Premium
Psychosocial impact of undergoing prostate cancer screening for men with BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutations
Author(s) -
Bancroft Elizabeth K.,
Saya Sibel,
Page Elizabeth C.,
Myhill Kathryn,
Thomas Sarah,
Pope Jennifer,
Chamberlain Anthony,
Hart Rachel,
Glover Wayne,
Cook Jackie,
Rosario Derek J.,
Helfand Brian T.,
Hutten Selkirk Christina,
Davidson Rosemarie,
Longmuir Mark,
Eccles Diana M.,
Gadea Neus,
Brewer Carole,
Barwell Julian,
Salinas Monica,
Greenhalgh Lynn,
Tischkowitz Marc,
Henderson Alex,
Evans David Gareth,
Buys Saundra S.,
Eeles Rosalind A.,
Aaronson Neil K.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/bju.14412
Subject(s) - psychosocial , medicine , anxiety , worry , hospital anxiety and depression scale , prostate cancer , brca mutation , cancer , population , oncology , demography , clinical psychology , psychiatry , environmental health , ovarian cancer , sociology
Objectives To report the baseline results of a longitudinal psychosocial study that forms part of the IMPACT study, a multi‐national investigation of targeted prostate cancer ( PC a) screening among men with a known pathogenic germline mutation in the BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 genes. Particpants and Methods Men enrolled in the IMPACT study were invited to complete a questionnaire at collaborating sites prior to each annual screening visit. The questionnaire included sociodemographic characteristics and the following measures: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ( HADS ), Impact of Event Scale ( IES ), 36‐item short‐form health survey ( SF ‐36), Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer, Cancer Worry Scale‐Revised, risk perception and knowledge. The results of the baseline questionnaire are presented. Results A total of 432 men completed questionnaires: 98 and 160 had mutations in BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes, respectively, and 174 were controls (familial mutation negative). Participants’ perception of PC a risk was influenced by genetic status. Knowledge levels were high and unrelated to genetic status. Mean scores for the HADS and SF ‐36 were within reported general population norms and mean IES scores were within normal range. IES mean intrusion and avoidance scores were significantly higher in BRCA 1 / BRCA 2 carriers than in controls and were higher in men with increased PC a risk perception. At the multivariate level, risk perception contributed more significantly to variance in IES scores than genetic status. Conclusion This is the first study to report the psychosocial profile of men with BRCA 1 / BRCA 2 mutations undergoing PC a screening. No clinically concerning levels of general or cancer‐specific distress or poor quality of life were detected in the cohort as a whole. A small subset of participants reported higher levels of distress, suggesting the need for healthcare professionals offering PC a screening to identify these risk factors and offer additional information and support to men seeking PC a screening.