Design of the BRISC study: A multicentre controlled clinical trial to optimize the communication of breast cancer risks in genetic counselling

BMC Cancer

Volumn 8, Issue , 2008, Pages

  Ockhuysen Vermey, Caroline F ^a   Henneman, Lidewij ^a   van Asperen, Christi J ^b   Oosterwijk, Jan C ^c   Menko, Fred H ^a   Timmermans, Daniëlle R M ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER RISK; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMMUNICATION SKILL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FAMILIAL CANCER; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MULTICENTER STUDY; NETHERLANDS; PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; BREAST TUMOR; DECISION MAKING; GENETICS; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATIENT EDUCATION; RISK FACTOR;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMMUNICATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMANS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 55349133442     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712407     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-283     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Julian-Reynier C Welkenhuysen M Hagoel L Decruyenaere M Hopwood P Risk communication strategies: State of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services Eur J Hum Genet 2003, 11:725-736 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201037 14512961
2. Easton DF Bishop DT Ford D Crockford GP Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: Results from 214 families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium Am J Hum Genet 1993, 52:678-701 1682082 8460634
3. Visser O Siesling S van Dijck JAAM Incidence of cancer in the Netherlands 1999/2000. Eleventh report of The Netherlands Cancer Registry Utrecht: Association of Comprehensive Cancer Centres 2003
4. Ford D Easton DF Stratton M Narod S Goldgar D Devilee P Bishop DT Weber B Lenoir G Chang-Claude J Sobol H Teare MD Struewing J Arason A Scherneck S Peto J Rebbeck TR Tonin P Neuhausen S Barkardottir R Eyfjord J Lynch H Ponder BA Gayther SA Zelada-Hedman M Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium Am J Hum Genet 1998, 62:676-689 1376944 9497246 10.1086/301749
5. Struewing JP Hartge P Wacholder S Baker SM Berlin M McAdams M Timmerman MM Brody LC Tucker MA The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews N Engl J Med 1997, 336:1401-1408 10.1056/NEJM199705153362001 9145676
6. Ad Hoc committee on Genetic Counseling Report to the American Society of Human Genetics Am J Hum Genet 1975, 240-242 1762759 1124768
7. Croyle RT Lerman C Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999:59-66 10854459
8. Dawson SJ Price MA Jenkins MA McKinley JM Butow PN McLachlan SA Lindeman GJ Weideman P Friedlander ML Hopper JL Phillips KA Cancer risk management practices of noncarriers within BRCA1/2 mutation positive families in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:225-232 10.1200/ JCO.2007.11.0262 18040054
9. Watson M Lloyd S Davidson J Meyer L Eeles R Ebbs S Murday V The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer Br J Cancer 1999, 79:868-874 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690139 10070883
10. Martin W Lobchuk M Breast cancer risk perception and surveillance: An integrative review Online J Knowl Synth Nurs 2003, 10:2 12800051
11. Meiser B Halliday JL What is the impact of genetic counselling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer? A meta-analytic review Soc Sci Med 2002, 54:1463-1470 10.1016/ S0277-9536(01)00133-2 12061481
12. Butow PN Lobb EA Meiser B Barratt A Tucker KM Psychological outcomes and risk perception after genetic testing and counselling in breast cancer: a systematic review Med J Aust 2003, 178:77-81 12526728
13. Henneman L Marteau TM Timmermans D Clinical geneticists' and genetic counselors' views on the communication of genetic risks: A qualitative study Patient Educ Couns 2008, 73:42-49 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.009 18583088
14. Rees G Fry A Cull A A family history of breast cancer: Women's experiences from a theoretical perspective Soc Sci Med 2001, 52:1433-1440 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00248-3 11286366
15. Pieters RGM Verplanken B Modde JM Neiging tot nadenken. Samenhang met beredeneerd gedrag [Need for cognition. Relationship with reasoned action] Ned Tijdschr Psychol 1987, 42:62-70
16. White VM Wearing AJ Hill DJ Is the conflict model of decision making applicable to the decision to be screened for cervical cancer? A field study J Behav Decis Making 1994, 7:57-72 10.1002/bdm.3960070105
17. Welkenhuysen M Evers-Kiebooms G d'Ydewalle G The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: Framing and verbal versus numerical information Patient Educ Couns 2001, 43:179-187 10.1016/ S0738-3991(00)00161-0 11369151
18. Timmermans D Molewijk B Stiggelbout A Kievit J Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment Patient Educ Couns 2004, 54:255-263 10.1016/ S0738-3991(03)00238-6 15324976
19. Hallowell N Statham H Murton F Green J Richards M "Talking about chance": The presentation of risk information during genetic counseling for breast and ovarian cancer J Genet Couns 1997, 6:269-286 10.1023/A:1025624221369
20. Mazur DJ Hickam DH Mazur MD How patients' preferences for risk information influence treatment choice in a case of high risk and high therapeutic uncertainty: Asymptomatic localized prostate cancer Med Decis Making 1999, 19:394-398 10.1177/0272989X9901900407 10520677
21. Timmermans D The roles of experience and domain of expertise in using numerical and verbal probability terms in medical decisions Med Decis Making 1994, 14:146-156 10.1177/0272989X9401400207 8028467
22. Sutherland HJ Lockwood GA Tritchler DL Sem F Brooks L Till JE Communicating probabilistic information to cancer patients: Is there 'noise' on the line? Soc Sci Med 1991, 32:725-731 10.1016/ 0277-9536(91)90152-3 2035049
23. Hoffrage U Gigerenzer G Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences Acad Med 1998, 73:538-540 10.1097/00001888-199805000-00024 9609869
24. Grimes DA Snively GR Patients' understanding of medical risks: implications for genetic counseling Obstet Gynecol 1999, 93:910-914 10.1016/S0029-7844(98)00567-5 10362153
25. Lipkus IM Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations Med Decis Making 2007, 27:696-713 10.1177/0272989X07307271 17873259
26. Bogardus ST Jr Holmboe E Jekel JF Perils, pitfalls, and possibilities in talking about medical risk JAMA 1999, 281:1037-1041 10.1001/ jama.281.11.1037 10086441
27. Schwartz LM Woloshin S Black WC Welch HG The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:966-972 9412301
28. Baty BJ Venne VL McDonald J Croyle RT Halls C Nash JE Botkin JR BRCA1 Testing: Genetic Counseling Protocol Development and Counseling Issues J Genet Couns 1997, 6:223-244 10.1023/A:1025620404473
29. Timmermans D Ockhuysen-Vermey CF Henneman L Presenting health risk information in different formats: The effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions Patient Educ Couns 2008 18722073
30. Bryant HE Brasher PM Risks and probabilities of breast cancer: short-term versus lifetime probabilities CMAJ 1994, 150:211-216 1486211 8287343
31. Fortin JM Hirota LK Bond BE O'Connor AM Col NF Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: A descriptive pilot study BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2001, 1:2 55342 11545684 10.1186/1472-6947-1-2
32. Weinstein ND Sandman PM Some Criteria for Evaluating Risk Messages Risk Analysis 1993, 13:103-114 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00733.x
33. Edwards A Elwyn G How should effectiveness of risk communication to aid patients' decisions be judged? A review of the literature Med Decis Making 1999, 19:428-434 10.1177/0272989X9901900411 10520681
34. Michie S Lester K Pinto J Marteau TM Communicating risk information in genetic counseling: An observational study Health Educ Behav 2005, 32:589-598 10.1177/1090198105278562 16148206
35. Pieterse AH van Dulmen S van Dijk S Bensing JM Ausems MG Risk communication in completed series of breast cancer genetic counseling visits Genet Med 2006, 8:688-696 17108760
36. Butow PN Lobb EA Analyzing the process and content of genetic counseling in familial breast cancer consultations J Genet Couns 2004, 13:403-424 10.1023/B:JOGC.0000044201.73103.4f 15604639
37. Resta R Biesecker BB Bennett RL Blum S Hahn SE Strecker MN Williams JL A new definition of Genetic Counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors' Task Force report J Genet Couns 2006, 15:77-83 10.1007/ s10897-005-9014-3 16761103
38. Adair G The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact J Appl Psychol 1984, 69:334-345 10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.334
39. Jonker MA Jacobi CE Hoogendoorn WE Nagelkerke NJD de Bock GH van Houwelingen JC Modeling familial clustered breast cancer using published data Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003, 12:1479-1485 14693741
40. van Asperen CJ Menko FH Meijers-Heijboer EJ Oosterwijk JC Beleid in mamma-en of ovariumcarcinoomfamilies. Richtlijn 2005/2006 Dutch Working Party on Clinical Oncogenetics, Dutch Society for Clinical Genetics 2005
41. van Asperen CJ Jonker MA Jacobi CE Diemen-Homan JE Bakker E Breuning MH van Houwelingen JC de Bock GH Risk estimation for healthy women from breast cancer families: New insights and new strategies Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004, 13:87-93 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-03-0090 14744738
42. Lerman C Biesecker B Benkendorf JL Kerner J Gomez-Caminero A Hughes C Reed MM Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing J Natl Cancer Inst 1997, 89:148-157 10.1093/jnci/89.2.148 8998184
43. Bluman LG Rimer BK Regan SK Lancaster J Clark S Borstelmann N Iglehart JD Winer EP Attitudes, knowledge, risk perceptions and decision-making among women with breast and/or ovarian cancer considering testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 and their spouses Psychooncology 2003, 12:410-427 10.1002/pon.653 12833555
44. Lerman C Trock B Rimer BK Jepson C Brody D Boyce A Psychological Side-Effects of Breast-Cancer Screening Health Psychology 1991, 10:259-267 10.1037/0278-6133.10.4.259 1915212
45. Ploeg van der E Mooren TT Kleber RJ Velden van der PG Brom D Construct validation of the Dutch version of the impact of event scale Psychol Assess 2004, 16:16-26 10.1037/1040-3590.16.1.16 15023089
46. Watson D Clark LA Tellegen A Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales J Pers Soc Psychol 1988, 54:1063-1070 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 3397865
47. Bij van der AK de Weerd S Cikot RJ Steegers EA Braspenning JC Validation of the dutch short form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Considerations for usage in screening outcomes Community Genet 2003, 6:84-87 10.1159/000073003 14560068
48. Spinhoven P Ormel J Sloekers PP Kempen GI Speckens AE van Hemert AM A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects Psychol Med 1997, 27:363-370 10.1017/ S0033291796004382 9089829
49. Marteau TM Dormandy E Michie S A measure of informed choice Health Expect 2001, 4:99-108 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x 11359540
50. Berg van den M Timmermans DR Ten Kate LP van Vugt JM van der Wal G Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening? Genet Med 2005, 7:332-338 15915085
51. Koedoot N Molenaar S Oosterveld P Bakker P de Graeff A Nooy M Varekamp I de Haes H The decisional conflict scale: Further validation in two samples of Dutch oncology patients Patient Educ Couns 2001, 45:187-193 10.1016/S0738-3991(01)00120-3 11722854
52. van Oostrom I Meijers-Heijboer H Duivenvoorden HJ Brocker-Vriends AH van Asperen CJ Sijmons RH Seynaeve C van Gool AR Klijn JG Tibben A The common sense model of self-regulation and psychological adjustment to predictive genetic testing: A prospective study Psychooncology 2007, 16:1121-1129 10.1002/pon.1178 17328098
53. Smets EM Pieterse AH Aalfs CM Ausems MG van Dulmen AM The perceived personal control (PPC) questionnaire as an outcome of genetic counseling: Reliability and validity of the instrument Am J Med Genet A 2006, 140:843-850 16532462
54. Schreurs PJG Willige van de G Omgaan met problemen en gebeurtenissen. De Utrechtse Copinglijst (UCL) [The Utrecht Coping List: Coping with problems and events] Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger 1988
55. Ploeg van der HM Handleiding bij de Zelf-Beoordelings Vragenlijst (ZBV). Een Nederlandse bewerking van de Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Stay-DY [Manual for the Zelf-Beoordelings vragenlijst, ZBV. Dutch adaptation of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI-DY] Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger 2000
56. Frederick S Cognitive reflection and decision making J Econom Perspect 2005, 19:25-42 10.1257/089533005775196732
57. Mann L Burnett P Radford M Ford S The Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire: An instrument for measuring patterns for coping with decisional conflict J Behav Decis Making 1997, 10:1-19 10.1002/ (SICI)1099-0771(199703)10:1<1::AID-BDM242>3.0.CO;2-X
58. van Oostrom MA Tijhuis MA de Haes JC Tempelaar R Kromhout D A measurement of social support in epidemiological research: The social experiences checklist tested in a general population in The Netherlands J Epidemiol Community Health 1995, 49:518-524 1060157 7499996