4.6 Article

Psychological functioning in persons considering genetic counseling and testing for Li-Fraumeni syndrome

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 783-789

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/pon.1352

关键词

p53; Li-Fraumeni; cancer; oncology; psychosocial

资金

  1. American Cancer Society [MRSGT-04-204-01-CPHHPS]
  2. National Cancer Institute
  3. National Institutes of Health [CA34936]
  4. Kleberg Human Cancer Genetics Development Award
  5. Anderson Cancer Center [5 P30 CA016672]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) confers an increased risk of multiple types of cancer in both children and adults. Clinical genetic testing for deleterious germline p53 gene mutations can identify most LFS-affected families. We evaluated factors associated with cancer-specific distress and perceived self-efficacy in coping with a positive genetic test result among persons at risk of having deleterious p53 mutations. Methods: One hundred thirty-five persons from 15 LFS-affected families were invited to take part in a study that offered p53 genetic counseling and testing and to complete psychosocial measures. Results: Participants (n = 92) were more likely, to be younger and female than nonparticipants (n = 43). In multivariate analyses, greater cancer-specific distress was associated with having a lower quality, of life, a higher perceived risk of having a p53 mutation, no personal history, of cancer and a greater number of first degree relatives (FDRs) affected with cancer. Lower perceived self-efficacy, in coping with a positive test result was associated with greater cancer worry, higher decisional conflict about p53 testing and having no personal history of cancer. Conclusions: Individual perceptions about cancer risk and p53 genetic testing, as well as personal experience with FDRs' cancer diagnoses and deaths, should be addressed during the counseling and testing process for LFS-affected families. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据