Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1210–1219 | Cite as

Factors Influencing Clinical Follow-Up for Individuals with a Personal History of Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer and Previous Uninformative BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing

  • Sarah E. Chadwell
  • Hua He
  • Sara Knapke
  • Jaime Lewis
  • Rebecca Sisson
  • Jennifer Hopper
Original Research

Abstract

Genetic testing for inherited cancer risk has recently improved through the advent of multi-gene panels and the addition of deletion and duplication analysis of the BRCA genes. The primary aim of this study was to determine which factors influence the intent of individuals with a personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer and negative or uncertain BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing to return to a hereditary cancer program for additional genetic risk assessment, counseling, and testing. Surveys were sent to 1197 individuals and 257 were returned. Of those participants who were planning to return to clinic, most cited having family members who could benefit from the test result as the primary motivation to return. Many participants who were not planning to return to clinic cited the cost of testing as a barrier to return. Cost of testing and concerns about insurance coverage were the most commonly cited barriers for the group of participants who were undecided about returning to clinic. Results from this study may be used to guide re-contact efforts by clinicians to increase patient uptake to return to clinic for up-to-date genetic risk assessment, counseling, and testing.

Keywords

Motivations Barriers Return behavior BRCA negative Hereditary cancer Multi-gene panel testing Genetic testing Breast cancer Ovarian cancer 

Notes

Acknowledgements

All research activities were conducted while the first author was enrolled in the Genetic Counseling Program, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati and Division of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. Representatives from GeneDx were not involved in data collection or analysis. The project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, under Award Number 5UL1TR001425-02. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

The research team would like to thank Danielle Rolfes and Meghan Tipsword for their contributions to the research, including preparing and sending mailings, scheduling appointments, tracking updated patient contact information, and coding free-response data.

Funding information

Funding to conduct this research was provided by GeneDx.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Sara Knapke is an employee of GeneDx, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of OPKO Health, Inc.

Sarah E. Chadwell received a research grant from GeneDx, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of OPKO Health, Inc. to conduct this research.

Hua He, Jaime Lewis, Rebecca Sisson, and Jennifer Hopper declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human Studies and Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Animal Studies

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Supplementary material

10897_2018_241_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 36 kb)

References

  1. Augusto, E. F., Rosa, M. L., Cavalcanti, S. M., & Oliveira, L. H. (2013). Barriers to cervical cancer screening in women attending the family medical program in Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 287(1), 53–58.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2511-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K. A. (2003). Within-case and across case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13(6), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castera, L., Krieger, S., Rousselin, A., Legros, A., Baumann, J. J., Bruet, O., et al. (2014). Next-generation sequencing for the diagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer using genomic capture targeting multiple candidate genes. European Journal of Human Genetics, 22(11), 1305–1313.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2014.16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakos, A. D., Hutson, S. P., Loud, J. T., Peters, J. A., Giusti, R. M., & Greene, M. H. (2008). BRCA mutation-negative women from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: A qualitative study of the BRCA-negative experience. Health Expectations, 11(3), 220–231.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00494.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchberg, M. K., Fletcher, F. E., Vidrine, D. J., Levison, J., Peters, M. Y., Hardwicke, R., Yu, X., & Bell, T. K. (2015). A mixed-methods approach to understanding barriers to postpartum retention in care among low-income, HIV-infected women. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 29, 126–132.  https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2014.0227.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Fecteau, H., Vogel, K. J., Hanson, K., & Morrill-Cornelius, S. (2014). The evolution of cancer risk assessment in the era of next generation sequencing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23(4), 633–639.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9714-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Flores, K. G., Steffen, L. E., McLouth, C. J., Vicuna, B. E., Gammon, A., Kohlmann, W., et al. (2016). Factors associated with interest in gene-panel testing and risk communication preferences in women from BRCA1/2 negative families. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26, 480–490.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-0001-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Haanpaa, M., Pylkas, K., Moilanen, J.S., & Wingvist, R. (2013). Evaluation of the need for routine clinical testing of PALB2 c.1592delT mutation in BRCA negative Northern Finnish breast cancer families. BMC Medical Genetics, 14(82). http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/14/82. Accessed 28 Feb 2018.
  9. Hampel, H. (2009). Recontacting patients who have tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: how, who and why? Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18(6), 527–529.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-009-9254-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hiraki, S., Rinella, E. S., Schnabel, F., Oratz, R., & Ostrer, H. (2014). Cancer risk assessment using genetic panel testing: considerations for clinical application. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23(4), 604–617.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9695-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Howlader, N., Noone, A.M., Krapcho, M., Miller, D., Bishop, K., Altekruse, S.F., et al. (2016) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2013, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2013/, based on November 2015 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2016.
  12. Judkins, T., Rosenthal, E., Arnell, C., Burbidge, L. A., Geary, W., Barrus, T., Schoenberger, J., Trost, J., Wenstrup, R. J., & Roa, B. B. (2012). Clinical significance of large rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer, 118(21), 5210–5216.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27556.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Krainer, M., Silva-Arrieta, S., FitzGerald, M. G., Shimada, A., Ishioka, C., Kanamaru, R., MacDonald, D. J., Unsal, H., Finkelstein, D. M., Bowcock, A., Isselbacher, K. J., & Haber, D. A. (1997). Differential contributions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 to early-onset breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 336(20), 1416–1421.  https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199705153362003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kurian, A. W., Hare, E. E., Mills, M. A., Kingham, K. E., McPherson, L., Whittemore, A. S., McGuire, V., Ladabaum, U., Kobayashi, Y., Lincoln, S. E., Cargill, M., & Ford, J. M. (2014). Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32(19), 2001–2009.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.53.6607.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mauer, C. B., Pirzadeh-Miller, S. M., Robinson, L. D., & Euhus, D. M. (2014). The integration of next-generation sequencing panels in the clinical cancer genetics practice: an institutional experience. Genetics in Medicine, 16(5), 407–412.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Minion, L., Dolinsky, J., Chao, E., & Monk, B. (2014). Hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer, looking beyond BRCA1/BRCA2. Gynecologic Oncology, 135(2), 383–384.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.07.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moran, O., Nikitina, D., Royer, R., Poll, A., Metcalfe, K., Narod, S. A, et al. (2016). Revisiting breast cancer patients who previously tested negative for BRCA mutations using a 12-gene panel. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-4038-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Petrucelli, N., Daly, M. B., Pal, T. (2016). BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. 1998 Sep 4 [Updated 2016 Dec 15]. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993–2017. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1247/.Google Scholar
  20. Pratt, K. J., Collier, D. N., Walton, N. L., Lazorick, S., & Lamson, A. L. (2015). Predictors of follow-up for overweight youth and parents. Families, Systems & Health, 33, 55–60.  https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Susswein, L. R., Marshall, M. L., Nusbaum, R., Vogel Postula, K. J., Weissman, S. M., Yackowski, L., Vaccari, E. M., Bissonnette, J., Booker, J. K., Cremona, M. L., Gibellini, F., Murphy, P. D., Pineda-Alvarez, D. E., Pollevick, G. D., Xu, Z., Richard, G., Bale, S., Klein, R. T., Hruska, K. S., & Chung, W. K. (2016). Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variant prevalence among the first 10,000 patients referred for next-generation cancer panel testing. Genetics in Medicine, 18(8), 823–832.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Tung, N., Battelli, C., Allen, B., Kaldate, R., Bhatnagar, S., Bowles, K., Timms, K., Garber, J. E., Herold, C., Ellisen, L., Krejdovsky, J., DeLeonardis, K., Sedgwick, K., Soltis, K., Roa, B., Wenstrup, R. J., & Hartman, A. R. (2015). Frequency of mutations in individuals with breast cancer referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing using next-generation sequencing with a 25-gene panel. Cancer, 121(1), 25–33.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Vaccari, E., Yackowski, L., Hussong, M., Murphy, P., Cremona, M., Booker, J. et al. (2015). Characterizing the clinical presentation of individuals with pathogrnic variants in a breast/ovarian cancer gene panel: GeneDx.Google Scholar
  24. Wevers, A., Wigboldus, D. H., de Kort, W. L., van Baaren, R., & Veldhuizen, I. J. (2014). Characteristics of donors who do or do not return to give blood and barriers to their return. Blood Transfusion, 12(Suppl 1), s37–s43.  https://doi.org/10.2450/2013.0210-12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah E. Chadwell
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hua He
    • 2
  • Sara Knapke
    • 3
  • Jaime Lewis
    • 4
  • Rebecca Sisson
    • 2
  • Jennifer Hopper
    • 2
  1. 1.Genetic Counseling Program, College of MedicineUniversity of Cincinnati and Division of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Division of Human GeneticsCincinnati Children’s HospitalCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.Inherited Cancer, GeneDxGaithersburgUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Cincinnati College of MedicineCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations