4.1 Article

Communication Between Breast Cancer Patients Who Received Inconclusive Genetic Test Results and Their Daughters and Sisters Years After Testing

Journal

JOURNAL OF GENETIC COUNSELING
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 461-471

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1007/s10897-015-9889-6

Keywords

Genetic testing; Genetic counseling; Breast cancer; Communication; Family; Long term; Inconclusive test result

Funding

  1. Dutch Pink Ribbon Foundation [2010.WO14.C60]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Inconclusive genetic test results including screening recommendations for the breast cancer patients and their first-degree relatives are the most common outcomes of BRCA 1/2 testing. Patients themselves should communicate these results to their relatives. Our aim was to explore communication of breast cancer genetic counseling results with daughters and sisters over a long period of time. Breast cancer patients, who had received an inconclusive DNA test result 7-14 years earlier, completed a self-report questionnaire. Additionally, in-depth interviews were conducted and analysed thematically. Of the 93 respondents, 85 (91 %) considered themselves responsible for communicating genetic test results to relatives. In-depth interviews (n = 14) showed, that counselees wanted 'to hand over' their responsibilities to communicate the test results and screening recommendations to their sisters. Although most patients had informed their daughters and sisters about the genetic test results, usually little is spoken about genetic test results and screening recommendations once the duty of informing is completed. We recommend that, similar to the procedure for BRCA1/2-mutation carriers, a separate letter for first-degree relatives of patients with an inconclusive test result should be provided. In this way information about risks and screening recommendations can be verified by family members years after genetic testing has been completed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available