Attitudes towards cancer predictive testing and transmission of information to the family

C Julian-Reynier, F Eisinger, P Vennin, F Chabal, Y Aurran, C Noguès, Y J Bignon, M Machelard-Roumagnac, C Maugard-Louboutin, D Serin, B Blanc, P Orsoni, H Sobol, C Julian-Reynier, F Eisinger, P Vennin, F Chabal, Y Aurran, C Noguès, Y J Bignon, M Machelard-Roumagnac, C Maugard-Louboutin, D Serin, B Blanc, P Orsoni, H Sobol

Abstract

Before the organisation of breast cancer predictive testing in France, consultands' attitudes towards this kind of testing and towards passing on information about the family cancer risk to their relatives were investigated. This survey was carried out from January 1994 to January 1995 at six specialised cancer genetic clinics located in different parts of France Female consultands who were first degree relatives of cancer patients and who had at least one case of breast cancer in their family, affecting either themselves or a first degree relative or both, participated in this study. Among the 248 eligible consultands attending the clinics during the study period, 84.3% answered a post-consultation questionnaire. Among the 209 respondents, 40.7% (n = 85) were cancer patients and 59.3% (n = 124) were healthy consultands. A high consensus in favour of genetic testing was noted, since 87.7% of the sample stated that they would ask for breast cancer gene testing if this test became available. The underlying assumption of 96.6% of the women was that their health surveillance would be improved after a positive test. A high awareness of the anxiety that would be generated in a family after a positive result was observed and found to be associated (p < 0.05) with the anxiety and depressive profiles of the patients. Half of the healthy respondents said they would not change their attitude towards screening if the results of predictive testing turned out to be negative. Only 13.7% of the 161 patients who stated that the oncogeneticists asked them to contact their relatives firmly refused to do so, mainly because of difficult family relationships.

References

    1. Neuromuscul Disord. 1993 Sep-Nov;3(5-6):571-4
    1. Am J Med Genet. 1995 Jul 3;57(3):385-92
    1. Am J Med Genet. 1987 Feb;26(2):283-93
    1. J Med Genet. 1987 May;24(5):275-9
    1. Lancet. 1989 Sep 9;2(8663):603-5
    1. Prenat Diagn. 1990 May;10(5):313-25
    1. Cancer. 1992 Sep 15;70(6 Suppl):1747-54
    1. Prev Med. 1993 Mar;22(2):284-92
    1. JAMA. 1993 Nov 17;270(19):2321-5
    1. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Sep;46(9):973-80
    1. J Clin Oncol. 1994 Apr;12(4):843-50
    1. Cancer. 1994 Jul 1;74(1 Suppl):279-87
    1. Ann Med. 1994 Jun;26(3):185-90
    1. Lancet. 1994 Oct 22;344(8930):1151-2
    1. Science. 1994 Oct 7;266(5182):120-2
    1. Science. 1994 Oct 7;266(5182):66-71
    1. Am J Hum Genet. 1994 Oct;55(4):603-5
    1. Am J Hum Genet. 1994 Oct;55(4):618-25
    1. BMJ. 1994 Oct 15;309(6960):1003-6
    1. Diagn Mol Pathol. 1994 Sep;3(3):145-6
    1. Am J Hum Genet. 1995 Jan;56(1):254-64
    1. Am J Hum Genet. 1995 Jan;56(1):265-71
    1. JAMA. 1995 Feb 15;273(7):577-85
    1. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1995 Mar;4(2):169-73
    1. Am J Hum Genet. 1995 Jun;56(6):1493-500
    1. Nature. 1995 Dec 21-28;378(6559):789-92
    1. Eur J Cancer. 1996 Mar;32A(3):398-403
    1. J Med Genet. 1995 Mar;32(3):161
    1. Am J Public Health. 1995 Aug;85(8 Pt 1):1133-5
    1. CA Cancer J Clin. 1995 Sep-Oct;45(5):263-78
    1. Lancet. 1995 Aug 26;346(8974):583
    1. Am J Med Genet. 1987 Feb;26(2):259-70

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi