Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Men in the women’s world of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer—a systematic review

  • Published:
Familial Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Little is known about men seeking genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). We review the sparse literature on men attending such genetic consultations. Two main themes are identified: the women’s influence on the genetic counseling process, and the psychological impact on men. The women in the HBOC families have an influence on the men’s decision to request genetic testing, and they take the leading role in communicating genetic information. With respect to psychological impact, the men suffer from grief and fear of developing cancer, and they seem to use avoidance as a coping strategy. Carrier males experience feelings of guilt because they might have passed on a mutation to their children. Non-carriers experience test-related stress if their siblings tested positive. Mutation status may have an impact on reproductive issues. These findings are discussed in light of gender issues and literature concerning men’s health behavior. Further studies are needed to provide optimal care for men seeking genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

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. Lux MP, Fasching PA, Beckmann MW (2006) Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: review and future perspectives. J Mol Med 84(1):16–28. doi:10.1007/s00109-005-0696-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Levy-Lahad E, Friedman E (2007) Cancer risks among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer 96(1):11–15. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603535

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Liede A, Karlan BY, Narod SA (2004) Cancer risks for male carriers of germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a review of the literature. J Clin Oncol 22(4):735–742. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.05.055

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hayat MJ, Howlader N, Reichman ME et al (2007) Cancer statistics, trends, and multiple primary cancer analyses from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER). Program Oncol 12(1):20–37

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lerman C, Hughes C, Lemon SJ et al (1998) What you don’t know can hurt you: adverse psychologic effects in members of BRCA1-linked and BRCA2-linked families who decline genetic testing. J Clin Oncol 16(5):1650–1654

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Green J, Richards M, Murton F et al (1997) Family communication and genetic counselling: the case of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 6:45–60. doi:10.1023/A:1025611818643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. d’Agincourt-Canning L (2001) Experiences of genetic risk: disclosure and the gendering of responsibility. Bioethics 15(3):231–247. doi:10.1111/1467-8519.00234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Forrest K, Simpson SA, Wilson BJ et al (2003) To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Clin Genet 64(4):317–326. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0004.2003.00142.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hallowell N, Arden-Jones A, Eeles R et al (2006) Guilt, blame and responsibility: men’s understanding of their role in the transmission of BRCA1/2 mutations within their family. Sociol Health Illn 28(7):969–988

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hallowell N, Ardern-Jones A, Eeles R et al (2005) Communication about genetic testing in families of male BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers: patterns, priorities and problems. Clin Genet 67(6):492–502. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2005.00443.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hallowell N, Ardern-Jones A, Eeles R et al (2005) Men’s decision-making about predictive BRCA1/2 testing: the role of family. J Genet Couns 14(3):207–217. doi:10.1007/s10897-005-0384-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McAllister MF, Evans DG, Ormiston W et al (1998) Men in breast cancer families: a preliminary qualitative study of awareness and experience. J Med Genet 35(9):739–744

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dudok de Wit AC, Tibben A, Frets PG et al (1996) Males at-risk for the BRCA1 gene, the psychological impact. Psychooncology 5:251–257. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1611(199609)5:3<;251::AID-PON225>;3.0.CO;2-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Daly PA, Nolan C, Green A et al (2003) Predictive testing for BRCA1 and 2 mutations: a male contribution. Ann Oncol 14(4):549–553. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdg164

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lodder L, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW et al (2001) Men at risk of being a mutation carrier for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer: an exploration of attitudes and psychological functioning during genetic testing. Eur J Hum Genet 9(7):492–500. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200668

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Liede A, Metcalfe K, Hanna D et al (2000) Evaluation of the needs of male carriers of mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 who have undergone genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet 67(6):1494–1504. doi:10.1086/316907

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. d’Agincourt-Canning L, Baird P (2006) Genetic testing for hereditary cancers: the impact of gender on interest, uptake and ethical considerations. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 58(2):114–123. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2006.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stroup AM, Smith KR (2007) Familial effects of BRCA1 genetic mutation testing: changes in perceived family functioning. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16(1):135–141. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0178

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith KR, West JA, Croyle RT et al (1999) Familial context of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: moderating effect of siblings’ test results on psychological distress one to two weeks after BRCA1 mutation testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8(4 Pt 2):385–392

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith KR, Ellington L, Chan AY et al (2004) Fertility intentions following testing for a BRCA1 gene mutation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13(5):733–740

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ormondroyd E, Moynihan C, Watson M et al (2007) Disclosure of genetics research results after the death of the patient participant: a qualitative study of the impact on relatives. J Genet Couns 16(4):527–538. doi:10.1007/s10897-007-9088-1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wagner Costalas J, Itzen M, Malick J et al (2003) Communication of BRCA1 and BRCA2 results to at-risk relatives: a cancer risk assessment program’s experience. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 119(1):11–18. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.10003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Culler DD, Silberg J, Vanner-Nicely L et al (2002) Factors influencing men’s interest in gene testing for prostate cancer susceptibility. J Genet Couns 11:383–398. doi:10.1023/A:1016889614588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Weinrich S, Royal C, Pettaway CA et al (2002) Interest in genetic prostate cancer susceptibility testing among African American men. Cancer Nurs 25(1):28–34. doi:10.1097/00002820-200202000-00007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Daly MB (2008) The impact of social roles on the experience of men in brca1/2 families: implications for counseling. J Genet Couns. doi:10.1007/s10897-008-9183-y

    Google Scholar 

  27. Graham H, Stacey M (1985) Providers, negotiators and mediators: women as the hidden carers

  28. Craufurd D, Dodge A, Kerzin-Storrar L et al (1989) Uptake of presymptomatic predictive testing for Huntington’s disease. Lancet 2(8663):603–605. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(89)90722-8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tambor ES, Bernhardt BA, Chase GA et al (1994) Offering cystic fibrosis carrier screening to an HMO population: factors associated with utilization. Am J Hum Genet 55(4):626–637

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Segal J, Esplen MJ, Toner B et al (2004) An investigation of the disclosure process and support needs of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Am J Med Genet A 125(3):267–272. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.20485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Metcalfe A, Coad J, Plumridge GM et al (2008) Family communication between children and their parents about inherited genetic conditions: a meta-synthesis of the research. Eur J Hum Genet 16(10):1193–1200. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tercyak KP, Hughes C, Main D et al (2001) Parental communication of BRCA1/2 genetic test results to children. Patient Educ Couns 42(3):213–224. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00122-1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Gaff CL, Collins V, Symes T et al (2005) Facilitating family communication about predictive genetic testing: probands’ perceptions. J Genet Couns 14(2):133–140. doi:10.1007/s10897-005-0412-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM (2002) Health behavior and health education theory, research, and practice, 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fuhrer R, Stansfeld SA (2002) How gender affects patterns of social relations and their impact on health: a comparison of one or multiple sources of support from “close persons”. Soc Sci Med 54(5):811–825. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00111-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Richards M (1996) Families, kinship and genetics. In: Marteau T, Richards M (eds) The troubled helix: social and psychological implications of the new human genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  37. Keenen KF, Simpson SA, Wilson BJ et al (2005) It’s their blood not mine: Who’s responsible for (not) telling relatives about genetic risk? Health Risk Soc 7(3):209–226. doi:10.1080/13698570500229606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McAllister M (1999) Predictive testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: a b-theory of engagemant. PhD thesis. Cambridge University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  39. Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A et al (2003) Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet A 116(1):11–19. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.10868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bratt O, Damber JE, Emanuelsson M et al (2000) Risk perception, screening practice and interest in genetic testing among unaffected men in families with hereditary prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 36(2):235–241. doi:10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00272-5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Jacobsen PB, Lamonde LA, Honour M et al (2004) Relation of family history of prostate cancer to perceived vulnerability and screening behavior. Psychooncology 13(2):80–85. doi:10.1002/pon.760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Harper PS, Lim C, Craufurd D (2000) Ten years of presymptomatic testing for Huntington’s disease: the experience of the UK Huntington’s disease prediction consortium. J Med Genet 37(8):567–571. doi:10.1136/jmg.37.8.567

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Blandy C, Chabal F, Stoppa-Lyonnet D et al (2003) Testing participation in BRCA1/2-positive families: initiator role of index cases. Genet Test 7(3):225–233. doi:10.1089/109065703322537241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Daly MB (2007) Addressing the needs of men in BRCA1/2 families. 30th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, Texas, USA 2007

  45. Decruyenaere M, Evers-Kiebooms G, Welkenhuysen M et al (2000) Cognitive representations of breast cancer, emotional distress and preventive health behaviour: a theoretical perspective. Psychooncology 9(6):528–536. doi:10.1002/1099-1611(200011/12)9:6<;528::AID-PON486<;3.0.CO;2-#

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Barton A (2000) Men’s health: a cause for concern. Nurs Stand 15(10):47–52 quiz 4–5

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mahalik JR, Burns SM, Syzdek M (2007) Masculinity and perceived normative health behaviors as predictors of men’s health behaviors. Soc Sci Med 64(11):2201–2209. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. McVittie C, Willock J (2006) “You can’t fight windmills”: how older men do health, ill health, and masculinities. Qual Health Res 16(6):788–801. doi:10.1177/1049732306288453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ et al (2006) Experience of parental cancer in childhood is a risk factor for psychological distress during genetic cancer susceptibility testing. Ann Oncol 17(7):1090–1095. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ et al (2007) The common sense model of self-regulation and psychological adjustment to predictive genetic testing: a prospective study. Psychooncology 16(12):1121–1129. doi:10.1002/pon.1178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ et al (2007) Comparison of individuals opting for BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing with regard to coping, illness perceptions, illness experiences, family system characteristics and hereditary cancer distress. Patient Educ Couns 65(1):58–68. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.05.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Griffin J (1986) Well-being its meaning measurement and moral importance. Clarendon press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  53. Braithwaite D, Emery J, Walter F et al (2004) Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(2):122–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Watson M, Lloyd S, Davidson J et al (1999) The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 79(5–6):868–874. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6690139

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL (1992) Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 267(16):2221–2226. doi:10.1001/jama.267.16.2221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Baker DL, Schuette L, Uhlman WR (1998) A guide to genetic counseling. Wiley-Liss Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kessler S, Resta RG (2000) Psyche and helix psychological aspects of genetic counseling. Wiley-Liss, New York

    Google Scholar 

  58. Godard B, Pratte A, Dumont M et al (2007) Factors associated with an individual’s decision to withdraw from genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: implications for counseling. Genet Test 11(1):45–54. doi:10.1089/gte.2006.9998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. McInerney-Leo A, Biesecker BB, Hadley DW et al (2005) BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families II: impact on relationships. Am J Med Genet A 133(2):165–169. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.30566

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Medical Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

    Nina Strømsvik & Nina Øyen

  2. Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Nina Strømsvik, Målfrid Råheim, Nina Øyen & Eva Gjengedal

  3. Department of Medical Genetics, University Hospital of North-Norway, 9038, Tromsø, Norway

    Nina Strømsvik

Authors
  1. Nina Strømsvik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Målfrid Råheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nina Øyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eva Gjengedal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina Strømsvik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Strømsvik, N., Råheim, M., Øyen, N. et al. Men in the women’s world of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer—a systematic review. Familial Cancer 8, 221–229 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9232-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9232-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation