Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Retrospective comparison of patient outcomes after in-person and telephone results disclosure counseling for BRCA1/2 genetic testing

  • Published:
Familial Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 molecular genetic test results has been proposed as a feasible alternative to traditional in-person results disclosure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between method of result disclosure with the patient outcome variables of knowledge, cancer worry, cancer risk perception, satisfaction, and cancer screening and prophylactic surgery behaviors. Study participants included 228 women who completed retrospective, self-administered, mailed surveys regarding their pre-test genetic counseling and results disclosure. No significant relationships were found between result disclosure method and the outcome variables investigated. A majority (90%) of individuals who received positive results by telephone returned for follow up visits. Factors which genetic counselors believed influenced their clinical decision to offer telephone disclosure, such as history of breast cancer, a priori risk of genetic mutation and family history of known mutation were not shown to significantly impact the actual disclosure method. This study suggests that telephone results disclosure is clinically appropriate when counselors utilize their clinical judgment to determine which patients are appropriate candidates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sakorafas GH, Krespis E, Pavlakis G (2002) Risk estimation for breast cancer development: a clinical perspective. Surg Oncol 10:183–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lux M, Fasching P (2006) Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: review and future perspectives. J Mol Med 84:16–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American Cancer Society Cancer Facts and Figures (2008) http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/2008CAFFfinalsecured.pdf. Cited 15 Apr 2008

  4. Claus E, Schidkraut J, Thompson WD et al (1996) The genetic attributable risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer 77:2318–2324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lynch H, Silva E, Snyder C et al (2008) Hereditary breast cancer: part I. Diagnosing hereditary breast cancer syndromes. Breast J 14(1):3–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hall J, Lee M, Newman B et al (1990) Linkage of early-onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. Science 250(4988):1684–1689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wooster R, Neuhausen S, Mangion J et al (1994) Localization of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, to chromosome 13q12–13. Science 265(5181):2088–2090

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lucassen A, Watson E, Harcourt J et al (2001) Guidelines for referral to a regional genetics service: GPs respond by referring more appropriate cases. Fam Pract 18:135–138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scheuner M, Sieverding P, Shekelle P (2008) Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases. JAMA 299:1320–1334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McBride C, Rimer B (1999) Using the telephone to improve health behavior and health service delivery. Patient Educ Couns 37:3–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilson K, Williams A (2000) Visualism in community nursing: implications for telephone work with service users. Qual Health Res 10:507–520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wilmoth M, Tulman L, Coleman E et al (2006) Women’s perceptions of the effectiveness of telephone support and education on their adjustment to breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 33:138–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Donnelly JM, Kornblith AB, Fleishman S et al (2000) A pilot study of interpersonal psychotherapy by telephone with cancer patients and their partners. Psychoncology 9:44–56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ormond K, Haun C, Duquette D et al (2000) Recommendations for telephone counseling. J Genet Couns 9:63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang V (2000) What is and is not telephone counseling. J Genet Couns 9:73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Helmes AW, Culver JO, Bowen DJ (2006) Results of a randomized study of telephone versus in-person breast cancer risk counseling. Patient Educ Couns 64:96–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sangha KK, Dircks A, Langlois S (2003) Assessment of the effectiveness of genetic counseling by telephone compared to a clinic visit. J Genet Couns 12:171–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. American Society of Clinical Oncology (2003) ASCO policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Am J Clin Oncol 21:2397–2406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Berline L, Fay A (2007) Risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 16:241–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Trepanier A, Ahrens M, McKinnon W et al (2004) Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 13:83–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baumanis L, Evans JP, Callanan N et al (2009) Telephoned BRCA1/2 genetic test results: prevalence, practice and patient satisfaction. J Genet Couns 18:447–463

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Klemp J, O’Dea A, Chamberlain C et al (2005) Patient satisfaction of BRCA1/2 genetic testing by women at high risk for breast cancer participating in a prevention trail. Fam Cancer 4:279–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen WY, Barber JE, Higham S et al (2002) BRCA1/2 genetic testing in the community setting. Am J Clin Oncol 20:4485–4492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jenkins J, Calzone K, Dimond E et al (2007) Randomized comparison of phone versus in-person BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic test result disclosure counseling. Genet Med 9:487–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Frank T, Deffenaugh A, Reid J et al (1997) Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10, 000 individuals. Am J Clin Oncol 70:934–938

    Google Scholar 

  26. Couch F, Blackwood A, Calzone K et al (2002) BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 336:1409–1415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lerman C, Narod S, Schulman K et al (1996) BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. JAMA 275:1885–1892

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A et al (2003) Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet 116A:11–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pieterse A, Ausems M, Dulmen A et al (2005) Initial cancer genetic counseling consultation: change in counselee’s cognitions and anxiety, and association with addressing their needs and preferences. Am J Med Genet 137A:27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Levy A, Shea J, Williams S et al (2006) Measuring perception of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1893–1898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer B et al (1991) Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol 10:259–267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McInerney-Leo A, Hadley D, Kase RG et al (2006) BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families III: risk perception and screening. Am J Med Genet 140A:2198–2206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shiloh S, Avdor O, Goodman R (1990) Satisfaction with genetic counseling: dimensions and measurement. Am J Med Genet 37:522–529

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the women that participated in this study. We would also like to thank the National Society of Genetic Counselors—Familial Cancer Risk Assessment, Special Interest Group for supporting this research project through an awarded grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Genetic Counseling Graduate Program, College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Courtney Doughty Rice

  2. Division of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Courtney Doughty Rice, Jennifer Gamm Ruschman & Erin Miller

  3. Center for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Lisa J. Martin

  4. Oncoplastic Surgery, The Christ Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Jennifer B. Manders

  5. Sacred Heart Hospital, 5153 N. Ninth Avenue, Ste 201, Pensacola, FL, USA

    Courtney Doughty Rice

  6. Heart Institute, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA

    Erin Miller

Authors
  1. Courtney Doughty Rice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Gamm Ruschman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa J. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jennifer B. Manders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erin Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin Miller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Doughty Rice, C., Ruschman, J.G., Martin, L.J. et al. Retrospective comparison of patient outcomes after in-person and telephone results disclosure counseling for BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Familial Cancer 9, 203–212 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9303-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9303-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation