The data obtained with two forms of the Impact of Event Scale were compared, one referring to a BRCA1/2 test result (IES-T) and another to cancer (IES-C). The sample consisted of 272 women with a family history suggestive of a BRCA1/2 mutation who underwent genetic testing and received results: noncarrier, carrier, or inconclusive. Globally, mean scores on the IES-C form were higher than those obtained on the IES-T form. Among carriers of a BRCA1/2 mutation, mean scores on the two forms were similar and agreement was good, as measured by the in-traclass correlation coefficient (.83; 95% 95% CI = .72, .91). Agreement between the forms was poor to fair among noncarriers (ICC = .38; CI = .15, .57) and women with an inconclusive result (ICC = .40; 95% CI = .26, 52). Having had cancer increased total scores but had little influence on agreement between scores on forms. These findings highlight the importance of carefully selecting the form of the Impact of Event Scale in the context of genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility.
Abstract Background: Little is known about how women who receive an inconclusive result from BRCA1/2 testing interpret their result. Clinical observations suggest that some of them may be falsely reassured and, consequently, may not adhere to recommended surveillance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether women with inconclusive BRCA1/2 test results are falsely reassured. Methods: Participants were adult women with a family history suggestive of a germ-line mutation in either the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene who underwent genetic testing in the context of the interdisciplinary research program INHERIT BRCAs. Data were collected using selfadministered questionnaires at genetic counseling and 1 month after result disclosure. Reassurance was assessed through indicators of cancer risk perception, cancer worry, relief following result disclosure, painfulness of the test result, and its effect on quality of life. Results: Five-hundred women (105 carriers, 140 noncarriers, and 255 inconclusive) were included in this analysis. Compared to noncarriers, women with inconclusive results had higher cancer risk perception, were more worried about cancer, were less relieved by their test result, and perceived their quality of life as being more adversely affected by it. Conclusion: The differences observed between noncarriers and women who received an inconclusive result run counter to the hypothesis that the latter are falsely reassured following BRCA1/2 testing. For clinicians, our findings show the value of taking precautions to fully explain to women that inconclusive results do not rule out the possibility that they still may face a higher risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14(12):2862–7)
Genetic stratification approaches in personalized medicine may considerably improve our ability to predict breast cancer risk for women at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Notwithstanding these advantages, concerns have been raised about the use of the genetic information derived in these processes, outside of the research and medical health care settings, by third parties such as insurers. Indeed, insurance applicants are asked to consent to insurers accessing their medical information (implicitly including genetic) to verify or determine their insurability level, or eligibility to certain insurance products. This use of genetic information may result in the differential treatment of individuals based on their genetic information, which could lead to higher premium, exclusionary clauses or even the denial of coverage. This phenomenon has been commonly referred to as "Genetic Discrimination" (GD). In the Canadian context, where federal Bill S-201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, has recently been enacted but may be subject to constitutional challenges, information about potential risks to insurability may raise issues in the clinical context. We conducted a survey with women in Quebec who have never been diagnosed with breast cancer to document their perspectives. We complemented the research with data from 14 semi-structured interviews with decision-makers in Quebec to discuss institutional issues raised by the use of genetic information by insurers. Our results provide findings on five main issues: (1) the reluctance to undergo genetic screening test due to insurability concerns, (2) insurers' interest in genetic information, (3) the duty to disclose genetic information to insurers, (4) the disclosure of potential impacts on insurability before genetic testing, and (5) the status of genetic information compared to other health data. Overall, both groups of participants (the women surveyed and the decision-makers interviewed) acknowledged having concerns about GD and reported a need for better communication tools discussing insurability risk. Our conclusions regarding concerns about GD and the need for better communication tools in the clinical setting may be transferable to the broader Canadian context.
Abstract Background The PAROLE-Onco program was introduced in the province of Quebec, Canada in 2019. It integrates accompanying patients (APs), i.e., people who have been affected by cancer, into the clinical team as full members. These APs use their experiential knowledge with people undergoing treatment and with clinical teams. The aim of this paper is to evaluate, within the framework of two university medical centers, the perceptions of breast cancer patients who receive support from APs, particularly in terms of their active involvement in their care trajectory. Methods A qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with accompanied patients was performed. Fourteen individual interviews were conducted between July and September 2021 with women presenting different profiles in terms of age, education, professional status, type of treatment, family situation, and clinical background. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis, focusing on patients’ perceptions of APs’ contributions and suggested improvements for accessing AP support. Results Three themes emerged from the semi-structured interviews: communication modalities used to connect patients with their APs, the characteristics of the support provided by APs, and the perceived effects of this support on the patients. Patients expressed a preference for telephone communication, highlighting its convenience and accessibility. The support provided by APs included emotional and informational support, neutrality, and adaptability. This relationship improved patient communication, reduced anxiety, helped regain control, and enhanced overall quality of life. The results emphasized the added value of APs in complementing the support offered by healthcare professionals. Patients noted the critical role of APs in helping them navigate the healthcare system, better understand their treatment processes, and manage their emotions. The ability of APs to provide practical advice and emotional reassurance was particularly valued. Overall, the findings underscored the significant impact of AP support on patients’ experiences and highlighted areas for enhancing this service. Conclusion This study highlights, during the care trajectory of people affected by breast cancer, APs’ contribution to patients’ emotional well-being because they improve, in particular, the management of emotions and communication with health professionals.
Breast cancer risk stratification categorizes a woman's potential risk of developing the disease as near-population, intermediate, or high. In accordance, screening and follow up for breast cancer can readily be tailored following risk assessment. Recent efforts have focussed on developing more accessible means to convey this information to women. This study sought to document the relevance of an informational e-platform developed for these purposes.To begin to assess a newly developed breast cancer risk stratification and decision support e-platform called PERSPECTIVE (PErsonalised Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early deteCTIon of breast cancer) among women who do not know their personal breast cancer risk (Phase 1). Changes (pre- and post- e-platform exposure) in knowledge of breast cancer risk and interest in undergoing genetic testing were assessed in addition to perceptions of platform usability and acceptability.Using a pre-post design, women (N = 156) of differing literacy and education levels, aged 30 to 60, with no previous breast cancer diagnosis were recruited from the general population and completed self-report e-questionnaires.Mean e-platform viewing time was 18.67 min (SD 0.65) with the most frequently visited pages being breast cancer-related risk factors and risk assessment. Post-exposure, participants reported significantly higher breast cancer-related knowledge (p < .001). Increases in knowledge relating to obesity, alcohol, breast density, menstruation, and the risk estimation process remained even when sociodemographic variables age and education were controlled. There were no significant changes in genetic testing interest post-exposure. Mean ratings for e-platform acceptability and usability were high: 26.19 out of 30 (SD 0.157) and 42.85 out of 50 (SD 0.267), respectively.An informative breast cancer risk stratification e-platform targeting healthy women in the general population can significantly increase knowledge as well as support decisions around breast cancer risk and assessment. Currently underway, Phase 2, called PERSPECTIVE, is seeking further content integration and broader implementation .
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)