4.6 Article

Familial communication and cascade testing among relatives of BRCA population screening participants

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 20, 期 11, 页码 1446-1454

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2018.26

关键词

Ashkenazi Jews; BRCA1/2; cascade testing; familial communication; population screening

资金

  1. Breast Cancer Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Population BRCA1/BRCA2 screening identifies carriers irrespective of family history, yet this information is actionable for relatives. We examined familial communication rates and cascade testing in the screening setting and assessed sociodemographic and psychosocial predictors. Methods: Participants in a BRCA1/BRCA2 screening study of healthy Ashkenazi Jews self-administered a family communication questionnaire. Intent to communicate was determined before genetic status was known, along with result communication (carriers and noncarriers) 6 months and 2 years after enrollment. Carriers underwent in-depth interviews and provided cascade testing information. Results: In total, 88% (524/595) of questionnaire responders and 97% (30/32) of carriers informed at least one relative. In multivariate analysis, family history (P = 0.005) and greater Satisfaction With Health Decision scores (P < 0.001) predicted communication of results. Among carriers' adult first- and seconddegree relatives, 71 (48%) had cascade testing, more commonly performed in first- (58%) than in second-degree relatives (26%, P = 0.0002), and in females (56%) vs. males (36%, P = 0.02). At least 11% remained uninformed. Conclusion: Familial communication rates and characteristics in a screening setting parallel those reported by Cancer Genetics clinics. Universal screening circumvents dependence on familial disclosure. However, our finding that satisfaction-a potentially modifiable factor-predicts communication, raises the hypothesis that improving the testing experience could facilitate familial communication.

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