Differences in Willingness to Undergo BRCA1/2 Testing and Risk Reducing Surgery among the General Public, Cancer Patients, and Healthcare Professionals: A Large Population-Based Survey

We aimed to understand the decision-making process related to the willingness to undergo BRCA1/2 genetic testing, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), or risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) among the general public, cancer patients, and healthcare professionals in South Korea. In total, 3444 individuals (1496 from the general public, 1500 cancer patients, 108 clinicians, and 340 researchers) completed a survey addressing genetic testing and related risk management options in a hypothetical scenario. Differences in intent and associated factors for undergoing the above procedures or sharing test results were analyzed. Overall, 67% of participants were willing to undergo BRCA1/2 testing, with proportions of the general public (58%), cancer patients (70%), clinicians (88%), and researchers (90%). The willingness to undergo RRSO was highest among clinicians (58%), followed by among patients (38%), the general public (33%), and researchers (32%) (p < 0.001). Gender, age, education level, and household income were associated with willingness to undergo genetic testing, RRM, and RRSO (p < 0.05). The intent for undergo genetic testing, RRM, and RRSO were affected by many factors. Finally, 69% of the general public intended to share information with family, while this percentage was 92%, 91%, and 94% for patients, clinicians, and researchers, respectively (p < 0.05). These results highlight the requirement for developing targeted educational materials and counseling strategies for facilitating informed decision making.

[1]  S. Teo,et al.  Attitudes and training needs of oncologists and surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in a low‐to‐middle income Asian country , 2022, Journal of genetic counseling.

[2]  Justin Mills,et al.  Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer. , 2020, American family physician.

[3]  J. Joo,et al.  Different Patterns of Risk Reducing Decisions in Affected or Unaffected BRCA Pathogenic Variant Carriers , 2018, Cancer research and treatment : official journal of Korean Cancer Association.

[4]  J. Oh,et al.  Cancer cost communication: experiences and preferences of patients, caregivers, and oncologists—a nationwide triad study , 2018, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[5]  Anne Lanceley,et al.  Awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards genetic testing for cancer risk among ethnic minority groups: a systematic review , 2017, BMC Public Health.

[6]  Carme Camps,et al.  Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service , 2017, PLoS medicine.

[7]  R. Schwab,et al.  Participation of low-income women in genetic cancer risk assessment and BRCA 1/2 testing: the experience of a safety-net institution , 2016, Journal of Community Genetics.

[8]  R. Sarin,et al.  Current Status of the Management of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Asia: First Report by the Asian BRCA Consortium , 2015, Public Health Genomics.

[9]  Tuya Pal,et al.  Factors associated with genetic counseling and BRCA testing in a population-based sample of young Black women with breast cancer , 2015, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[10]  Jeong Eon Lee,et al.  The prevalence and spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Korean population: recent update of the Korean Hereditary Breast Cancer (KOHBRA) study , 2015, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[11]  Karen R. Sepucha,et al.  Perceptions, Knowledge, and Satisfaction With Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Among Young Women With Breast Cancer , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  Sung-Won Kim,et al.  The Korean Hereditary Breast Cancer Study: Review and Future Perspectives , 2013, Journal of breast cancer.

[13]  A. Abernethy,et al.  The financial toxicity of cancer treatment: a pilot study assessing out-of-pocket expenses and the insured cancer patient's experience. , 2013, The oncologist.

[14]  A. Abernethy,et al.  Financial toxicity, Part I: a new name for a growing problem. , 2013, Oncology.

[15]  Rosalind Eeles,et al.  Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. , 2010, JAMA.

[16]  S. Lee,et al.  [The relationship between the optimistic bias about cancer and cancer preventive behavior of the Korean, Chinese, American, and Japanese adult residing in Korea]. , 2010, Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing.

[17]  J. Bottorff,et al.  Women’s Decision Making about Risk-Reducing Strategies in the Context of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review , 2009, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[18]  A. Freeberg,et al.  Disparities in BRCA testing: when insurance coverage is not a barrier. , 2009, American journal of surgery.

[19]  T. Rebbeck,et al.  Factors determining dissemination of results and uptake of genetic testing in families with known BRCA1/2 mutations. , 2008, Genetic testing.

[20]  O. Olopade,et al.  How often do BRCA mutation carriers tell their young children of the family's risk for cancer? A study of parental disclosure of BRCA mutations to minors and young adults. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  Giovanni Parmigiani,et al.  Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  M. Siadaty,et al.  Uptake Rates for Breast Cancer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review , 2006, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[23]  A. Patenaude,et al.  Sharing BRCA1/2 test results with first-degree relatives: factors predicting who women tell. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[24]  Rongwei Fu,et al.  Genetic Risk Assessment and BRCA Mutation Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility: Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2005, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[25]  K. Armstrong,et al.  Attitudes and Misconceptions about Predictive Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk , 2005, Public Health Genomics.

[26]  N. Facione,et al.  Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: a meta-analytic review. , 2004, Preventive medicine.

[27]  Sean V Tavtigian,et al.  Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10,000 individuals. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[28]  E. Lee,et al.  Uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among female BRCA mutation carriers: experience at the National Cancer Center of Korea , 2015, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[29]  E. Legius,et al.  Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients , 2003, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[30]  Pamela A Ratner,et al.  Women's interest in genetic testing for breast cancer risk: the influence of sociodemographics and knowledge. , 2002, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.