ArticleFamilial cancer2015
Psychological distress related to BRCA testing in ovarian cancer patients.
Article in Familial cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychological aspects, risk and protective factors related to BRCA genetic testing: a review of the literature.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Pooled it
- A scalable new model of germline cancer genomic care delivery: Assessing psychological outcomes.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
- Reliability and validity of the multidimensional impact of cancer risk assessment (MICRA) questionnaire: Japanese version.Familial cancer · 2025Article
- Patients' Perceptions and Attitudes to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Mainstream genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer provides a solid basis for patients to make a well-informed decision about genetic testing.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Reflex BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumour genetic testing for high-grade serous ovarian cancer: streamlined for clinicians but what do patients think?Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Novel Interactive Tool for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment (Bright Pink Assess Your Risk): Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Knowledge and psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing among individuals with ovarian cancer.Familial cancer · 2022Article
- Article
- A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Consent for Genetic Testing Using an Oncologist- or Genetic Counselor-Mediated Model of Care.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Psychometric Properties of the MICRA Questionnaire in Portuguese Individuals Carrying SDHx Mutations.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020Article
- Genetic counseling of patients with ovarian carcinoma: acceptance, timing, and psychological wellbeing.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Observational
- Distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences associated with receiving information on personal genomic risk of melanoma.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- Patient-Centered Care in Breast Cancer Genetic Clinics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Impact of Panel Gene Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer on Patients.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An increasing demand for genetic testing has moved the procedure from highly selected at-risk individuals, now also including cancer patients for treatment associated testing. The heritable fraction of ovarian cancer is more than 10%, and our department has offered BRCA testing to such patients irrespective of family history since 2002. This study examined potential psychosocial distress associated with this procedure using The Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire and other patient-rated generic distress instruments. Patients were divided into four groups according to cancer risk: mutation carriers, own history of breast cancer and ovarian cancer, family history of breast cancer and/or ovarian cancer, and patients without family history. In a postal survey, 354 patients responded. Good acceptance of the MICRA was observed, and previously described good psychometric properties were confirmed. A significant association between MICRA total score and receiving a positive BRCA test result was found. No significant between-group differences were observed with generic distress instruments. Time since cancer diagnosis, test result, and survey showed no significant associations with MICRA scores. Internal consistencies of instruments were adequate. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed adequate fit indices for a three factor solution of the MICRA, but further refinement of the items should be considered. In conclusion, the specific types of worry and distress most relevant to receiving genetic testing irrespective of family history were not captured by the generic distress instruments. The MICRA was supported as a useful tool for detection of mental distress related to genetic testing and risk evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.