Involvement and Influence of Healthcare Providers, Family Members, and Other Mutation Carriers in the Cancer Risk Management Decision-Making Process of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

  • Athena Puski
  • Shelly Hovick
  • Leigha Senter
  • Amanda Ewart Toland
Original Research

Abstract

Deciding between increased cancer screening or prophylactic surgery and the timing of such procedures can be a difficult and complex process for women with BRCA mutations. There are gaps in our understanding of involvement of others in the decision-making process for women with BRCA mutations. This study evaluated the management decision-making process of women with BRCA mutations, focusing on the involvement of others. Grounded theory was used to analyze and code risk management decision-making information from interviews with 20 BRCA mutation carriers. Unaffected at-risk participants with a BRCA mutation, those under age 40, and those with no children described having a difficult time making risk management decisions. Physicians were an integral part of the decision-making process by providing decisional support and management recommendations. Family members and other mutation carriers filled similar yet distinct roles by providing experiential information as well as decisional and emotional support for carriers. Participants described genetic counselors as short-term providers of risk information and management recommendations. The study findings suggest that unaffected at-risk women, women under 40, and those who do not have children may benefit from additional support and information during the decision-making process. Genetic counselors are well trained to help women through this process and connect them with resources, and may be under-utilized in long-term follow-up for women with a BRCA mutation.

Keywords

Cancer risk management Decision-making HBOC BRCA1 BRCA2 Genetic counselor 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted as part of Athena Puski’s genetic counseling training. We thank Jessica Bachman and Phokeng Dailey for their assistance in coding and data collection.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the NCATS or the National Institutes of Health.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Athena Puski, Shelly Hovick, and Amanda Ewart Toland declare that they have no conflict of interest. Leigha Senter is a consultant for AstraZeneca and received a speaker honorarium from Ambry Genetics.

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 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Animal Studies

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Supplementary material

10897_2018_254_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (94 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 93 kb)

References

  1. Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (2015). Practice-based competencies for genetic counselors. http://www.gceducation.org/Documents/ACGC%20Core%20Competencies%20Brochure_15_Web.pdf
  2. Arden-Jones, A., & Eeles, R. A. (2004). Development in clinical practice: follow up clinic for BRCA mutation carriers: a case study highlighting the “virtual clinic”. Heredity Cancer Clinical Practice, 2, 77–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bancroft, E. K., Lock, I., Arden-Jones, A., D'Mello, L., McReynolds, K., Lennard, F., et al. (2010). The carrier clinic: an evaluation of a novel clinic dedicated to follow-up of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers-implications for oncogenetics practice. Journal of Medical Genetics, 47(7), 486–491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chai, X., Friebel, T. M., Singer, C. F., Evans, D. G., Lynch, H. T., Isaacs, C., Garber, J. E., Neuhausen, S. L., Matloff, E., Eeles, R., Tung, N., Weitzel, J. N., Couch, F. J., Hulick, P. J., Ganz, P. A., Daly, M. B., Olopade, O. I., Tomlinson, G., Blum, J. L., Domchek, S. M., Chen, J., & Rebbeck, T. R. (2014). Use of risk-reducing surgeries in a prospective cohort of 1,499 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 148(2), 397–406.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3134-0.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Connors, L. M., Voian, N., Shi, Y., Lally, R. M., & Edge, S. (2014). Decision making after BRCA genetic testing down the road of transition. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 18(3), E58–E63.  https://doi.org/10.1188/14.CJON.E58-E63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dean, M., & Davidson, L. (2016). Previvors’ uncertainty management strategies for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Health Communication, 33, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1250187.Google Scholar
  7. Engel, N., Gordon, P., Thull, D., Dudley, B., Herstine, J., Jankowitz, R., & Zorn, K. (2012). A multidisciplinary clinic for individualizing management of patients at increased risk for breast and gynecologic cancer. Familial Cancer, 11, 419–427.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Firth, C., Jacobs, C., Evison, M., Pichert, G., Izatt, L., & Hunter, M. S. (2011). Novel one-stop multidisciplinary follow-up clinic for BRCA1/2 carriers: Patient satisfaction and decision making. Psycho-Oncology, 20(12), 1301–1308.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Flippo-Morton, T., Walsh, K., Chambers, K., Amacker-North, L., White, B., Sarantou, T., Boselli, D., & White, R. (2015). Surgical decision making in the BRCA-positive population: Institutional experience and comparison with recent literature. The Breast Journal, 22(1), 35–44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12521.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gahm, J., Wickman, M., & Brandberg, Y. (2010). Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with inherited risk of breast cancer—prevalence of pain and discomfort, impact on sexuality, quality of life and feelings of regret two years after surgery. The Breast, 19(6), 462–469.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2010.05.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.  https://doi.org/10.2307/798843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamilton, R., Williams, J. K., Bowers, B. J., & Calzone, K. (2009). Life trajectories, genetic testing, and risk reduction decisions in 18-39 year old women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18(2), 147–159.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-008-9200-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hesse-Biber, S. (2014). The genetic testing experience of BRCA-positive women: deciding between surveillance and surgery. Qualitative Health Research, 24(6), 773–789.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314529666.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffman, R. M., Elmore, J. G., Fairfield, K. M., Gerstein, B. S., Levin, C. A., & Pignone, M. P. (2014). Lack of shared decision making in cancer screening discussions: results from a national survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 47(3), 251–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.04.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoskins, L. M., & Werner-Lin, A. (2013). A multi-case report of the pathways to and through genetic testing and cancer risk management for BRCA mutation-positive women aged 18-25. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(1), 27–38.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9521-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hovick, S. R., Yamasaki, J. S., Burton-Chase, A. M., & Peterson, S. K. (2015). Patterns of family health history communication among older African American adults. Journal of Health Communication, 20(1), 80–87.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.908984.
  17. Howard, A. F., Balneaves, L. G., Bottorff, J. L., & Rodney, P. (2011). Preserving the self: the process of decision making about hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer risk reduction. Qualitative Health Research, 21(4), 502–519.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310387798.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Josephson, U., Wickman, M., & Sandelin, K. (2000). Initial experiences of women from hereditary breast cancer families after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: a retrospective study. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO), 26(4), 351–356.  https://doi.org/10.1053/ejso.1999.0897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kenen, R. H., Shapiro, P. J., Friedman, S., & Coyne, J. C. (2007). Peer-support in coping with medical uncertainty: discussion of oophorectomy and hormone replacement therapy on a web-based message board. Psychooncology, 16(8), 763–771.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Klitzman, R., & Chung, W. (2010). The process of deciding about prophylactic surgery for breast and ovarian cancer: patient questions, uncertainties, and communication. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 152A(1), 52–66.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.33068.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lautenbach, D. M., Christensen, K. D., Sparks, J. A., & Green, R. C. (2013). Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 14, 491–513.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-092010-110722.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Leonarczyk, T. J., & Mawn, B. E. (2015). Cancer risk management decision making for BRCA+ women. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 37(1), 66–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945913519870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Metcalfe, K., Liede, A., Hoodfar, E., Scott, A., Foulkes, W., & Narod, S. (2000). An evaluation of needs of female BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers undergoing genetic counselling. Journal of Medical Genetics, 37, 866–874.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Metcalfe, K. A., Birenbaum-Carmeli, D., Lubinski, J., Gronwald, J., Lynch, H., Moller, P., & Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. (2008). International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. International Journal of Cancer, 122(9), 2017–2022.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.23340.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Metcalfe, K. A., Dennis, C. L., Poll, A., Armel, S., Demsky, R., Carlsson, L., et al. (2017). Effect of decision aid for breast cancer prevention on decisional conflict in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: a multisite, randomized, controlled trial. Genetics in Medicine, 19, 330–336.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2016). Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. National Comprehensive Cancer Network.Google Scholar
  28. Pichert, G., Jacobs, C., Jacobs, I., Menon, U., Manchanda, R., Johnson, M., et al. (2010). Novel one-stop multidisciplinary follow-up clinic significantly improves cancer risk management in BRCA1/2 carriers. Familial Cancer, 9(3), 313–319.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ray, J. A., Loescher, L. J., & Brewer, M. (2005). Risk-reduction surgery decisions in high-risk women seen for genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(6), 473–484.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-5833-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Resta, R., Biesecker, B. B., Bennett, R. L., Blum, S., Hahn, S. E., Strecker, M. N., & Williams, J. L. (2006). A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force report. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(2), 77–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-9014-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Scheuer, L., Kauff, N., Robson, M., Kelly, B., Barakat, R., Satagopan, J., & Offit, K. (2002). Outcome of preventive surgery and screening for breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 20(5), 1260–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Strauss, A., & Corbett, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Underhill, M. L., & Crotser, C. B. (2014). Seeking balance: decision support needs of women without cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23(3), 350–362.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9667-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Werner-Lin, A. (2008). Formal and informal support needs of young women with BRCA mutations. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 26(4), 111–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Westin, S. N., Sun, C. C., Lu, K. H., Schmeler, K. M., Soliman, P. T., Lacour, R. A., & Bodurka, D. C. (2011). Satisfaction with ovarian carcinoma risk-reduction strategies among women at high risk for breast and ovarian carcinoma. Cancer, 117(12), 2659–2667.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25820.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer CenterThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Holden Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Iowa Hospitals and ClinicsIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.School of CommunicationThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  4. 4.Department of Cancer Biology and GeneticsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations