Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30919324›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2019

Experiences and interpretations of BRCA1/2 testing among women affected by breast or ovarian cancer who received a negative result.

Lesley Stafford, Alison Flehr, Fiona Judd, Geoffrey J Lindeman, Penny Gibson, Angela Komiti, G Bruce Mann, Maira Kentwell

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lesley StaffordCentre for Women's Mental Health, Royal Women's Hospital, c/o Grattan Street and Flemington Road, Parkville, 3052, Australia. Lesley.stafford@thewomens.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6460-9881
Alison FlehrCentre for Women's Mental Health, Royal Women's Hospital, c/o Grattan Street and Flemington Road, Parkville, 3052, Australia.
Fiona JuddCentre for Women's Mental Health, Royal Women's Hospital, c/o Grattan Street and Flemington Road, Parkville, 3052, Australia.
Geoffrey J LindemanThe Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia.
Penny GibsonCentre for Women's Mental Health, Royal Women's Hospital, c/o Grattan Street and Flemington Road, Parkville, 3052, Australia.
Angela KomitiCentre for Women's Mental Health, Royal Women's Hospital & Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
G Bruce MannDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Maira KentwellParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Royal Women's Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUWalter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to retrospectively describe the genetic testing motives and experiences of women with a previous breast and/or ovarian cancer diagnosis, who received negative BRCA1/2 results including variants of unknown significance and no pathogenic variant detected. One hundred and thirteen women (mean age 56.17 years) were recruited from a familial cancer centre in metropolitan Australia, an average 3.4 years after undergoing testing. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire focusing on the retrospective experience of and motives for undergoing BRCA1/2 testing. The study found that the primary motives for undergoing BRCA1/2 testing were (a) to know more about whether their cancer was hereditary, and (b) to have more certainty about the risk of their children developing cancer. In terms of perceptions of personal risk, 35% of women perceived that their risk of breast cancer to be the same or lower than the general population and 80% believed the negative test result to mean that a risk-conferring gene had not been detected. Yet, the average estimate of the likelihood that their cancer was hereditary was 48 out of a possible 100. Psychologically, women did not interpret the negative BRCA1/2 result as a positive outcome. Half were not relieved by the result and were as or more worried than before. Psychological morbidity was high with 17%, 100%, and 36% experiencing clinically significant depression, anxiety, and cancer-specific distress, respectively. Self-ratings of the likelihood that their cancer was hereditary were more closely associated with their personal family cancer histories than with measures of psychological distress. These results have implications for adherence to risk-reducing behaviours and quality of life. Given that these women are not routinely followed up in clinical practice, these findings highlight the importance of post-test genetic counselling and longer-term follow-up for women with negative BRCA1/2 results. Additional time and emotional support from genetic counsellors may help this group of women make sense of the meaning of their test result and adjust psychologically, particularly to uncertainty around the cause of their family history.

Indexed as

BRCA1/2Breast/ovarian cancerExperiencesGenetic testingMotivesNegative result

Identifiers

PMID30919324
PMCPMC6754479
OpenAlexW2922700498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.