Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Heightened perception of breast cancer risk in young women at risk of familial breast cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Familial Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to explore the factors that influence perceived personal risk of developing breast cancer (BC) in younger women (<35) who are considering or have undergone bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM). Qualitative interviews guided by interpretative phenomenological analysis were conducted with 46 women who had a strong family history of BC and had either undergone (n = 26) or were considering (n = 20) BPM. Participants were recruited from Australia and New Zealand via hospitals, a genetics clinic, a research cohort, a registry and online. Three main themes were identified: information that increases fear of BC and death, underlying anxiety and fear and screening anxiety. A further two themes: relief following surgery and confusion about residual risk following surgery were identified. Younger women (<35) appeared to have heightened and sometimes inaccurate perceptions of their BC risk. They appeared less relieved of anxiety and fear of developing BC by BPM surgery, in comparison to previous research with older women (>40). Those who had undergone BPM seemed more anxious about their risk of developing BC than those who were still considering surgery. This research has important implications for practice, particularly improving communication of accurate risk statistics. Future research should examine why some women interpret information differently and explore the benefits of psychological consultation for very anxious women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2013) Breast Cancer. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

  2. Mavaddat N, Peock S, Frost D, Ellis S, Platte R, Fineberg E et al (2013) Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(11):812–822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ludwig KK, Neuner J, Butler A, Geurts JL, Kong AL (2016) Risk reduction and survival benefit of prophylactic surgery in BRCA mutation carriers, a systematic review. Am J Surg 212(4):660–669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Collins IM, Milne RL, Weideman PC, McLachlan S-A, Friedlander ML, Hopper JL et al (2013) Preventing breast and ovarian cancers in high-risk BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Med J Aust 199(10):680–683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Beattie MS, Crawford B, Lin F, Vittinghoff E, Ziegler J (2009) Uptake, time course, and predictors of risk-reducing surgeries in BRCA carriers. Genet Test Mol Biomark 13(1):51–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Evans DGR, Lalloo F, Ashcroft L, Shenton A, Clancy T, Baildam AD et al (2009) Uptake of risk-reducing surgery in unaffected women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer is risk, age, and time dependent. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 18(8):2318–2324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Skytte AB, Gerdes AM, Andersen M, Sunde L, Brøndum-Nielsen K, Waldstrøm M et al (2010) Risk-reducing mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy in unaffected BRCA mutation carriers: uptake and timing*. Clin Genet 77(4):342–349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cancer institute NSW (2009) Risk management for an unaffected female BRCA1 mutation carrier. https://www.eviq.org.au/Protocol/tabid/66/categoryid/66/id/170/Risk+Management+for+an+Unaffected+Female+BRCA1+Mutation+Carrier.aspx

  9. Tong A, Kelly S, Nusbaum R, Graves K, Peshkin BN, Valdimarsdottir HB et al (2015) Intentions for risk-reducing surgery among high-risk women referred for BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic counseling. Psycho-Oncology 24(1):33–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Glassey R, Ives A, Saunders C, Musiello T (2016) Decision making, psychological wellbeing and psychosocial outcomes for high risk women who choose to undergo bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: a review of the literature. Breast 28:130–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rutherford E, Kelly J, Lehane E, Livingstone V, Cotter B, Butt A et al (2016) Health literacy and the perception of risk in a breast cancer family history clinic. Surgeon 28(16):30025–30027

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fielden H, Brown SL, Saini P, Beesley H, Salmon P (2017) How do women at increased breast cancer risk perceive and decide between risks of cancer and risk-reducing treatments? A synthesis of qualitative research. Psycho-Oncology. doi:10.1002/pon.4349

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. van Driel CMG, Oosterwijk JC, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, van Asperen CJ, Zeijlmans van Emmichoven IA, de Vries J et al (2016) Psychological factors associated with the intention to choose for risk-reducing mastectomy in family cancer clinic attendees. Breast 30:66–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bebbington Hatcher M, Fallowfield L, A’Hern R (2001) The psychosocial impact of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: prospective study using questionnaires and semistructured interviews. BMJ 322(7278):76–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frost MH, Schaid DJ, Sellers TA, Slezak JM, Arnold PG, Woods JE et al (2000) Long-term satisfaction and psychological and social function following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA 284(3):319–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Metcalfe KA, Narod SA (2002) Breast cancer risk perception among women who have undergone prophylactic bilateral mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(20):1564–1569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Heiniger L, Butow PN, Coll J, Bullen T, Wilson J, Baylock B et al (2014) Long-term outcomes of risk-reducing surgery in unaffected women at increased familial risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Fam Cancer 14(1):105–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lodder LN, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, Klijn JG, Seynaeve C et al (2002) 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 73(2):97–112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brandberg Y, Sandelin K, Erikson S, Jurell G, Liljegren A, Lindblom A et al (2008) Psychological reactions, quality of life, and body image after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women at high risk for breast cancer: a prospective 1-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol 26(24):3943–3949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. den Heijer M, Seynaeve C, Timman R, Duivenvoorden HJ, Vanheusden K, Tilanus-Linthorst M et al (2012) Body image and psychological distress after prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction in genetically predisposed women: a prospective long-term follow-up study. Eur J Cancer 48(9):1263–1268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Payne DK, Biggs C, Tran KN, Borgen PI, Massie MJ (2000) Women’s regrets after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 7(2):150–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoskins LM, Roy KM, Greene MH (2012) Toward a new understanding of risk perception among young female BRCA1/2 “previvors”. Fam Syst Health 30(1):32–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hamilton R, Williams JK, Bowers BJ, Calzone K (2009) Life trajectories, genetic testing, and risk reduction decisions in 18–39 year old women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 18(2):147–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Newman BM, Newman PR (2006) Development through life: a psychosocial approach, 9 edn. Thomson Wadsworth, Stamford

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hamilton RJ, Innella NA, Bounds DT (2016) Living with genetic vulnerability: a life course perspective. J Genet Couns 25(1):49–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brunstrom K, Murray A, McAllister M (2016) Experiences of women who underwent predictive BRCA 1/2 mutation testing before the age of 30. J Genet Couns 25(1):90–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hallowell N, Baylock B, Heiniger L, Butow PN, Patel D, Meiser B et al (2012) Looking different, feeling different: women’s reactions to risk-reducing breast and ovarian surgery. Fam Cancer 11(2):215–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lloyd S, Watson M, Oaker G, Sacks N, Querci della Rovere U, Gui G (2000) Understanding the experience of prophylactic bilateral mastectomy: a qualitative study of ten women. Psycho-Oncology 9(6):473–485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Antoniou A, Pharoah PDP, Narod S, Risch HA, Eyfjord JE, Hopper JL et al (2003) 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 72(5):1117–1130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Smith JA (1996) Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychol Health 11(2):261–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Etchegary H, Miller F, Wilson B, Carroll J, Cappelli M (2009) Decision-making about inherited cancer risk: exploring dimensions of genetic responsibility. J Genet Couns 18(3):252–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre (2010) Advice about familial aspects of breast cancer and epithelial ovarian cancer: a guide for health professionals. http://canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/nbocc-bog-2010-web-a4-printable_504af02a673fd.pdf

  33. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1):59–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Smith JA, Osborn M (2008) Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Breakwell GM (ed) Doing social psychology research, 1st edn. The British Psychological Society and Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bebbington Hatcher M, Fallowfield L (2003) A qualitative study looking at the psychosocial implications of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Breast 12(1):1–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rania N, Migliorini L (2015) “Naked genes” as health psychological innovation: a challenge for research and intervention. Proced-Soc Behav Sci 165:78–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dean M (2016) “It’s not if I get cancer, it’s when I get cancer”: BRCA-positive patients’ (un)certain health experiences regarding hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk. Soc Sci Med 163:21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bresser P, Seynaeve C, Van Gool A, Niermeijer M, Duivenvoorden H, van Dooren S et al (2007) The course of distress in women at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer due to an (identified) genetic susceptibility who opt for prophylactic mastectomy and/or salpingo-oophorectomy. Eur J Cancer 43(1):95–103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Glassey R, Saunders C, Hardcastle SJ (2017) Commentary: Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy is the safest strategy in BRCA1 carriers. Front Psychol 8(121):1–3

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the women who participated in this study, Genetic Services of Western Australia and the two hospitals involved for their help in recruitment. We also thank The University of Western Australia who awarded a University Postgraduate Award to a PhD student for this research. This research was supported by Register4 through its members’ participation in research and/or provision of samples and information. We wish to thank Heather Thorne, Eveline Niedermayr, the kConFab research nurses and staff, the staff of the Family Cancer Clinics, and the Clinical Follow Up Study (which received funding from the NHMRC, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Cancer Australia, and the National Institute of Health (USA)) for their contributions to this resource, and the families who contribute to kConFab. kConFab is supported by a grant from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia.

Funding

The funding body in the acknowledgements did not contribute to this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, M507, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Perth, WA, Australia

    Rachael Glassey & Christobel Saunders

  2. School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

    Moira O’Connor & Sarah J. Hardcastle

  3. CaPCREU, Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    Angela Ives

  4. Genetic Services of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    Sarah O’Sullivan

Authors
  1. Rachael Glassey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Moira O’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela Ives
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christobel Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sarah J. Hardcastle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

kConFab Investigators

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachael Glassey.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glassey, R., O’Connor, M., Ives, A. et al. Heightened perception of breast cancer risk in young women at risk of familial breast cancer. Familial Cancer 17, 15–22 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-017-0001-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-017-0001-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation