Involvement and Influence of Healthcare Providers, Family Members, and Other Mutation Carriers in the Cancer Risk Management Decision-Making Process of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

Journal of Genetic Counseling volume 27, pages1291–1301(2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Deciding between increased cancer screening or prophylactic surgery and the timing of such procedures can be a difficult and complex process for women with BRCA mutations. There are gaps in our understanding of involvement of others in the decision-making process for women with BRCA mutations. This study evaluated the management decision-making process of women with BRCA mutations, focusing on the involvement of others. Grounded theory was used to analyze and code risk management decision-making information from interviews with 20 BRCA mutation carriers. Unaffected at-risk participants with a BRCA mutation, those under age 40, and those with no children described having a difficult time making risk management decisions. Physicians were an integral part of the decision-making process by providing decisional support and management recommendations. Family members and other mutation carriers filled similar yet distinct roles by providing experiential information as well as decisional and emotional support for carriers. Participants described genetic counselors as short-term providers of risk information and management recommendations. The study findings suggest that unaffected at-risk women, women under 40, and those who do not have children may benefit from additional support and information during the decision-making process. Genetic counselors are well trained to help women through this process and connect them with resources, and may be under-utilized in long-term follow-up for women with a BRCA mutation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (2015). Practice-based competencies for genetic counselors. http://www.gceducation.org/Documents/ACGC%20Core%20Competencies%20Brochure_15_Web.pdf

  2. Arden-Jones, A., & Eeles, R. A. (2004). Development in clinical practice: follow up clinic for BRCA mutation carriers: a case study highlighting the “virtual clinic”. Heredity Cancer Clinical Practice, 2, 77–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bancroft, E. K., Lock, I., Arden-Jones, A., D'Mello, L., McReynolds, K., Lennard, F., et al. (2010). The carrier clinic: an evaluation of a novel clinic dedicated to follow-up of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers-implications for oncogenetics practice. Journal of Medical Genetics, 47(7), 486–491.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chai, X., Friebel, T. M., Singer, C. F., Evans, D. G., Lynch, H. T., Isaacs, C., Garber, J. E., Neuhausen, S. L., Matloff, E., Eeles, R., Tung, N., Weitzel, J. N., Couch, F. J., Hulick, P. J., Ganz, P. A., Daly, M. B., Olopade, O. I., Tomlinson, G., Blum, J. L., Domchek, S. M., Chen, J., & Rebbeck, T. R. (2014). Use of risk-reducing surgeries in a prospective cohort of 1,499 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 148(2), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3134-0.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Connors, L. M., Voian, N., Shi, Y., Lally, R. M., & Edge, S. (2014). Decision making after BRCA genetic testing down the road of transition. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 18(3), E58–E63. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.CJON.E58-E63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dean, M., & Davidson, L. (2016). Previvors’ uncertainty management strategies for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Health Communication, 33, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1250187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Engel, N., Gordon, P., Thull, D., Dudley, B., Herstine, J., Jankowitz, R., & Zorn, K. (2012). A multidisciplinary clinic for individualizing management of patients at increased risk for breast and gynecologic cancer. Familial Cancer, 11, 419–427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Firth, C., Jacobs, C., Evison, M., Pichert, G., Izatt, L., & Hunter, M. S. (2011). Novel one-stop multidisciplinary follow-up clinic for BRCA1/2 carriers: Patient satisfaction and decision making. Psycho-Oncology, 20(12), 1301–1308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Flippo-Morton, T., Walsh, K., Chambers, K., Amacker-North, L., White, B., Sarantou, T., Boselli, D., & White, R. (2015). Surgical decision making in the BRCA-positive population: Institutional experience and comparison with recent literature. The Breast Journal, 22(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gahm, J., Wickman, M., & Brandberg, Y. (2010). Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with inherited risk of breast cancer—prevalence of pain and discomfort, impact on sexuality, quality of life and feelings of regret two years after surgery. The Breast, 19(6), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2010.05.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hamilton, R., Williams, J. K., Bowers, B. J., & 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. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-008-9200-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hesse-Biber, S. (2014). The genetic testing experience of BRCA-positive women: deciding between surveillance and surgery. Qualitative Health Research, 24(6), 773–789. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314529666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoffman, R. M., Elmore, J. G., Fairfield, K. M., Gerstein, B. S., Levin, C. A., & Pignone, M. P. (2014). Lack of shared decision making in cancer screening discussions: results from a national survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 47(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoskins, L. M., & Werner-Lin, A. (2013). A multi-case report of the pathways to and through genetic testing and cancer risk management for BRCA mutation-positive women aged 18-25. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9521-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hovick, S. R., Yamasaki, J. S., Burton-Chase, A. M., & Peterson, S. K. (2015). Patterns of family health history communication among older African American adults. Journal of Health Communication, 20(1), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.908984.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Howard, A. F., Balneaves, L. G., Bottorff, J. L., & Rodney, P. (2011). Preserving the self: the process of decision making about hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer risk reduction. Qualitative Health Research, 21(4), 502–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310387798.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Josephson, U., Wickman, M., & Sandelin, K. (2000). Initial experiences of women from hereditary breast cancer families after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: a retrospective study. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO), 26(4), 351–356. https://doi.org/10.1053/ejso.1999.0897.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kenen, R. H., Shapiro, P. J., Friedman, S., & Coyne, J. C. (2007). Peer-support in coping with medical uncertainty: discussion of oophorectomy and hormone replacement therapy on a web-based message board. Psychooncology, 16(8), 763–771.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Klitzman, R., & Chung, W. (2010). The process of deciding about prophylactic surgery for breast and ovarian cancer: patient questions, uncertainties, and communication. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 152A(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.33068.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Lautenbach, D. M., Christensen, K. D., Sparks, J. A., & Green, R. C. (2013). Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 14, 491–513. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-092010-110722.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leonarczyk, T. J., & Mawn, B. E. (2015). Cancer risk management decision making for BRCA+ women. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 37(1), 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945913519870.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Metcalfe, K., Liede, A., Hoodfar, E., Scott, A., Foulkes, W., & Narod, S. (2000). An evaluation of needs of female BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers undergoing genetic counselling. Journal of Medical Genetics, 37, 866–874.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Metcalfe, K. A., Birenbaum-Carmeli, D., Lubinski, J., Gronwald, J., Lynch, H., Moller, P., & Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. (2008). International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. International Journal of Cancer, 122(9), 2017–2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.23340.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Metcalfe, K. A., Dennis, C. L., Poll, A., Armel, S., Demsky, R., Carlsson, L., et al. (2017). Effect of decision aid for breast cancer prevention on decisional conflict in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: a multisite, randomized, controlled trial. Genetics in Medicine, 19, 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.108.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2016). Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

  28. Pichert, G., Jacobs, C., Jacobs, I., Menon, U., Manchanda, R., Johnson, M., et al. (2010). Novel one-stop multidisciplinary follow-up clinic significantly improves cancer risk management in BRCA1/2 carriers. Familial Cancer, 9(3), 313–319.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ray, J. A., Loescher, L. J., & Brewer, M. (2005). Risk-reduction surgery decisions in high-risk women seen for genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(6), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-5833-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Resta, R., Biesecker, B. B., Bennett, R. L., Blum, S., Hahn, S. E., Strecker, M. N., & Williams, J. L. (2006). A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force report. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-9014-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Scheuer, L., Kauff, N., Robson, M., Kelly, B., Barakat, R., Satagopan, J., & Offit, K. (2002). Outcome of preventive surgery and screening for breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 20(5), 1260–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Strauss, A., & Corbett, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Underhill, M. L., & Crotser, C. B. (2014). Seeking balance: decision support needs of women without cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23(3), 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9667-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Werner-Lin, A. (2008). Formal and informal support needs of young women with BRCA mutations. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 26(4), 111–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Westin, S. N., Sun, C. C., Lu, K. H., Schmeler, K. M., Soliman, P. T., Lacour, R. A., & Bodurka, D. C. (2011). Satisfaction with ovarian carcinoma risk-reduction strategies among women at high risk for breast and ovarian carcinoma. Cancer, 117(12), 2659–2667. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25820.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted as part of Athena Puski’s genetic counseling training. We thank Jessica Bachman and Phokeng Dailey for their assistance in coding and data collection.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the NCATS or the National Institutes of Health.

Funding

This project was funded in part by Nationwide Children’s Hospital, grant P30 CA016058 from the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD and by Award Number UL1TR001070 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Athena Puski, Leigha Senter & Amanda Ewart Toland

  2. Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 21602 PFP, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

    Athena Puski

  3. School of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Shelly Hovick

  4. Department of Cancer Biology and Genetics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Amanda Ewart Toland

Authors
  1. Athena Puski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shelly Hovick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leigha Senter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amanda Ewart Toland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Athena Puski.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Athena Puski, Shelly Hovick, and Amanda Ewart Toland declare that they have no conflict of interest. Leigha Senter is a consultant for AstraZeneca and received a speaker honorarium from Ambry Genetics.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 93 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Puski, A., Hovick, S., Senter, L. et al. Involvement and Influence of Healthcare Providers, Family Members, and Other Mutation Carriers in the Cancer Risk Management Decision-Making Process of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. J Genet Counsel 27, 1291–1301 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-018-0254-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cancer risk management
  • Decision-making
  • HBOC
  • BRCA1
  • BRCA2
  • Genetic counselor