Universal BRCA1/BRCA2 Testing for Ovarian Cancer Patients is Welcomed, but with Care: How Women and Staff Contextualize Experiences of Expanded Access
Decreasing costs of genetic testing and advances in treatment for women with cancer with germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations have heralded more inclusive genetic testing programs. The Genetic Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (GTEOC) Study, investigates the feasibility and acceptability of offering genetic testing to all women recently diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (universal genetic testing or UGT). Study participants and staff were interviewed to: (i) assess the impact of UGT (ii) integrate patients’ and staff perspectives in the development of new UGT programs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve GTEOC Study participants and five members of staff involved in recruiting them. The transcripts were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. There are two super-ordinate themes: motivations and influences around offers of genetic testing and impacts of genetic testing in ovarian cancer patients. A major finding is that genetic testing is contextualized within the broader experiences of the women; the impact of UGT was minimized in comparison with the ovarian cancer diagnosis. Women who consent to UGT are motivated by altruism and by their relatives’ influence, whilst those who decline are often considered overwhelmed or fearful. Those without a genetic mutation are usually reassured by this result, whilst those with a genetic mutation must negotiate new uncertainties and responsibilities towards their families. Our findings suggest that UGT in this context is generally acceptable to women. However, the period shortly after diagnosis is a sensitive time and some women are emotionally overburdened. UGT is considered a ‘family affair’ and staff must acknowledge this.
KeywordsUK BRCA1 BRCA2 Genetic counseling Interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) Ovarian cancer Oncology
We would like to thank the patients and clinical staff who took part in this study. Members of the GTEOC Study Group: Inga Plaskocinska, James Drummond, Edward Thompson, Vanessa Buchanan, Barbara Newcombe, Charlotte Hodgkin, Elisa Barter, Paul Ridley, Rita Ng, Suzanne Miller, Adela Dann, Victoria Licence, Hayley Webb, Li Tee Tan, Margaret Daly, Sarah Ayers, Barnaby Rufford, Helena Earl, Christine Parkinson, Timothy Duncan, Mercedes Jimenez-Linan, Gurdeep S. Sagoo, Stephen Abbs and Paul Pharoah. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.
*We would like to thank Alicja Doroszuk for her support in transcribing the data.
This work was supported by Target Ovarian Cancer grant number T005MT. Marc Tischkowitz was supported by funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007Y2013)/ European Research Council (Grant No. 310018).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Hannah Shipman, Samantha Flynn, Carey F MacDonald-Smith, James Brenton, Robin Crawford, Marc Tischkowitz and Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams declare that they have no conflict 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.
No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
- Augestad, M. T., Høberg-Vetti, H., Bjorvatn, C., & Sekse, R. J. (2017). Identifying needs: A qualitative study of women’s experiences regarding rapid genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the DNA BONus study. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26(1), 182–189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Faden, R. R., & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Gelmon, K. A., Tischkowitz, M., Mackay, H., Swenerton, K., Robidoux, A., Tonkin, K., et al. (2011). Olaparib in patients with recurrent high-grade serous or poorly differentiated ovarian carcinoma or triple-negative breast cancer: A phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-randomised study. Lancet Oncology, 12(9), 852–861.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Giddens, A. (1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kauff, N. D., Domchek, S. M., Friebel, T. M., Robson, M. E., Lee, J., Garber, J. E., et al. (2008). Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast and gynecologic cancer: A multicenter, prospective study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26(8), 1331–1337.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Ledermann, J., Harter, P., Gourley, C., Friedlander, M., Vergote, I., Rustin, G., et al. (2014). Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer: A preplanned retrospective analysis of outcomes by BRCA status in a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncology, 15(8), 852–861.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Meiser, B., Gleeson, M., Kasparian, N., Barlow-Stewart, K., Ryan, M., Watts, K., et al. (2012). There is no decision to make: Experiences and attitudes toward treatment-focused genetic testing among women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 124(1), 153–157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2016). Olaparib for maintenance treatment of relapsed, platinum-sensitive, BRCA mutation-positive ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer after response to second-line or subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy. NICE technology appraisal guidance [TA381].Google Scholar
- Pietkiewicz, I., & Smith, J. A. (2012). Praktyczny przewodnik interpretacyjnej analizy fenomenologicznej w badaniach jakościowych w psychologii. Czasopismo Psychologiczne, 18(2), 361–369.Google Scholar
- Plaskocinska, I., Shipman, H., Drummond, J., Thompson, E., Buchanan, V., Newcombe, B., et al. (2016). New paradigms for BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in women with ovarian cancer: Results of the genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (GTEOC) study. Journal of Medical Genetics, 53(10), 655–661.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Schlich-Bakker, K. J., Wárlám-Rodenhuis, C., van Echtelt, J., van den Bout, J., Ausems, M. G., & ten Kroode, H. F. (2006). Short term psychological distress in patients actively approached for genetic counselling after diagnosis of breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 42(16), 2722–2728.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schlich-Bakker, K. J., Ausems, M. G., Schipper, M., ten Kroode, H. F., Wárlám-Rodenhuis, C. C., & van den Bout, J. (2008). BRCA1/2 mutation testing in breast cancer patients: A prospective study of the long-term psychological impact of approach during adjuvant radiotherapy. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 109(3), 507–514.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shinebourne, P. (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In N. Frost (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology: Combining core approaches (pp. 44–65). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Smith, J. A., Jarman, M., & Osborn, M. (1999). Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. In M. Murray & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Weavers, M. R., Aaronson, N. K., Verhoef, S., Bleiker, E. M. A., Hahn, D. E. E., Kuenen, M. A., et al. (2014). Impact of rapid genetic counselling and testing on the decision to undergo immediate or delayed prophylactic mastectomy in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: Findings from a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Cancer, 110(4), 1081–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Weavers, M. R., Ausems, M., Verhoef, S., Bleiker, E. M., Hahn, D. E., Brouwer, T., et al. (2016). Does rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients cause additional psychosocial distress? Results from a randomized clinical trial. Genetics in Medicine, 18(2), 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zilliacus, E., Meiser, B., Gleeson, M., Watts, K., Tucker, K., Lobb, E. A., et al. (2012). Are we being overly cautious? A qualitative inquiry into the experiences and perceptions of treatment-focused germline BRCA genetic testing amongst women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(11), 2949–2958.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar