Experiences and interpretations of BRCA1/2 testing among women affected by breast or ovarian cancer who received a negative result
The aim of this study was to retrospectively describe the genetic testing motives and experiences of women with a previous breast and/or ovarian cancer diagnosis, who received negative BRCA1/2 results including variants of unknown significance and no pathogenic variant detected. One hundred and thirteen women (mean age 56.17 years) were recruited from a familial cancer centre in metropolitan Australia, an average 3.4 years after undergoing testing. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire focusing on the retrospective experience of and motives for undergoing BRCA1/2 testing. The study found that the primary motives for undergoing BRCA1/2 testing were (a) to know more about whether their cancer was hereditary, and (b) to have more certainty about the risk of their children developing cancer. In terms of perceptions of personal risk, 35% of women perceived that their risk of breast cancer to be the same or lower than the general population and 80% believed the negative test result to mean that a risk-conferring gene had not been detected. Yet, the average estimate of the likelihood that their cancer was hereditary was 48 out of a possible 100. Psychologically, women did not interpret the negative BRCA1/2 result as a positive outcome. Half were not relieved by the result and were as or more worried than before. Psychological morbidity was high with 17%, 100%, and 36% experiencing clinically significant depression, anxiety, and cancer-specific distress, respectively. Self-ratings of the likelihood that their cancer was hereditary were more closely associated with their personal family cancer histories than with measures of psychological distress. These results have implications for adherence to risk-reducing behaviours and quality of life. Given that these women are not routinely followed up in clinical practice, these findings highlight the importance of post-test genetic counselling and longer-term follow-up for women with negative BRCA1/2 results. Additional time and emotional support from genetic counsellors may help this group of women make sense of the meaning of their test result and adjust psychologically, particularly to uncertainty around the cause of their family history.
KeywordsBreast/ovarian cancer BRCA1/2 Negative result Genetic testing Motives Experiences
The authors thank Dr. Michael Bogwitz for assistance with data retrieval, Ms. Michelle Sinclair for assistance with data cleaning; and Dr. Ruth Little for assistance with data retrieval and proofreading.
The Collier Charitable Trust gave generous contribution towards funding this work.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human studies and informed consent
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
- Antoniou A, Pharoah P, Narod S, Risch HA, Eyfjord JE, Hopper J et al (2003) Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 72(5):1117–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008) National survey of mental health and wellbeing, 2007. ABS, Canberra http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4326.02007?OpenDocument Google Scholar
- Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D (2002) The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale: an updated literature review. J Psychosom Res 52(2):69–77Google Scholar
- Bowen D, McTiernan A, Burke W, Powers D, Pruski J, Durfy S et al (1999) Participation in breast cancer risk counseling among women with a family history. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 8(7):581–585Google Scholar
- Buchanan T, Johnson JA, Goldberg LR (2005) Implementing a five-factor personality inventory for use on the internet. Eur J Psychol Assess 21(2):116–128Google Scholar
- Cancer Council Australia (2017a) Cancer council | about cancer | breast. [online] Available at: https://www.cancer.org.au/about-cancer/types-of-cancer/breast-cancer.html
- Cancer Council Australia (2017b) Cancer council | about cancer | ovarian. [online] Available at: https://www.cancer.org.au/about-cancer/types-of-cancer/ovarian-cancer.html
- Goldberg LR (1999) A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In: Mervielde I, Deary IJ, Fruyt FD, Ostendorf F (eds) Personality psychology in Europe, vol 7, edn. Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, pp 7–28Google Scholar
- Goldberg LR, Johnson JA, Eber HW, Hogan R, Ashton MC, Cloninger CR et al (2006) The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. J Res Pers 40(1):84–96Google Scholar
- Gow AJ, Whiteman MC, Pattie A, Deary IJ (2005) Goldberg’s ‘IPIP’Big-Five factor markers: internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Pers Individ Dif 39(2):317–29Google Scholar
- Jensen RE, Moinpour CM, Keegan TH, Cress RD, Wu X-C, Paddock LE et al (2016) The measuring your health study: leveraging community-based cancer registry recruitment to establish a large, diverse cohort of cancer survivors for analyses of measurement equivalence and validity of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System®(PROMIS®) Short Form Items. Psychol Test Assess Model 58(1):99Google Scholar
- NBOCC (2010) Advice about familial aspects of breast cancer and epithelial ovarian cancer: a guide for health professionals: December 2010. Surrey Hills, NSW.: National Breast Cancer and Ovarian CentreGoogle Scholar
- Radloff LS (1977) The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1(3):385–401Google Scholar
- Silva FC, Lisboa BC, Figueiredo MC, Torrezan GT, Santos EM, Krepischi AC, Rossi BM, Achatz MI et al (2014) Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: assessment of point mutations and copy number variations in Brazilian patients. BMC Med Genet 15:55. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2350-15-55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Singer S, Kuhnt S, Götze H, Hauss J, Hinz A, Liebmann A et al (2009) Hospital anxiety and depression scale cutoff scores for cancer patients in acute care. Br J Cancer 100(6):908–12Google Scholar
- Sheppard VB, Mays D, LaVeist T, Tercyak KP (2013) Medical mistrust influences black women’s level of engagement in BRCA1/2 genetic counseling and testing. J Natl Med Assoc 105(1):17–22Google Scholar
- Vos J, Gómez-García E, Oosterwijk JC, Menko FH, Stoel RD, van Asperen CJ et al (2012a) Opening the psychological black box in genetic counseling. The psychological impact of DNA testing is predicted by the counselees’ perception, the medical impact by the pathogenic or uninformative BRCA1/2-result. Psychooncology 21(1):29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zigmond AS, Snaith RP (1983) The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 67(6):361–70Google Scholar