Genetic cancer risk assessment: A screenshot of the psychosocial profile of women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome

Abstract

Objective: There is a lack of information describing Brazilian women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) who undergo genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). This study aims to characterize the psychosocial profile of women at risk for HBOC at their first GCRA to obtain an overview of their families' profiles and the challenges of the oncogenetics setting.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in which interviews were conducted with 83 cancer-affected women at their first GRCA appointment after the pedigree draw.Tools to evaluate psychological outcomes were applied. The pedigree genogram and ecomap were constructed and analyzed with content analysis using the "life course perspective" theory.Results: Individuals perceived their breast/ovarian cancer risk to be equal to that of the general population, although they were highly concerned about developing cancer. No evidence of anxiety or depressive symptoms was identified. Participants used the coping strategy of searching for religiosity. The genograms and ecomaps resulted in five major themes: support and social support; attitudes, feelings and emotions; cancer causes; communication; and relationships with relatives. Individuals between 20-29 years of age and those with no family history of cancer tended not to communicate with relatives, which may indicate future problems in the GCRA process regarding genetic testing. Conclusions:This study demonstrated that knowing the families who undergo the GCRA process can help professionals provide more individualized and thorough attention during GCRA and genetic testing, which results in better follow-up and prevention strategies. K E Y W O R D S cancer, genetic cancer risk assessment, genogram, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, oncology

Genograma e Ecomapa: revisão bibliométrica das publicações globais

“…Este achado tem como hipótese que o Brasil concentra um volume maior de publicações por parte dos pesquisadores, uma vez que estas ferramentas são de uso cotidiano, principalmente na Atenção Primária à Saúde, e com registro nos prontuários individuais e familiares por parte das Equipes de Estratégia de Saúde da Família. Apesar de não possuir um número elevado de publicações que trazem o genograma e ecomapa como foco central das pesquisas, existem outros estudos que fazem uso das ferramentas como objeto secundário para auxiliar a construção das propostas metodológicas aplicadas [7][8][9][10][11][12].…”

The history of families at-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: what are the impacts of genetic counseling and testing?

“…The operational framework of the OD entails an initial appointment for CGC, with two parts: the first part conducted by a nurse, involving the collection of sociodemographic data, patients’ cancer history, and pertinent familial information to construct pedigrees; the second part comprises a consultation with a medical geneticist, wherein the GT and its implications are deliberated upon. Exhaustive details regarding all OD processes and protocols have been documented in prior publications ( Palmero et al, 2016 ; Campacci et al, 2020 ). A total of 60 women were included and responded to all questionnaires.…”

Exploring the Landscape of Eco-Mapping in Health Services Research: A Comprehensive Review

“…Most studies reported a qualitative study design (n � 58) [17,18,21,[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] and , followed by mixed methods (n � 9) [95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103] and quantitative designs (n � 3) [22,104,105]. Data collection methods consisted of semistructured interviews alone (n � 36) [17, 41-44, 46, 48, 52, 53, 56, 58, 59, 61-65, 67, 69, 70, 72, 76, 78-81, 83-85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 104] or interviews combined with focus groups [77,98], surveys [22,95,96,[99][100][101][102][103], participant observations [49,51,…”

“…Te majority (n � 31) of the studies reported collecting data in the community (i.e., homes of the participants, private ofces, or workplaces) [41-45, 49, 51, 54, 56, 57, 61, 67, 70-73, 75, 76, 78, 82, 84, 86, 90, 92-95, 97, 102, 103, 105], or an outpatient clinic (n � 6) [46,48,64,65,98] or inpatient unit (n � 5) [47,52,62,91,100] was cited. Less often reported was a community health center (n � 2) [60,104], residential care (n � 2) [18,55], hospice (n � 1) [22], school (n � 1) [101], and a virtual platform (n � 1) [88].…”