Journal
CANCER
Volume 117, Issue 12, Pages 2659-2667Publisher
WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25820
Keywords
BRCA; risk reduction; ovarian cancer; breast cancer; satisfaction
Categories
Funding
- National Institutes of Health [5T32CA10164202]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
BACKGROUND: Women who are at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer have 2 major management options to reduce their risk of ovarian cancer: periodic screening (PS) or risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Little is known regarding patient satisfaction levels with risk-reduction strategies. Thus, the authors sought to determine levels of patient satisfaction with PS versus RRSO and to identify factors that may influence satisfaction. METHODS: As part of a larger study, women who received testing for the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 were sent a follow-up questionnaire packet to explore issues related to cancer risk reduction. The authors report on the results from a variety of validated instruments, including the Satisfaction With Decision (SWD) scale, focused on the choice between PS and RRSO. RESULTS: In total, 544 surveys were mailed, and 313 responses were received (58%). The overall satisfaction rate among respondents was high. The median SWD score was significantly higher in the RRSO group compared with the PS group (P<.001). BRCA mutation carriers had higher median SWD scores regardless of management type (P=.01). Low satisfaction scores were associated with high levels of uncertainty and the perception that the decision between PS and RRSO was difficult to make (P=.001). Satisfaction was unrelated to demographics, clinical factors, or concerns of cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, the majority of women who were at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer were satisfied with their choice of risk-reduction strategy. Difficulty with decision making was associated with lower satisfaction levels. Improved education and support through the decision-making process may enhance overall levels of satisfaction. Cancer 2011; 117: 2659-67. (C) 2010 American Cancer Society.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available