–695.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336: 1401–1408.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Szabo CI, King MC. Inherited breast and ovarian cancer. Hum Mol Genet. 1995; 4: 1811–1817.PubMed
8.
Croyle RT, Smith KR, Botkin JR, Baty B, Nash J. Psychological responses to BRCA1 mutation testing: Preliminary findings. Health Psychol. 1997; 16: 63–72.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Arver B, Haegermark A, Platten U, Lindblom A, Brandberg Y. Evaluation of psychosocial effects of pre-symptomatic testing for breast/ovarian and colon cancer pre-disposing genes: A 12-month follow-up. Fam Cancer. 2004; 3: 109–116.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Denayer L, et al. Predictive genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: Psychological distress and illness representations 1 year following disclosure. J Genet Couns. 2005; 14: 349–363.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Dorval M, Patenaude AF, Schneider KA, et al. 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. 2000; 18: 2135–2142.PubMed
12.
Kinney AY, Bloor LE, Mandal D, et al. The impact of receiving genetic test results on general and cancer-specific psychologic distress among members of an African-American kindred with a BRCA1 mutation. Cancer. 2005; 104: 2508–2516.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Lerman C, Narod S, Schulman K, et al. BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. A prospective study of patient decision making and outcomes. JAMA. 1996; 275: 1885–1892.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Lodder L, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW, et al. Psychological impact of receiving a BRCA1/BRCA2 test result. Am J Med Genet. 2001; 98: 15–24.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Lodder L, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW, et al. 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. 2002; 73: 97–112.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Reichelt JG, Heimdal K, Møller P, Dahl AA. BRCA1 testing with definitive results: A prospective study of psychological distress in a large clinic-based sample. Fam Cancer. 2004; 3: 21–28.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Schwartz M, Peshkin B, Hughes 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: 514–520.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Tercyak K, Lerman C, Peshkin B, et al. Effects of coping style and BRCA1 and BRCA2 test results on anxiety among women participating in genetic counseling and testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk. Health Psychol. 2001; 20: 217–222.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Cella D, Hughes C, Peterman A, 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: 564–572.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Halbert CH, Schwartz MD, Wenzel L, et al. Predictors of cognitive appraisals following genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Behav Med. 2004; 27: 373–392.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Watson M, Foster C, Eeles R, et al. Psychosocial impact of breast/ovarian (BRCA1/2) cancer-predictive genetic testing in a UK multi-centre cohort. Br J Cancer. 2004; 91: 1787–1794.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Meiser B, Butow P, Friedlander M, et al. Psychological impact of genetic testing in women from high-risk breast cancer families. Eur J Cancer. 2002; 38: 2025–2031.PubMed
23.
Fredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol. 2001; 56: 218–226.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Becker MH, Maiman LA. Sociobehavioral determinants of compliance with health and medical care recommendations. Med Care. 1975; 13: 10–24.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Carver CS, Scheier MF. Principles of self-regulation: Action and emotion. In: Higgins ET, Sorrentino RM, eds. Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior. New York: Guilford; 1990: 3–52.
26.
Brickman P, Campbell DT. Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In: Appley MH, ed. Adaptation Level Theory: A Symposium. New York: Academic; 1971: 287–302.
27.
Suh E, Diener E, Fujita F. Events and subjective well-being: Only recent events matter. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996; 70: 1091–1102.PubMedCrossRef
28.
van Roosmalen MS, Stalmeier PF, Verhoef LC, et al. Impact of BRCA1/2 testing and disclosure of a positive result on women affected and unaffected with breast or ovarian cancer. Am J Med Genet. 2004; 124A: 346–355.CrossRef
29.
Lerman C, Hughes C, Lemon SJ, et al. What you don’t know can hurt you: Adverse psychologic effects in members of BRCA1-linked and BRCA2-linked families who decline genetic testing. J Clin Oncol. 1998; 16: 1650–1654.PubMed
30.
Diener E, Lucas RE, Scollon CN. Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. Am Psychol. 2006; 61: 305–314.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Coyne JC, Kruus L, Racioppo M, Calzone KA, Armstrong K. What do ratings of cancer-specific distress mean among women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer? Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 116: 222–228.
32.
Baum A, Friedman AL, Zakowski SG. Stress and genetic testing for disease risk. Health Psychol. 1997; 16: 8–19.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Dorval M, Gauthier G, Maunsell E, et al. No evidence of false reassurance among women with an inconclusive BRCA1/2 genetic test result. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005; 14: 2862–2867.PubMedCrossRef
34.
van Dijk S, Timmermans DR, Meijers-Heijboer H, Tibben A, van Asperen CJ, Otten W. 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. 2006; 24: 3672–3677.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Radloff L. The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977; 1: 385–401.CrossRef
36.
Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer. 1994; 73: 643–651.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989; 81: 1879–1886.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988; 54: 1063–1070.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. Manual for the State—Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press; 1970.
40.
Weiss DS, Marmar CR. The impact of event scale-revised. In: Wilson JP, Deane TM, eds. Assessing Psychological Trauma and PTSD. New York, NY: Guilford; 1997: 399–411.
41.
Brain K, Norman P, Gray J, Mansel R. Anxiety and adherence to breast self-examination in women with a family history of breast cancer. Psychosom Med. 1999; 61: 181–187.PubMed
42.
Diefenbach MA, Miller SM, Daly MB. Specific worry about breast cancer predicts mammography use in women at risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Health Psychol. 1999; 18: 532–536.PubMedCrossRef
43.
McCaul KD, Mullens AB. Affect, thought, and self-protective health behavior: The case of worry and cancer screening. In: Suls J, Wallston K, eds. Social Psychological Foundations of Health and Illness. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2003: 137–168.
44.
Hay JL, McCaul KD, Magnan RE. Does worry about breast cancer predict screening behaviors? A meta-analysis of the prospective evidence. Prev Med. 2006; 42: 401–408.PubMedCrossRef
45.
O’Neill SC, DeMarco T, Peshkin BN, et al. Tolerance for uncertainty and perceived risk among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 test results. Am J Med Genet. 2006; 142C: 251–259.CrossRef
46.
Hay JL, Meischke HW, Bowen DJ, et al. Anticipating dissemination of cancer genomics in public health: A theoretical approach to psychosocial and behavioral challenges. Ann Behav Med. 2007; 34: 275–286.PubMedCrossRef
47.
McAllister M. Predictive genetic testing and beyond: A theory of engagement. J Health Psychol. 2002; 7: 491–508.CrossRef
48.
van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Lodder LN, et al. Long-term psychological impact of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation and prophylactic surgery: A 5-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 3867–3874.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Trajectory of Psychological Impact in BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing: Does Time Heal?
Authors
Tammy M. Beran, M.A.
Annette L. Stanton, Ph.D.
Lorna Kwan, M.P.H.
Joyce Seldon, M.S.
Julienne E. Bower, Ph.D.
Andrea Vodermaier, Ph.D.
Patricia A. Ganz, M.D.
Publication date
01-10-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Behavioral Medicine / Issue 2/2008
Print ISSN: 0883-6612
Electronic ISSN: 1532-4796
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9060-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2008

Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2/2008 Go to the issue

Original Article

History of Unemployment Predicts Future Elevations in C-Reactive Protein among Male Participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study

Original Article

Longitudinal Analysis of a Model to Predict Quality of Life in Prostate Cancer Patients and their Spouses

Original Article

Lung Cancer Patients and Their Spouses: Psychological and Relationship Functioning Within 1 Month of Treatment Initiation

Original Article

Course of Distress in Breast Cancer Patients, Their Partners, and Matched Control Couples

Original Article

Type D Patients Report Poorer Health Status Prior to and After Cardiac Rehabilitation Compared to Non-Type D Patients

Original Article

Impact of a Combined Resistance and Aerobic Exercise Program on Motivational Variables in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Controlled Trial