Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Factors associated with genetic counseling and BRCA testing in a population-based sample of young Black women with breast cancer

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Concerns about the potential for genomic advances to increase health disparities have been raised. Thus, it is important to assess referral and uptake of genetic counseling (GC) and testing in minority populations at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Black women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer ≤age 50 in 2009–2012 were recruited through the Florida State Cancer Registry 6–18 months following diagnosis and completed a baseline questionnaire. Summary statistics, Chi-square tests, and path modeling were conducted to examine which demographic and clinical variables were associated with referral and access to genetic services. Of the 440 participants, all met national criteria for GC, yet only 224 (51 %) were referred for or received GC and/or HBOC testing. Variables most strongly associated with healthcare provider referral for GC included having a college education (OR 2.1), diagnosis at or below age 45 (OR 2.0), and triple negative tumor receptor status (OR 1.7). The strongest association with receipt of GC and/or HBOC testing was healthcare provider referral (OR 7.9), followed by private health insurance at diagnosis (OR 2.8), and household income greater than $35,000 in the year prior to diagnosis (OR 2.0). Study findings suggest efforts are needed to improve genetic services access among a population-based sample of high-risk Black women. These results indicate that socioeconomic factors and physician referral patterns contribute to disparities in access to genetic services within this underserved minority population.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Society AC (2014) Cancer facts & figures 2013 & 2014. American Cancer Society, Inc. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/document/acspc-042725.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2014

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013) Breast cancer statistics. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/. Accessed 10 Jan 2014

  3. Filippini SE, Vega A (2013) Breast cancer genes: beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) 18:1358–1372

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Beggs AD, Hodgson SV (2009) Genomics and breast cancer: the different levels of inherited susceptibility. Eur J Hum Genet 17(7):855–856. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.235

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, Futreal PA, Harshman K, Tavtigian S, Liu Q, Cochran C, Bennett LM, Ding W et al (1994) A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 266(5182):66–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wooster R, Bignell G, Jea Lancaster (1995) Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature 378(6559):789–792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mavaddat N, Peock S, Frost D, Ellis S, Platte R, Fineberg E, Evans DG, Izatt L, Eeles RA, Adlard J, Davidson R, Eccles D, Cole T, Cook J, Brewer C, Tischkowitz M, Douglas F, Hodgson S, Walker L, Porteous ME, Morrison PJ, Side LE, Kennedy MJ, Houghton C, Donaldson A, Rogers MT, Dorkins H, Miedzybrodzka Z, Gregory H, Eason J, Barwell J, McCann E, Murray A, Antoniou AC, Easton DF (2013) Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(11):812–822. doi:10.1093/jnci/djt095

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, Risch HA, Eyfjord JE, Hopper JL, Loman N, Olsson H, Johannsson O, Borg A, Pasini B, Radice P, Manoukian S, Eccles DM, Tang N, Olah E, Anton-Culver H, Warner E, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Gorski B, Tulinius H, Thorlacius S, Eerola H, Nevanlinna H, Syrjakoski K, Kallioniemi OP, Thompson D, Evans C, Peto J, Lalloo F, Evans DG, Easton DF (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. doi:10.1086/375033

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Metcalfe K, Gershman S, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P, Tung N, Kim-Sing C, Olopade OI, Domchek S, McLennan J, Eisen A, Foulkes WD, Rosen B, Sun P, Narod SA (2011) Predictors of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer 104(9):1384–1392. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.120

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Roukos DH, Briasoulis E (2007) Individualized preventive and therapeutic management of hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 4(10):578–590

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Narod SA, Offit K (2005) Prevention and management of hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(8):1656–1663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. American College of O, Gynecologists, Bulletins–Gynecology ACoP, Genetics ACo, Society of Gynecologic O (2009) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 103: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 113(4):957–966. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181a106d4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Riley BD, Culver JO, Skrzynia C, Senter LA, Peters JA, Costalas JW, Callif-Daley F, Grumet SC, Hunt KS, Nagy RS, McKinnon WC, Petrucelli NM, Bennett RL, Trepanier AM (2012) Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 21(2):151–161. doi:10.1007/s10897-011-9462-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2014) Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/genetics_screening.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2014

  15. Robson ME, Storm CD, Weitzel J, Wollins DS, Offit K (2010) American society of clinical oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 28(5):893–901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wood ME, Kadlubek P, Pham TH, Wollins DS, Lu KH, Weitzel JN, Neuss MN, Hughes KS (2014) Quality of cancer family history and referral for genetic counseling and testing among oncology practices: a pilot test of quality measures as part of the American society of clinical oncology quality oncology practice initiative. J Clin Oncol 32(8):824–829. doi:10.1200/jco.2013.51.4661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Levy DE, Byfield SD, Comstock CB, Garber JE, Syngal S, Crown WH, Shields AE (2011) Underutilization of BRCA1/2 testing to guide breast cancer treatment: black and Hispanic women particularly at risk. Genet Med 13(4):349–355. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182091ba4

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Armstrong K, Micco E, Carney A, Stopfer J, Putt M (2005) Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. JAMA 293(14):1729–1736

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mai PL, Vadaparampil ST, Breen N, McNeel TS, Wideroff L, Graubard BI (2014) Awareness of cancer susceptibility genetic testing: the 2000, 2005, and 2010 National Health Interview Surveys. Am J Prev Med 46(5):440–448. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pagan JA, Su D, Li L, Armstrong K, Asch DA (2009) Racial and ethnic disparities in awareness of genetic testing for cancer risk. Am J Prev Med 37(6):524–530. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.07.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Moyer VA (2013) Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/m13-2747

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pal T, Rocchio E, Garcia A, Rivers D, Vadaparampil S (2011) Recruitment of black women for a study of inherited breast cancer using a cancer registry-based approach. Genet Test Mol Biomark 15(1–2):69–77. doi:10.1089/gtmb.2010.0098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Anderson B, McLosky J, Wasilevich E, Lyon-Callo S, Duquette D, Copeland G (2012) Barriers and facilitators for utilization of genetic counseling and risk assessment services in young female breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Epidemiol 2012:298745. doi:10.1155/2012/298745

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McCarthy AM, Bristol M, Fredricks T, Wilkins L, Roelfsema I, Liao K, Shea JA, Groeneveld P, Domchek SM, Armstrong K (2013) Are physician recommendations for BRCA1/2 testing in patients with breast cancer appropriate? A population-based study. Cancer. doi:10.1002/cncr.28268

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Shields AE, Burke W, Levy DE (2008) Differential use of available genetic tests among primary care physicians in the United States: results of a national survey. Genet Med 10(6):404–414. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181770184

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Matloff E, Caplan A (2008) Direct to confusion: lessons learned from marketing BRCA testing. Am J Bioeth 8(6):5–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hull SC, Prasad K (2001) Reading between the lines: direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic testing in the USA. Reprod Health Matters 9(18):44–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Radford C, Prince A, Lewis K, Pal T (2013) Factors which impact the delivery of genetic risk assessment services focused on inherited cancer genomics: expanding the role and reach of certified genetics professionals. J Genet Couns. doi:10.1007/s10897-013-9668-1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bowen DJ, Battuello KM, Raats M (2005) Marketing genetic tests: empowerment or snake oil? Health Educ Behav 32(5):676–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hogarth S, Javitt G, Melzer D (2008) The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 9:161–182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stuckey A, Febbraro T, Laprise J, Wilbur JS, Lopes V, Robison K (2014) Adherence patterns to national comprehensive cancer network guidelines for referral of women with breast cancer to genetics professionals. Am J Clin Oncol. doi:10.1097/COC.0000000000000073

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Murff HJ, Greevy RA, Syngal S (2007) The comprehensiveness of family cancer history assessments in primary care. Community Genet 10(3):174–180. doi:10.1159/000101759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Butel-Simoes GI, Spigelman AD (2014) Analysis of patient reports on the referral process to two NSW cancer genetic services. Fam Cancer 13(3):333–343. doi:10.1007/s10689-014-9710-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bellcross CA, Leadbetter S, Alford SH, Peipins LA (2013) Prevalence and healthcare actions of women in a large health system with a family history meeting the 2005 USPSTF recommendation for BRCA genetic counseling referral. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 22(4):728–735. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Thompson HS, Sussner K, Schwartz MD, Edwards T, Forman A, Jandorf L, Brown K, Bovbjerg DH, Valdimarsdottir HB (2012) Receipt of genetic counseling recommendations among black women at high risk for BRCA mutations. Genet Test Mol Biomark 16(11):1257–1262. doi:10.1089/gtmb.2012.0114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang G, Beattie MS, Ponce NA, Phillips KA (2011) Eligibility criteria in private and public coverage policies for BRCA genetic testing and genetic counseling. Genet Med 13(12):1045–1050. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e31822a8113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants through the Bankhead Coley Granting agency (IBG10-34199) and the American Cancer Society (RSG-11-268-01-CPPB). Support for Deborah Cragun’s time was provided by a NCI R25T training grant awarded to Moffitt Cancer Center (5R25CA147832-04). This work has been supported in part by the Biostatistics Core (5P30CA076292-16) and Survey Core at the Moffitt Cancer Center, a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center (P30-CA076292). Cancer data for this study (analysis) were provided by the Florida Department of Health, Florida Cancer Data System (FCDS). Cancer data are made available to aid public health surveillance and research to advance cancer control and prevention activities to better serve the population at risk for developing cancer and improve treatment for cancer patients. The contents of this study are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official view of the Florida Department of Health, Florida Cancer Data System. We thank the following members of our Community Advisory Panel for their valuable input: Joyce Austin, Sue Friedman, Benita Hayes, Evora Pimento, Peggie Sherry, Cheryl Clinton, Gwendolyn Dawson, Gloria Wood, Linda Paige, Deneen Wyman, Khaliah Fleming, and Valerie Poindexter.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Epidemiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Drive MRC-CANCONT, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA

    D. Cragun, D. Bonner, J. Kim, A. Gomez-Fuego, J. D. Garcia & Tuya Pal

  2. Women’s College Research Institute, Women’s College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    M. R. Akbari & S. A. Narod

  3. Health Outcomes and Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA

    S. T. Vadaparampil

Authors
  1. D. Cragun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Bonner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. R. Akbari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. A. Narod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Gomez-Fuego
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. D. Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. S. T. Vadaparampil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tuya Pal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuya Pal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cragun, D., Bonner, D., Kim, J. et al. Factors associated with genetic counseling and BRCA testing in a population-based sample of young Black women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 151, 169–176 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3374-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3374-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation