Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 421–437 | Cite as

Perceived Risk Following Melanoma Genetic Testing: A 2-Year Prospective Study Distinguishing Subjective Estimates from Recall

  • Lisa G. Aspinwall
  • Jennifer M. Taber
  • Wendy Kohlmann
  • Samantha L. Leaf
  • Sancy A. Leachman
Original Research

Abstract

A major goal of predictive genetic testing is to alert people to their risk before illness onset; however, little is known about how risk perceptions change following genetic testing and whether information is recalled accurately over time. In the United States, a CDKN2A/p16 mutation confers 76 % lifetime risk of melanoma. Following genetic counseling and test reporting, subjective risk estimates and recall of counselor-provided risk estimates were assessed 5 times over the next 2 years among 60 adult members of 2 extended CDKN2A/p16 kindreds. No sustained changes from baseline in risk perceptions were reported. Unaffected carriers (n = 15) consistently reported significantly lower subjective risk estimates (46 %) than they were actually given (76 %, p < 0.001) or recalled having been given (60 %, p < 0.001). Noncarriers’ (n = 27) risk estimates decreased following results disclosure, but rebounded, with both subjective and recalled estimates subsequently exceeding what they were told by the counselor (both ps < 0.001). Affected carriers’ (n = 18) risk estimates for developing a new melanoma corresponded well to counselor-provided information (p = 0.362). For all 3 patient groups, results were consistent across multiple risk measures and remained similar when demographic, phenotypic, and baseline behavioral contributors to melanoma risk were statistically controlled. These findings are consistent with other studies of risk perception, but additional studies of more diverse populations are needed to understand the reasons behind both the persistence of initial risk estimates and their divergence from information provided by the counselor during genetic counseling. Additionally, determining whether holding subjective risk perceptions that differ from counselor-provided information ultimately affects adherence to management recommendations will help guide the presentation of risk information in genetic counseling practice.

Keywords

Melanoma Perceived risk Genetic testing CDKN2A/p16 Genetic counseling 

References

  1. Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1998). Situated optimism: Specific outcome expectancies and self-regulation. In. M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 309–379.Google Scholar
  2. Aspinwall, L. G., Leaf, S., Dola, E., Kohlmann, W., & Leachman, S. (2008). CDKN2A/p16 genetic test reporting improves early detection intentions and practices in high-risk melanoma families. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 17(6), 1510–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aspinwall, L. G., Leaf, S., Kohlmann, W., Dola, E., & Leachman, S. (2009). Patterns of photoprotection following CDKN2A/p16 genetic test reporting and counseling. Journal of The American Academy of Dermatology, 60(5), 745–757.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aspinwall, L. G., Richter, L., & Hoffman, R. R. (2001). Understanding how optimism “works”: an examination of optimists’ adaptive moderation of belief and behavior. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: theory, research, and practice (pp. 217–238). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aspinwall, L. G., Taber, J. M., Leaf, S. L., Kohlmann, W., & Leachman, S. A. (2013a). Genetic testing for hereditary melanoma and pancreatic cancer: a longitudinal study of psychological outcome. Psychooncology, 22(2), 276–289.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Aspinwall, L. G., Taber, J. M., Leaf, S. L., Kohlmann, W., & Leachman, S. A. (2013b). Melanoma genetic counseling and test reporting improve screening adherence among unaffected carriers 2 years later. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 22(10), 1687–1697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergenmar, M., Hansson, J., & Brandberg, Y. (2009). Family members’ perceptions of genetic testing for malignant melanoma–a prospective interview study. European Journal of Oncology Nursing: The Official Journal of European Oncology Nursing Society, 13(2), 74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bishop, D., Demenais, F., Goldstein, A., Bergman, W., Bishop, J., Bressac-de Paillerets, B., et al. (2002). Geographical variation in the penetrance of CDKN2A mutations for melanoma. Journal of The National Cancer Institute, 94(12), 894–903.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braithwaite, D., Emery, J., Walter, F., Prevost, A., & Sutton, S. (2004). Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of The National Cancer Institute, 96(2), 122–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cannon-Albright, L. A., Goldgar, D. E., Meyer, L. J., Lewis, C. M., Anderson, D. E., Fountain, J. W., et al. (1992). Assignment of a locus for familial melanoma, MLM, to chromosome 9p13-022. Science, 258(5085), 1148–1152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 Education and Counseling, 55(2), 265–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Claes, E., Evers-Kiebooms, G., Denayer, L., Decruyenaere, M., Boogaerts, A., Philippe, K., et al. (2005). Predictive genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: psychological distress and illness representations 1 year following disclosure. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(5), 349–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Croyle, R., Loftus, E., Barger, S., Sun, Y., Hart, M., & Gettig, J. (2006). How well do people recall risk factor test results? Accuracy and bias among cholesterol screening participants. Health Psychology, 25(3), 425–432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Croyle, R. T., & Lerman, C. (1999). Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 59–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ditto, P. H., & Croyle, R. T. (1995). Understanding the impact of risk factor test results: insights from a basic research program. In R. T. Croyle (Ed.), Psychosocial effects of screening for disease prevention and detection (pp. 144–181). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fears, T. R., Guerry, D., Pfeiffer, R. M., Sagebiel, R. W., Elder, D. E., Halpern, A., et al. (2006). Identifying individuals at high risk of melanoma: a practical predictor of absolute risk. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24, 3590–3596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glanz, K., Volpicelli, K., Kanetsky, P. A., Ming, M. E., Schuchter, L. M., Jepson, C., et al. (2013). Melanoma genetic testing, counseling, and adherence to skin cancer prevention and detection behaviors. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 22, 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graham, J. (2009). Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grover, S., Stoffel, E. M., Mercado, R. C., Ford, B. M., Kohlman, W. K., Shannon, K. M., et al. (2009). Colorectal cancer risk perception on the basis of genetic test results in individuals at risk for lynch syndrome. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27(24), 3981–3986.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gurmankin, A., Domchek, S., Stopfer, J., Fels, C., & Armstrong, K. (2005). Patients’ resistance to risk information in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165(5), 523–529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansen, C. B., Wadge, L. M., Lowstuter, K., Boucher, K., & Leachman, S. A. (2004). Clinical germline genetic testing for melanoma. Lancet Oncology, 5(5), 314–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heshka, J. T., Palleschi, C., Howley, H., Wilson, B., & Wells, P. S. (2008). A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genetics in Medicine, 10(1), 19–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kamb, A., Shattuck-Eidens, D., Eeles, R., Liu, Q., Gruis, N. A., Ding, W., et al. (1994). Analysis of the p16 gene (CDKN2) as a candidate for the chromosome 9p melanoma susceptibility locus. Nature Genetics, 1, 23–26.Google Scholar
  24. Kasparian, N., Meiser, B., Butow, P., Simpson, J., & Mann, G. (2009). Genetic testing for melanoma risk: a prospective cohort study of uptake and outcomes among Australian families. Genetics in Medicine, 11(4), 265–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kefford, R. F., & Mann, G. J. (2003). Is there a role for genetic testing in patients with melanoma? Current Opinion in Oncology, 15, 157–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kefford, R. F., Newton Bishop, J. A., Tucker, M., Bressac-de Paillerets, B., Bianchi-Scarra, G., Bergman, W., et al. (2002). Genetic testing for melanoma. Lancet Oncology, 3(11), 653–654.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelly, K., Leventhal, H., Andrykowski, M., Toppmeyer, D., Much, J., Dermody, J., et al. (2005). Using the common sense model to understand perceived cancer risk in individuals testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Psycho-Oncology, 14(1), 34–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klein, W. M., & Weinstein, N. D. (1997). Social comparison and unrealistic optimism about personal risk. In B. P. Buunk & F. X. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping, and well-being: perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 25–61). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Leachman, S., Carucci, J., Kohlmann, W., Banks, K., Asgari, M., Bergman, W., et al. (2009). Selection criteria for genetic assessment of patients with familial melanoma. Journal of The American Academy of Dermatology, 61(4), 677. e1-14.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lerman, C., Lustbader, E., Rimer, B., Daly, M., Miller, S., Sands, C., et al. (1995). Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: a randomized trial. Journal of The National Cancer Institute, 87(4), 286–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lipkus, I., McBride, C., Pollak, K., Lyna, P., & Bepler, G. (2004). Interpretation of genetic risk feedback among African American smokers with low socioeconomic status. Health Psychology, 23(2), 178–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McQueen, A., Swank, P., Bastian, L., & Vernon, S. (2008). Predictors of perceived susceptibility of breast cancer and changes over time: a mixed modeling approach. Health Psychology, 27(1), 68–77.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Michie, S., Weinman, J., Miller, J., Collins, V., Halliday, J., & Marteau, T. (2002). Predictive genetic testing: high risk expectations in the face of low risk information. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25(1), 33–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ranby, K. W., Aiken, L. S., Gerend, M. A., & Erchull, M. J. (2010). Perceived susceptibility measures are not interchangeable: absolute, direct comparative, and indirect comparative risk. Health Psychology, 29, 20–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schafer, J.L. (1999). NORM: multiple imputation of incomplete multivariate data under a normal model (for Windows 95/98/NT)[computer program]. Version 2. Available from http://www.stat.psu.edu/~jls/misoftwa.html
  36. Schafer, J., & Graham, J. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sivell, S., Elwyn, G., Gaff, C., Clarke, A., Iredale, R., Shaw, C., et al. (2008). How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: Systematic review. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 17(1), 30–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smerecnik, C., Mesters, I., Verweij, E., de Vries, N., & de Vries, H. (2009). A systematic review of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18(3), 217–228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taber, J. M., Aspinwall, L. G., Kohlmann, W., Dow, R., & Leachman, S. A. (2010). Parental preferences for CDKN2A/p16 genetic testing of minors. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 823–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson, S. C., & Schlehofer, M. M. (2008). Control, denial, and heightened sensitivity reactions to personal threat: testing the generalizability of the threat orientation approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1070–1083.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. (1995). Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychology, 14(2), 132–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weinstein, N. D., & Nicolich, M. (1993). Correct and incorrect interpretations of correlations between risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Health Psychology, 12, 235–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiebe, D. J., & Korbel, C. (2003). Defensive denial, affect, and the self-regulation of health threats. In L. D. Cameron & H. Leventhal (Eds.), The self-regulation of health and illness behavior (pp. 184–203). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: a test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, 61, 113–134.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa G. Aspinwall
    • 1
  • Jennifer M. Taber
    • 1
  • Wendy Kohlmann
    • 3
  • Samantha L. Leaf
    • 1
  • Sancy A. Leachman
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of DermatologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Huntsman Cancer InstituteSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations