English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes has been revolutionized by next-generation sequencing, which allows for simultaneous review of numerous genes. Multigene panels are regularly offered to patients because of their scope and decreased cost and turnaround time. However, many genes included on larger panels have not been studied as extensively as  BRCA1  and  BRCA2  ( BRCA1/2 ), and their clinical effects are often not as well established.    Methods  We identified patients who received positive test results for pathogenic variants of breast cancer genes from January 2012 through May 2018. We mailed a survey and conducted qualitative interviews to explore the personal and health care experiences of patients with pathogenic variants of  BRCA1/2  and patients with “other” (ie, non- BRCA1/2  or  PALB2; PTEN; ATM; TP53; NBM, RAD51C; MSH6 ) variants. We compared the experiences of these patients.    Results  Fifty-nine out of 128 individuals responded to the survey (46%). Thirty-two patients had  BRCA1/2  variants, and 27 had other variants. (49 women and 10 men; median [range] age, 63 [34–87] years). We interviewed 21 patients (17 women and 4 men; median [range] age, 59.6 [34–82] years). Of the interview participants, ten patients had  BRCA1/2  variants, and 11 had non- BRCA1/2  variants. Patients reported receiving poor information about their genetic test results, and they often educated their physicians about their results. Some patients believed that they had been ignored or “brushed off” by health care professionals because non- BRCA1/2  genes are less understood outside the genetics research community. Patients with  BRCA1/2  variants had similar problems with health care providers, despite increased awareness and established guidelines about  BRCA1/2 .    Conclusions  Research is required to understand the clinical significance and proper management of diseases attributable to newly characterized hereditary cancer genes. Additional evaluation of patient and provider education should be at the forefront of efforts to improve patient care.

Patients with pathogenic variants for breast cancer other than BRCA1 and BRCA2: qualitative interviews about health care experiences