Familial Cancer

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 639–646 | Cite as

Psychosocial consequences of predictive genetic testing for lynch syndrome and associations to surveillance behaviour in a 7-year follow-up study

  • Katja Aktan-Collan
  • Helena Kääriäinen
  • Heikki Järvinen
  • Päivi Peltomäki
  • Kirsi Pylvänäinen
  • Jukka-Pekka Mecklin
  • Ari Haukkala
Original Article

Abstract

We evaluated long-term psychosocial consequences of predictive genetic testing, and surveillance behaviour in Lynch syndrome (LS). We conducted a longitudinal study of 208 participants (62 LS mutation carriers and 146 non-carriers) who provided information on general anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), fear of cancer and dying, satisfaction with life, risk and test perceptions, and surveillance behaviour in the baseline questionnaire before testing, and 1 month, 1 year and 7 years post-test. At 7 years, most of the psychosocial variables remained unchanged, regardless of mutation status. Carriers tended to underestimate their colorectal cancer risk but were more worried about their cancer risk than their counterparts. Non-carriers reported a higher degree of satisfaction with their testing decisions (P < 0.05), but had more doubts concerning test result validity than carriers (P < 0.05). All carriers attended a post-test colonoscopy surveillance, while 16 % of non-carriers reported colonoscopy examinations. Those non-carriers with doubts about test validity were more likely (P = 0.019) to report post-test colonoscopy. Of the carriers, 17 % had an interval longer than 3 years between their colonoscopies. Fear of dying soon, measured at 1-month post-test follow-up was the only psychosocial variable predicting non-compliance in recommended surveillance. No adverse psychosocial consequences were detected, and respondents were satisfied with their decision to testing 7 years post-test. Among the carriers, solely fear of dying soon predicted non-compliance in recommended surveillance. Some non-carriers were still worried about their risk and had doubts about the validity of their genetic testing results predicting post-test colonoscopy.

Keywords

Lynch syndrome Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer Predictive genetic testing Psychosocial consequences Cancer surveillance Surveillance behaviour 

References

  1. 1.
    Lynch HT, de la Chapelle A (2003) Hereditary colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 348:919–932PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vasen HF, Wijnen JT, Menko FH et al (1996) Cancer risk in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer diagnosed by mutation analysis. Gastroenterology 110:1020–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E et al (1999) Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer :214–218Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Järvinen HJ, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Aktan-Collan K et al (2009) Ten years after mutation testing for Lynch syndrome: cancer incidence and outcome in mutation-positive and mutation-negative family members. J Clin Oncol 27:4793–4797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vasen HF, Abdirahman M, Brohet R, Langers AM, Kleibeuker JH, van Kouwen M, Koornstra JJ, Boot H, Cats A (2010) One to 2-year surveillance intervals reduce risk of colorectal cancer in families with Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology 138(7):2300–2306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lerman C, Hughes C, Trock BJ, Myers RE, Main D, Bonney A et al (1999) Genetic testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. JAMA 281:1618–1622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aktan-Collan K, Mecklin JP, Jarvinen H, Nystrom-Lahti M, Peltomaki P, Soderling I et al (2000) Predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: uptake and long-term satisfaction. Int J Cancer 89:44–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aktan-Collan K, Haukkala A, Mecklin JP, Uutela A, Kaariainen H (2001) Psychological consequences of predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC): a prospective follow-up study. Int J Cancer 93:608–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aktan-Collan K, Haukkala A, Mecklin JP, Uutela A, Kaariainen H (2001) Comprehension of cancer risk one and 12 months after predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. J Med Genet 11:787–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Esplen MJ, Madlensky L, Butler K, McKinnon W, Bapat B, Wong J et al (2001) Motivations and psychosocial impact of genetic testing for HNPCC. Am J Med Genet 103:9–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hadley DW, Jenkins J, Dimond E, Nakahara K, Grogan L, Liewehr DJ et al (2003) Genetic counseling and testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med 163:573–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arver B, Haegermark A, Platten U (2004) Evaluation of psychosocial effects of pre-symptomatic testing for breast/ovarian and colon cancer pre-disposing genes: a 12-month follow-up. Fam Cancer 3:109–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Claes E, Denayer L, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A, Legius E (2004) Predictive testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: motivation, illness representations and short-term psychological impact. Patient Educ Couns 55:265–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Claes E, Denayer L, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A, Philippe K, Tejpar S et al (2005) Predictive testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: subjective perception regarding colorectal and endometrial cancer, distress, and health-related behavior at 1 year post-test. Genet Test 9:54–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gritz ER, Peterson SK, Vernon SW, Marani SK, Baile WF, Watts BG et al (2005) Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:1902–1910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Collins VR, Meiser B, Ukoumunne OC, Gaff C, St John DJ, Halliday JL (2007) The impact of predictive genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: 3 years after testing. Genet Med 9:290–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ, Brocker-Vriends AH, van Asperen CJ, Sijmons RH et al (2007) Prognostic factors for hereditary cancer distress six months after BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing. Eur J Cancer 43:71–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shiloh S, Koehly L, Jenkins J, Martin J, Hadley D (2008) Monitoring coping style moderates emotional reactions to genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: a longitudinal study. Psycho-Oncology 17:746–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Broadstock M, Michie S, Marteau T (2000) Psychological consequences of predictive genetic testing: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 8:731–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meiser B, Collins V, Warren R, Gaff C, St John DJ, Young MA et al (2004) Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Clin Genet 66:502–511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meiser B (2005) Psychological impact of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: an update of the literature. Psychooncology 14(12):1060–1074PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heshka JT, Pallechi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Welss PS (2008) A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med 10:19–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grover S, Stoffel EM, Mercado RC, Ford BM, Kohlman WK, Shannon KM, Conrad PG, Am Blanco, Terdiman JP, Gruber S, Chung DC, Syngal S (2009) Colorectal cancer risk perception on the basis of genetic test results in individuals at risk for Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol 27(24):3981–3986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hadley DW, Jenkins JF, Dimond E, de Carvalho M, Kirsch I, Palmer CG (2004) Colon cancer screening practices after genetic counseling and testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 22(1):39–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Collins V, Meiser B, Gaff C, St John DJ, Halliday J (2005) Screening and preventive behaviors 1 year after predictive genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 104:273–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gopie JP, Vasen HF, Tibben A (2012) Surveillance for hereditary cancer: does the benefit outweigh the psychological burden?-A systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 83(3):329–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hadley D, Ashida S, Jenkins J, Calzone K, Kirsch I, Koehly L (2011) Colonoscopy use following mutation detection in Lynch syndrome: exploring a role for cancer screening in adaptation. Clin Genet 79:321–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marteau TM, Weinman J (2006) Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Soc Sci Med 62(6):1360–1368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Michie S (2003) Understanding why negative genetic test results sometimes fail to reassure. Am J Med Genet 119A:340–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spielberger C, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R (1970) Manual for the state trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aro AR, Absetz SP, van den Elderen TM, van der Ploeg E, van der Kamp LJ (2000) False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress-breast cancer specific concern prevails longer. Eur J Cancer 36:1089–1097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Lodder LN, Duivenvoorden HJ, van Gool AR, Seynaeve C 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(20):3867–3874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ, Brocker-Vriends AH, van Asperen CJ, Sijmons RH et al (2007) Comparison of individuals opting for BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing with regard to coping, illness perceptions, illness experiences, family system characteristics and hereditary cancer distress. Patient Educ Couns 65(1):58–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katja Aktan-Collan
    • 1
    • 6
  • Helena Kääriäinen
    • 2
  • Heikki Järvinen
    • 3
  • Päivi Peltomäki
    • 1
  • Kirsi Pylvänäinen
    • 4
  • Jukka-Pekka Mecklin
    • 4
    • 5
  • Ari Haukkala
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Medical Genetics, Haartman Institute BiomedicumUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.National Institute for Health and WelfareHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Division of Gastroenterology, Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospital of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryJyväskylä Central HospitalJyväskyläFinland
  5. 5.Institute of Clinical MedicineUniversity of Eastern FinlandJyväskyläFinland
  6. 6.Department of Social ResearchUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations