Biomedical subjects

Katherine A Schneider

Publications and source records attributed to Katherine A Schneider.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Sharing BRCA1/2 test results with first-degree relatives: factors predicting who women tell.

PURPOSE: Patient communication with relatives about cancer genetic test results is the primary means for alerting those who may benefit from identification of hereditary risk. This study identifies factors predicting patterns of disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results to first-degree relatives (FDRs) among women tested in a clinical protocol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 273 women completed a family communication measure 4 months after BRCA1/2 result disclosure. chi2 analyses and logistic regression models identified factors predicting sharing of the test result. RESULTS: Most FDRs were informed of the participant's test result by 4 months; female relatives were more likely to be informed than males. Tested women conveyed inconclusive results (variant or negative without known familial mutation) less frequently to their sisters than conclusive (positive/true negative) results (P = .03). Twenty-three percent of participants did not inform their father. Informing brothers was more likely when BRCA1/2 was inherited through paternal lineage (P = .04), but 29% of brothers were not informed. Women older than age 40 were less likely to share their result with their parents (P = .03) than were women < or = 40. Children's ages influenced communication to offspring; most children were told. CONCLUSION: Demographic, health-, and test-related factors predicted genetic test result communication to FDRs. Additional research investigating the full spectrum of discussion within families and motives for incomplete sharing of genetic test results with relatives may suggest strategies for providers and targeted educational interventions for patients to enhance family communication.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Ethical issues in cancer genetics: I 1) whose information is it?

This article presents and discusses four clinical cases that exemplify the complexity of ethical dilemmas concerning the provider's obligation to disclose or withhold genetic information from patients. Case 1: What is the responsibility of the cancer genetics provider to ensure that a positive test results is shared with distant relatives? Case 2: To ensure that results go to at-risk relatives, do we have the right to ignore the wishes of the designated next-of-kin? Case 3: Do we have the right to reveal a familial BRCA1 mutation to a patient's relative, who is at 50% risk? Case 4: Do we have an obligation to reveal that a patient is not a blood relative and therefore, not at risk to have inherited a familial mutation? These cases form the basis for discussing the provider's dual obligations to keeping patient confidentiality and informing patients and families about risk (i.e. duty to warn). We also provide a summary of consensus points and additional discussion questions for each case.

Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing↗

PubMed2004

Accuracy of cancer family histories: comparison of two breast cancer syndromes.

Cancer risk programs rely on accurately reported family history information. This study compares the accuracy with which cancer sites and ages at diagnosis are reported by Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) and hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOCS) families undergoing genetic testing. We analyzed the accuracy of 191 cancer diagnoses among first-degree (FDRs) and second-degree (SDRs) relatives reported by 32 LFS and 52 HBOCS participants in genetic testing programs. Cancer diagnoses of relatives were more accurately reported in the HBOCS cohort (78%) than in the LFS cohort (52%). Almost all breast cancer diagnoses were accurately reported, whereas 74% of ovarian cancer diagnoses and only 55% of other LFS-related cancers were accurately reported. Age at diagnosis was accurate within 5 years for 60% of LFS relatives and 53% of HBOCS relatives. Factors correlating with accurate reporting of cancer history included: being member of BRCA1 family, higher education level, female historian, degree of closeness to affected relative, and having fewer than 5 affected FDRs and SDRs. Relying on verbal histories would not have altered eligibility for genetic testing among HBOCS historians, but fewer than half of LFS historians provided information that would have led to TP53 testing. Our data suggest that it may not be necessary to confirm breast cancer diagnoses routinely; however, documentation of other cancer types remains important for appropriate risk assessment and follow-up.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2002

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in the community setting.

PURPOSE: BRCA1/2 genetic testing has been commercially available in the United States since 1996. Most published reports described BRCA1/2 testing as research studies at large academic centers, but less is known about testing in the community. This study evaluates the process and early outcomes of BRCA1/2 genetic testing as a clinical service in the community setting. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to women in the United States whose health care providers ordered BRCA1/2 genetic testing from Myriad Genetic Laboratories from August 1998 through July 2000. Women tested at 149 large academic centers were excluded. Main outcome measures were demographic characteristics, recall of and satisfaction with the genetic testing process, and likelihood of pursuing cancer prevention strategies. RESULTS: Among the 646 respondents, 414 (64%) had a personal history of cancer and 505 (78%) had at least one first-degree relative with breast and/or ovarian cancer. Most subjects (82%) recalled discussions of informed consent before testing (median time, 30 minutes). Genetic results were conveyed during an office visit (57%), by telephone (39%), or by mail (3%). More than 75% of respondents were "very satisfied with the counseling received." Cancer-free subjects with a germline mutation were more likely to consider prevention strategies after receiving the genetic results. CONCLUSION: Virtually all respondents had a personal and/or family history of breast/ovarian cancer. Although pretest and posttest communications were not standardized, overall satisfaction with clinical breast cancer genetic testing was high. Additional follow-up will provide data on future cancer prevention practices and cancer incidence.

Adult↗