Quantifying family dissemination and identifying barriers to communication of risk information in Australian BRCA families

被引:43
作者
Healey, Emma [1 ,2 ]
Taylor, Natalie [3 ]
Greening, Sian [2 ]
Wakefield, Claire E. [4 ,5 ]
Warwick, Linda [6 ]
Williams, Rachel [1 ,7 ]
Tucker, Kathy [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ New South Wales, Fac Med, Prince Wales Clin Sch, Randwick, NSW, Australia
[2] Wollongong Hosp, Illawarra Canc Care Ctr, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
[3] Macquarie Univ, Australian Inst Hlth Innovat, Ctr Healthcare Resilience & Implementat Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] Sydney Childrens Hosp, Kids Canc Ctr, Randwick, NSW, Australia
[5] Univ New South Wales, UNSW Med, Sch Womens & Childrens Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[6] Canberra Hosp, ACT Genet Serv, Woden, ACT, Australia
[7] Prince Wales Hosp, Hereditary Canc Clin, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
BRCA; cancer genetics; disclosure; dissemination; family communication; HEREDITARY BREAST; CANCER-RISK; PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS; OVARIAN-CANCER; INTRAFAMILIAL COMMUNICATION; GENETIC INFORMATION; DISTANT RELATIVES; CARRIERS; SUPPORT; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1038/gim.2017.52
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Purpose: Recommendations for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers to disseminate information to at-risk relatives pose significant challenges. This study aimed to quantify family dissemination, to explain the differences between fully informed families (all relatives informed verbally or in writing) and partially informed families (at least one relative uninformed), and to identify dissemination barriers. Methods: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers identified from four Australian hospitals (n = 671) were invited to participate in the study. Distress was measured at consent using the Kessler psychological distress scale (K10). A structured telephone interview was used to assess the informed status of relatives, geographical location of relatives, and dissemination barriers. Family dissemination was quantified, and fully versus partially informed family differences were examined. Dissemination barriers were thematically coded and counted. Results: A total of 165 families participated. Information had been disseminated to 81.1% of relatives. At least one relative had not been informed in 52.7% of families, 4.3% were first-degree relatives, 27.0% were second-degree relatives, and 62.0% were cousins. Partially informed families were significantly larger than fully informed families, had fewer relatives living in close proximity, and exhibited higher levels of distress. The most commonly recorded barrier to dissemination was loss of contact. Conclusion: Larger, geographically diverse families have greater difficulty disseminating BRCA mutation risk information to all relatives. Understanding these challenges can inform future initiatives for communication, follow-up and support.
引用
收藏
页码:1323 / 1331
页数:9
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]   Interpreting scores on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) [J].
Andrews, G ;
Slade, T .
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2001, 25 (06) :494-497
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2005, GENOM SOC POLICY
[3]   A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: The Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire [J].
Cella, D ;
Hughes, C ;
Peterman, A ;
Chang, CH ;
Peshkin, BN ;
Schwartz, MD ;
Wenzel, L ;
Lemke, A ;
Marcus, AC ;
Lerman, C .
HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 21 (06) :564-572
[4]   Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance [J].
Chen, Sining ;
Parmigiani, Giovanni .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2007, 25 (11) :1329-1333
[5]   Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients [J].
Claes, E ;
Evers-Kiebooms, G ;
Boogaerts, A ;
Decruyenaere, M ;
Denayer, L ;
Legius, E .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A, 2003, 116A (01) :11-19
[6]   Psychological distress in women at risk for hereditary breast cancer: the role of family communication and perceived social support [J].
den Heijer, Mariska ;
Seynaeve, Caroline ;
Vanheusden, Kathleen ;
Duivenvoorden, Hugo J. ;
Bartels, Carina C. M. ;
Menke-Pluymers, Marian B. E. ;
Tibben, Aad .
PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2011, 20 (12) :1317-1323
[7]   Association of Risk-Reducing Surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation Carriers With Cancer Risk and Mortality [J].
Domchek, Susan M. ;
Friebel, Tara M. ;
Singer, Christian F. ;
Evans, D. Gareth ;
Lynch, Henry T. ;
Isaacs, Claudine ;
Garber, Judy E. ;
Neuhausen, Susan L. ;
Matloff, Ellen ;
Eeles, Rosalind ;
Pichert, Gabriella ;
Van T'veer, Laura ;
Tung, Nadine ;
Weitzel, Jeffrey N. ;
Couch, Fergus J. ;
Rubinstein, Wendy S. ;
Ganz, Patricia A. ;
Daly, Mary B. ;
Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. ;
Tomlinson, Gail ;
Schildkraut, Joellen ;
Blum, Joanne L. ;
Rebbeck, Timothy R. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2010, 304 (09) :967-975
[8]   International trends in the incidence of malignant melanoma 1953-2008uare recent generations at higher or lower risk? [J].
Erdmann, Friederike ;
Lortet-Tieulent, Joannie ;
Schuez, Joachim ;
Zeeb, Hajo ;
Greinert, Ruediger ;
Breitbart, Eckhard W. ;
Bray, Freddie .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2013, 132 (02) :385-400
[9]   Family Communication of BRCA1/2 Results and Family Uptake of BRCA1/2 Testing in a Diverse Population of BRCA1/2 Carriers [J].
Fehniger, Julia ;
Lin, Feng ;
Beattie, Mary S. ;
Joseph, Galen ;
Kaplan, Celia .
JOURNAL OF GENETIC COUNSELING, 2013, 22 (05) :603-612
[10]   Factors determining dissemination of results and uptake of genetic testing in families with known BRCA1/2 mutations [J].
Finlay, Esme ;
Stopfer, Jill E. ;
Burlingame, Eric ;
Evans, Katherine Goldfeder ;
Nathanson, Katherine L. ;
Weber, Barbara L. ;
Armstrong, Katrina ;
Rebbeck, Timothy R. ;
Domchek, Susan M. .
GENETIC TESTING, 2008, 12 (01) :81-91