Skip to main content
Download PDF

Psychological factors and the uptake of preventative measures in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers: results of a prospective cohort study

Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice volume 20, Article number: 38 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Women carrying BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants are exposed to elevated risks of developing breast cancer (BC) and are faced by a complex decision-making process on preventative measures, i.e., risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM), and intensified breast surveillance (IBS). In this prospective cohort study we investigated the effect of anxiety, personality factors and coping styles on the decision-making process on risk management options in women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2.

Methods

Breast cancer unaffected and affected women with a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene were psychologically evaluated immediately before (T0), 6 to 8 weeks (T1) and 6 to 8 months (T2) after the disclosure of their genetic test results. Uptake of RRM and IBS was assessed at T2. Psychological data were gathered using questionnaires on risk perception, personality factors, coping styles, decisional conflict, depression and anxiety, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). We performed tests on statistical significance and fitted a logistic regression based on significance level.

Results

A total of 98 women were included in the analysis. Baseline anxiety levels in women opting for RRM were high but decreased over time, while they increased in women opting for intensified breast surveillance (IBS). Elevated levels of anxiety after genetic test result disclosure (T1) were associated with the decision to undergo RRM (p < 0.01; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.05–1.42), while personal BC history and personality factors seemed to be less relevant.

Conclusions

Considering psychosocial factors influencing the decision-making process of women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 may help improving their genetic and psychological counselling. When opting for IBS they may profit from additional medical and psychological counselling.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered at the German Clinical Trials Register under DRKS00027566 on January 13, 2022.

Peer Review reports

Background

Women carrying pathogenic germline variants (PVs) in the BRCA1/2 genes face elevated risks of developing breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC). BRCA1 pathogenic variants expose women to a lifetime risk of 72% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65–79%) for BC, while BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers face a risk of 69% (95% CI 61–77%) [1]. The increase in contralateral BC risk depends on the age at first diagnosis and the affected gene [2,3,4].

These elevated cancer risks confront women with different options of preventative measures for BC, namely intensified breast surveillance (IBS) and risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM). The purpose of IBS is the early detection of newly developing breast carcinomas [5, 6]. It has been shown to reduce mortality rates [7], but cannot reduce the risk of developing BC. Bilateral (BRRM) and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) can significantly reduce BC risk [8, 9] and mortality [10, 11] in women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. RRM has also been shown to reduce anxiety levels in women at risk for developing BC: McCarthy, Hamill [12] found that general anxiety was significantly reduced 1 year after BRRM including reconstruction and they remained decreased at 2 years follow-up. However, RRM is known to produce adverse consequences in the wellbeing of women [13], especially regarding breast related body image [14, 15] as well as sensuality and sexuality [16, 17]. Studies have reported on feelings of dissatisfaction with the results of RRM surgery [17], making a small percentage of women even regret their decision [18,19,20,21,22].

In light of the surgical procedure’s irreversible nature, women with PVs in BRCA1/2 are confronted with complex genetic and statistical information on their approximate age-related disease probabilities associated with their genetic predisposition. Moreover, they face difficult tradeoffs when deciding on risk management options [23], including the side effects of preventative and surgical measures, and anticipated long-term results. Personal values, expectations, anticipations, and beliefs have been shown to influence decision making on risk management options, e.g., the decision on prophylactic measures and/or intensified breast surveillance [24,25,26]. Understanding the psychological factors that may influence the decision-making process is paramount for patient-centered genetic counselling [27]. For example, distress levels and risk perception have been shown to play an important role in women’s intentions to undergo risk-reducing surgery [28]. In addition, cancer worry, risk perception, anticipated regret in case of a future BC diagnosis and having children are sought to be associated with the intention to undergo prophylactic mastectomy in healthy women at high risk for BC [25, 29]. In a literature review, Glassey et al. [17] found contradictory evidence on the relation between anxiety levels and choice for preventative option. The importance of coping styles (monitoring and blunting) has been reported for information needs in oncological settings [30] as well as cancer worry [31]. The aim of this prospective observational study was to determine the influence of psychological and psychosocial factors and coping styles and personality treats on the decision to undergo either RRM or IBS after genetic test result disclosure.

Methods

Participants and inclusion criteria

Study participants were recruited prospectively at the Centre for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer at the University Hospital of Cologne between June 2013 and December 2014.

To be included in this study, women had to be 18 years or older. They needed to be able to give written consent to participate in the study and have an adequate understanding of German. We included women with a PV in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene, respectively. Both BC-unaffected women (in the following referred to as ‘healthy’) and women unilaterally affected by BC were considered. Women diagnosed with OC or bilateral BC were excluded from the study. This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of Cologne (Date of approval: 22.05.2013/No. 13–028). Written consent to study participation was obtained from all women.

Clinical setting: genetic counseling and risk communication

All participants received pre- and post-test genetic counseling by specialists in medical genetics. Pre-test genetic counseling included general information on hereditary BC and OC, PV testing and possible preventative or therapeutic options including information on potential benefits and harms, risks, side effects, and long-term follow up. Post-test genetic counseling included information on individual test results, absolute risks of developing BC, risk-adjusted preventative options, and competing risks associated with unilateral BC or other diseases.

Individual statistical risks for developing BC were calculated using the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) V3 model [32]. Information on BC and/or OC and BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant status for first-degree and second-degree family members was included. We communicated both the 5-year risk for developing BC and OC and the risk of recurrence and metastases as well as the risk for developing contralateral BC for BC affected women.

Measures

We collected data on age, marital status, parity, and number of children as well as socio-economic characteristics on educational level, occupation, and employment status. Clinical data and family history were retrieved from medical files.

Psychological evaluation comprised the following measures. An overview on questionnaires and measurement points is displayed in Table 1.

  • The HADS-D [33], the German version of the internationally used Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) [34], for measuring emotional. It comprises 14 items, seven each relating to either generalized anxiety or depression. For both scales, a sum score of 0 to 7 for either subscale is considered inconspicuous (‘non cases’) by the authors [34]; scores between 8 and 10 are considered conspicuous, suggesting borderline or doubtful cases of anxiety or depression, while a score above 10 indicate a ‘case’ on either scale. In this analysis, we examine anxiety as a dichotomous variable with scores of 7 or lower as “inconspicuous levels of anxiety”, and “increased/clinically relevant anxiety” with scores of 8 and higher. This allows for the identification of all possible cases including subsyndromal manifestations of anxiety, but heightens the chances of false positives [34].

  • The Freiburg Personality Inventory (FPI-R), a personality inventory used for assessing personality factors in clinical diagnostics in Germany [35]. It comprises 138 statements to which participants agree or disagree. The FPI-R aims at assessing 12 personality factors: life satisfaction, social orientation, achievement orientation, inhibition, irritability, aggression, stress, somatic complaints, health concerns, and openness, as well as two secondary factors: extraversion and emotionality/neuroticism. Higher scores indicate higher expression on each respective scale.

  • The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), commonly used to identify a state of decisional conflict in difficult situations [36, 37]. Its total score ranges from 0 (no decisional conflict) to 100 (extremely high decisional conflict). The scale comprises five subscales (uncertainty, informed, values clarity, support, effective decision) with scores ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate more problems dealing with decisional conflict.

  • The Frankfurt Monitoring and Blunting Scale (FMBS) [38], a revised version of the Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS) [39], designed to classify coping styles, i.e. the preference for either seeking information (‘monitoring’) or avoiding it (‘blunting’) in controllable and uncontrollable situations, respectively. Eight behavioral choices are rated on a four-point rating scale ranging from 1 (“Completely disagree”) to 4 (“Completely agree”).

  • Information on women’s decision on preventative measures (IBS or RRM) at T1 as well as actual uptake of preventative measures at T2 was collected.

  • A visual analogue scale ranging between 1 and 100% measured 5-year BC risk perception.

Table 1 Overview on questionnaires used and data gathered at different measurement time points
Full size table

Statistical analyses

We report on mean values (M) and standard deviation (SD) of two subgroups: women who opted for IBS (IBS group) or underwent RRM (RRM group) at T2 (6–8 months after genetic test result disclosure). We used Pearson’s Χ²-test for categorical variables and the t-test for continuous variables. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p < .05 and adjusted for effects of multiple testing. All p-values were two-sided. To inform on changes of anxiety over time, variance of analyses (ANOVA) with repeated measures was performed using general linear modeling. The Huynh-Feldt adjustment was used to correct for violations of sphericity.

The influence of psychosocial factors (independent variables) on the decision for either RRM or IBS (dependent variable) were determined by using binary logistic regression analyses using stepwise forward selection of variables based on the likelihood ratio test. Our final model was fitted with variables with a p-value < .05 (Cut-off). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 27.0.

Results

Basic characteristics

We recruited 159 women with deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. An overview on study participation is presented in study flow chart (Fig. 1). A total of 98 (61.6% response rate) participants returned the questionnaires on all three measuring points and were included in the final analysis. Basic characteristics and socio-demographics are presented in Table 2. Participant’s ages ranged from 20 to 70 years (M = 42.2, SD: 10.9), 40 women were BC-unaffected, 58 women were diagnosed with invasive unilateral BC. Two thirds (62%) of all participants had children, 69% were married or in a relationship. Every fifth woman was under the age of 20 when a close female relative had died from BC. Patients were asked on current mental health conditions and/or psychiatric disorders via a self-administered questionnaire. Four women reported suffering from depression or depressive episodes, one woman reported having anxiety and panic attacks.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study flow chart

Full size image
Table 2 Cohort sample characteristics of study participants that returned questionnaires at all three time points.
Full size table

Non-responder analysis

Women lost to follow-up (N = 61) were compared to the women participating in the study until T2 (N = 98). No difference was found on BC status (i.e., women diagnosed with unilateral BC, and cancer unaffected women), educational status and age. However, non-responders (women not returning their questionnaires at all three measurement points) had significantly higher levels of anxiety compared to active study participants at T2 (M = 8.33 vs. 6.92, p < .05; data not displayed).

Factors associated with the decision on preventative measures

Socio-demographic data, family history, BC status and risk

A total of 97 women provided information on choice of preventative measure at T2 (missing values: 1). No difference was found between women who underwent RRM (N = 33) and women who chose IBS (N = 64) at T2 in terms of socio-demographics, risk status, family characteristics and number of family members affected by or deceased from BC. We found no difference between participant’s BC status (healthy or unilaterally affected) and psychosocial characteristics as well as their respective choice of preventative option at T2: 19 BC-affected and 14 unaffected women underwent RRM (33.3% vs. 35.0%, p = .87).

Mean BOADICEA V3 5-year BC risk at genetic test result disclosure was 9.78% (SD 4.31) and did not differ significantly between groups (MRRM = 9.97%, SD = 4.45% and MIBS = 9.75%, SD = 4.03%; p = .81).

Anxiety

When compared to the population average for German females (M = 5.0, SD = 3.4) [40], our study group showed slightly elevated (though not clinically relevant) levels of anxiety at every measured time point (Table 3, Fig. 2). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference of anxiety mean levels between measurement points, with F(1.57, 140.82) = 1.22, p = .292 (Huynh-Feldt correction).

Table 3 HADS anxiety and depression levels over time. Scores < 8: inconspicuous/non-case; scores ≥8: borderline cases of anxiety/depression. T0: at baseline (before genetic test result disclosure), T1: 6–8 weeks after genetic test result disclosure, T2: 6–8 months after genetic test result disclosure
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Anxiety levels over time. Anxiety level mean scores T0 through T2, classified by decision on preventative measure (T1). Abbreviations: T = measuring point, T0 = at baseline before disclosure of genetic test result, T1 = 6 to 8 weeks after the genetic test result disclosure, T2 = 6–8 months after the genetic test result disclosure, RRM = risk-reducing mastectomy (including bilateral and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy), IBS = intensified breast surveillance

Full size image

However, anxiety scores were significantly higher in the RRM group compared to the IBS group at baseline (T0: MRRM = 7.6, MIBS = 5.7, p = .03) and after genetic test result disclosure (T1: MRRM = 8.2, MIBS = 6.2, p = .03). It is of note, that 6 weeks after genetic test result disclosure, the anxiety mean value of women opting for RRM at T2 was > 8. More precisely, 16 of 32 (50.0%, one missing value) women had increased levels of anxiety (≥ 8), ten of which (10 of 32; 31.3%) had anxiety levels of > 10.

At T2, anxiety decreased in women who underwent RRM, while slightly increasing among women with IBS. In the IBS group, a total of thirty women displayed elevated levels of anxiety (46.9% of IBS), while eleven women in the RRM group had elevated levels of anxiety even after 6–8 months and RRM (33.3% of RRM group).

Overall, 16 of 36 women (44.4%) with increased anxiety scores at T1 underwent RRM at T2, whereas 55.6% (20 of 36) opted for IBS. Accordingly, 44 of 60 (73.3%) women with low anxiety scores opted for IBS, while 16 (26.7%) underwent RRM at T2. Irrespective of whether the women have acute BC or have ever had BC in their lives, 37 of 97 women (38.1%) showed increased anxiety scores of ≥8 at T1. Of these, 25 (67.6%) intended to undergo RRM at T1, 15 of which had undergone RRM at T2.

Depression

Mean level of HADS-Depression remained consistently low over time. Compared to the female German general population (M = 4.7, SD = 3.9) [40], scores were generally low. Mean level of depression did not differ between groups before (T0) and 6–8 weeks after genetic test result disclosure (T1). At T2, mean levels in the IBS group rose to 3.4 and differed significantly from the RRM group, while remaining at inconspicuous level overall.

BC risk perception

Lifetime BC risk perception at T1 did not differ significantly between IBS and RRM groups (55.3 and 68.1% respectively). At T2, 6–8 months after genetic test result disclosure, perceived 5-year BC risk differed significantly between women who underwent RRM and women who opted for IBS (MRRM = 9.1%, SD = 12.8 and MIBS = 28.2%, SD = 24.8, p < .001; missing values: 9) with Cohen’s d = 0.89 (95% CI: 0.43–1.34).

Decisional conflict

Table 4 displays an overview on the DCS total and subscales. Both groups, RRM and IBS, displayed rather low DCS total scores, indicating low decisional conflict 6 weeks after genetic test result disclosure (T1). However, when analyzing the subgroups by choice of preventative options at T2, the RRM group showed significantly lower levels of decisional conflict at T1 than the IBS group (Table 4, MRRM = 11.1, MIBS = 19.8; p < .05) with medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.515, 95% CI: 0.01–1.02).

Table 4 Descriptive data and mean value comparison of DCS and its subscales by uptake of preventative measure (IBS vs. RRM) at T2
Full size table

The DCS subscales revealed that women who underwent RRM at T2 had felt more informed at T1 than women who opted for IBS (MIBS = 19.54 vs. MRRM = 8.33, p < .005). All other subscales revealed no significant differences between groups. Though not statistically significant, it is worth mentioning that the uncertainty subscale displayed higher scores in both groups compared to the other subscales, showing a tendency towards higher uncertainty among the IBS group (MRRM = 21.8 vs. MIBS = 33.5; p = .073).

Personality factors (FPI-R) and coping styles (FMBS)

Table 5 displays an overview on FPI-R and FMBS and their subscales. All mean values were equivalent to those of the German female population [38]. Only the FPI-R subscale ‘health concerns’ was associated with the decision for either RRM or IBS at T2. They were higher in the RRM group compared to the IBS group (MRRM = 6.7 vs. MIBS = 5.5, p < .05), with rather low scores in both groups [35]. Effect size was low with Cohen’s d = −0.447 (95% CI: -0.78 - -0.11). We found no association between FMBS coping styles (i.e., monitoring or blunting) and choice of preventative option at T2.

Table 5 Descriptive data and mean value comparison of FPI-R and FBMS by uptake of preventative measure (IBS vs. RRM) at T2
Full size table

Predictors for the uptake of preventative measures

To further investigate influencing factors for the uptake of preventative options, we fitted a binary logistic regression model (Table 6) using a forward stepwise approach (Wald). Factors where associations with the uptake of RRM had been indicated (p < .10) were included: the FPI-R-subscale health concerns and HADS-Anxiety mean values at T0 and T1, as well as the DCS total score and its subscales informed and uncertainty, the latter being not statistically significant with p = 0.07. In addition, we included educational level (p = .083).

Table 6 Binary logistic regression model forward stepwise approach
Full size table

An overview is presented in Table 6. In the final model (step 3, Χ2 (df = 3) = 21.931, p < .001), anxiety at baseline, as well as decisional conflict (DCS total score) and health concerns (FPI-R) were found to be associated with the decision to undergo RRM or opt for IBS. The variance of uptake of preventive measures was explained to 42.1% (Nagelkerke R2 = 0.421, Cox & Snell R2 = 0.298) by the predictors. Women with higher anxiety scores at T0 were more likely to opt for RRM (OR = 1.321, CI: 1.095–1.593). Decisional conflict was negatively associated with RRM (OR = 0.939, CI: 0.887–0.993), indicating that higher decisional conflict is associated with opting for IBS rather than RRM. The personality trait ‘health concern’ was positively associated with the uptake of RRM (OR = 1.475, CI: 1.102–1.973), while educational level (p = .102), HADS-anxiety at T1 (p = .786), and the DCS subscales ‘uncertainty’ (p = .849), and ‘informed’ (p = .500) were discarded by the model.

Discussion

This study provides insight into psychological and personality factors associated with the decision on preventative measures following BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant detection.

Our findings suggest that higher levels of anxiety at baseline are positively associated with the uptake of RRM. This supports previous evidence [41], while Van Driel et al. had found no relation between women’s anxiety levels prior to genetic counseling uptake of RRM [28]. In addition, we found that women with a higher level of health concerns and lower levels of decisional conflict were more likely to opt for RRM. Socioeconomic status and personal BC history was not associated with the uptake of RRM, the latter confirming previous evidence that BC status (unaffected vs. affected) is not a predictor for RRM [25].

Anxiety levels in our cohort were higher than in the general population, which is in line with previous evidence [42], though not as high as reported there. This discrepancy may be caused by the high attrition rate of women with increased anxiety levels. Previous evidence has shown that psychological distress increased temporarily after genetic test result disclosure [43, 44], which was also the case in our cohort. However, in the subgroup of women opting for IBS, anxiety levels increased slightly over the course of 6–8 months after genetic test result disclosure. For the subgroup of women undergoing RRM, anxiety levels declined heavily over time, ranging near the general population’s score at T2. This is in line with previous research that demonstrated a decrease of distress levels after undergoing RRM [41]. It is of note that Julian-Reynier et al. [45] described similar trajectories with the effect of RRM or IBS on risk perception over time.

Women in our study group who underwent RRM at T2 had shown lower decisional conflict at T1 than women opting for IBS. This is reasonable, because the decision to perform prophylactic surgery is irreversible, so once the decision to undergo RRM is made, decisional conflict regarding preventative options is no longer an issue for most women. In contrast, women opting for surveillance may see their choice as a transitional solution decision (“for now”) where RRM may still be an option in the future, explaining the elevated level of decisional conflict in those women. When considering the subscales separately, the RRM group reported feeling more certain and informed about their choice compared to the IBS group. This indicates that women who opted for IBS may benefit from additional information material and counseling.

Contrasting previous evidence [17, 24, 46], our data showed no significant association between the choice of a preventative option and a close relative’s BC disease or demise. While the effect of coping styles on cancer related information needs [30] and cancer worry [31] has been reported, in our cohort of BRCA1/2 PV carriers, coping styles were not associated with decision-making on preventative options.

Study limitations

This study is subject to limitations. Firstly, we observed a high attrition rate from T0 through T2 and incomplete questionnaires. A total of 61 out of 159 women (38.4%) did not return the questionnaires at all three time points. This may be attributed to the emotional strain put on women receiving a positive BRCA1/2 test result, it being an exceptional situation requiring women to deal with highly complex information and decisions, at times even under time constraints (esp. in the context of reproductive and/or therapeutic decisions). This, in addition to some women undergoing therapy for BC, may result in limited resources for additional efforts (such as participating in a study), possibly explaining why a high number of women were not able to participate at all measurement time points. Our presumption is supported by the non-responder analysis of T0 data (before genetic test result disclosure), showing significantly higher levels of anxiety in women non-respondent at every time point. When interpreting the results, it should be taken into account that non-responders were on average more anxious than women who participated in the study, which may especially limit our findings on decreased anxiety levels after RRM. As an additional consequence of the high attrition rate, our sample is smaller than targeted, resulting in low cell sizes and compromised power, a common problem with studies in the BRCA1/2 context [17], especially for the analysis of subgroups. In addition, we employed multiple testing which may be responsible for some statistically significant results.

A second limitation is the rather short follow-up period of 6–8 months. The time lapse between genetic test result disclosure and the decision to undergo prophylactic surgery may span from a few months to several years [47]. Especially for the subgroup of (young) BC-unaffected women, a 6–8-month follow-up may not be an adequate time span for these women to reflect on the process of decision-making regarding prophylactic surgery. A longer follow-up period of several years is necessary, and should be accompanied by measurements on patient reported outcomes post-surgery (e.g., using the post-surgery questionnaire BREAST-Q). In addition, time has been reported to play a significant role for post-testing distress levels [48]. Hence, we can only provide limited evidence on the question of when the actual decision on RRM is being made.

Five women reported on current mental health conditions. No psychodiagnostic interview was performed to confirm the self-reported diagnoses. These women were not excluded from the analysis, potentially biasing our results towards elevated anxiety levels. Lastly, we did not discriminate between women from families with a known BRCA1/2 PV and women who were the first in their family to be tested for a PV. Anxiety levels at baseline (T0) may correlate with the perceived likelihood of carrying a PV, which may differ in women from families with PVs in BRCA1/2. In addition, type of pathogenic variant (BRCA1 or BRCA2) may play a role in decision making [49], as BC lifetime risks are higher for BRCA1 PV carriers [1] - a factor not considered in our analyses.

The use of the HADS to measure anxiety/distress in patients with somatic and psychogenic illnesses is common and generally considered adequate for screening [50]. However, more specific tools may be used complementarily to address further aspects of psychological distress, e.g., the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS) for cancer specific distress, or the Impact of Event Scale (IES) to assess the impact of traumatic events [51].

Clinical implications

Anxiety is an important component for clinicians to consider when counselling women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants on preventative measures for BC. While elevated levels of anxiety may lead women to prefer RRM, this may not be an irrational choice. In our study, anxiety levels decreased significantly after undergoing RRM, which is reasonable considering the heavy decrease in risk of developing BC [8, 9, 52]. However, RRM is an irreversible surgical intervention and a number of serious adverse effects have been reported by women undergoing RRM [16, 21, 22]. Even though most women do not express regret relating to their decision to undergo prophylactic mastectomy, and quality of life post-surgery is high [53], women report on adverse effects caused by RRM that compromise important aspects of life [17, 53]. In the process of decision-making, personal preferences, and expectations should be taken into account and discussed, along with risks and benefits relating to risk management options.

In addition, Glassey et al. [17] reported on information gaps and the need to provide more information during the process of decision making on preventative measures. Hence, it might be beneficial to assess anxiety during the process of decision-making, as increased levels of anxiety might hamper the reception of clinical information. In addition, providing medical information is a challenge, as only a few pieces of information can be absorbed per conversation [54] – a challenging contrast to the wealth of information available in the context of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Patients should be guided through the process of decision making by providing written and spoken information not only on medical facts regarding RRM and IBS, but also psychological insights. In addition, training courses that enable clinicians to adapt different communication strategies may help reducing anxiety and uncertainty in counselees.

Our results indicate that women with PVs in BRCA1/2 opting for IBS may still be in the process of decision-making and may have postponed their decision on prophylactic measures to a later point. Clinicians should be sensitized to the potential rise of anxiety levels in women with PVs in BRCA1/2 opting for IBS, and assess and meet information and counselling needs during annual IBS appointments. For instance, increased anxiety levels may at least partly be caused by false positive results, which are not negligible [6]. Therefore, future studies should address the importance and effect of comprehensive information about the significance of such findings. Considering anxiety levels, health concerns and personality factors enables clinicians to be more responsive to women’s emotional state and to offer counseling that is more individual. High persistent anxiety levels in women carrying PVs in BRCA1/2 should be taken into account when developing concepts for counseling these women. To identify women that may profit from additional psychological or medical counseling, respectively, psychological screenings may be carried out before and after preventative measures.

Availability of data and materials

Research data will be available to researchers upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

BC:

Breast cancer

BOADICEA:

Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm

BRRM:

Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy

CI:

Confidence Interval

CRRM:

Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy

CWS:

Cancer Worry Scale

DCS:

Decisional Conflict Scale

FMBS:

Frankfurt Monitoring and Blunting Scale

FPI-R:

Freiburg Personality Inventory

HADS:

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

HADS-D:

German version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

IBS:

Intensified breast surveillance

IES:

Impact of Event Scale

M:

Mean value

MBSS:

Miller Behavioral Style Scale

OC:

Ovarian cancer

OR:

Odds Ratio

PV:

Pathogenic germline variant

RRM:

Risk-reducing mastectomy

SD:

Standard deviance

SEM:

Standard error of the mean

References

  1. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips KA, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom MJ, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rhiem K, Engel C, Graeser M, Zachariae S, Kast K, Kiechle M, et al. The risk of contralateral breast cancer in patients from BRCA1/2 negative high risk families as compared to patients from BRCA1 or BRCA2 positive families: a retrospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(6):R156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Graeser MK, Engel C, Rhiem K, Gadzicki D, Bick U, Kast K, et al. Contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(35):5887–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van den Broek AJ, vant’Veer LJ, Hooning MJ, Cornelissen S, Broeks A, Rutgers EJ, et al. Impact of age at primary breast Cancer on contralateral breast Cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(5):409–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Warner E. Screening BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers for Breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2018;10(12):477. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers10120477. 

  6. Bick U, Engel C, Krug B, Heindel W, Fallenberg EM, Rhiem K, et al. High-risk breast cancer surveillance with MRI: 10-year experience from the German consortium for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;175(1):217–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Evans DG, Kesavan N, Lim Y, Gadde S, Hurley E, Massat NJ, et al. MRI breast screening in high-risk women: cancer detection and survival analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145(3):663–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Xiao YL, Wang K, Liu Q, Li J, Zhang X, Li HY. Risk reduction and survival benefit of risk-reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy in hereditary breast Cancer: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Breast Cancer. 2019;19(1):e48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Meijers-Heijboer H, van Geel B, van Putten WL, Henzen-Logmans SC, Seynaeve C, Menke-Pluymers MB, et al. Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(3):159–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Heemskerk-Gerritsen BA, Rookus MA, Aalfs CM, Ausems MG, Collee JM, Jansen L, et al. Improved overall survival after contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a history of unilateral breast cancer: a prospective analysis. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(3):668–77.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, Jager A, Koppert LB, Obdeijn AI, Collee M, Meijers-Heijboer HEJ, et al. Survival after bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;177(3):723–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McCarthy CM, Hamill JB, Kim HM, Qi J, Wilkins E, Pusic AL. Impact of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate reconstruction on health-related quality of life in women at high risk for breast carcinoma: results of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(9):2502–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lim DW, Metcalfe KA, Narod SA. Bilateral mastectomy in women with unilateral breast Cancer: a review. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(6):569–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. den Heijer M, Seynaeve C, Timman R, Duivenvoorden HJ, Vanheusden K, Tilanus-Linthorst M, et al. Body image and psychological distress after prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction in genetically predisposed women: a prospective long-term follow-up study. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2012;48(9):1263–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Anderson C, Islam JY, Elizabeth Hodgson M, Sabatino SA, Rodriguez JL, Lee CN, et al. Long-term satisfaction and body image after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(6):1499–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Altschuler A, Nekhlyudov L, Rolnick SJ, Greene SM, Elmore JG, West CN, et al. Positive, negative, and disparate--women's differing long-term psychosocial experiences of bilateral or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Breast J. 2008;14(1):25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Glassey R, Ives A, Saunders C, Musiello T. Decision making, psychological wellbeing and psychosocial outcomes for high risk women who choose to undergo bilateral prophylactic mastectomy - a review of the literature. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2016;28:130–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carbine NE, Lostumbo L, Wallace J, Ko H. Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4:CD002748.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gahm J, Wickman M, Brandberg Y. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with inherited risk of breast cancer--prevalence of pain and discomfort, impact on sexuality, quality of life and feelings of regret two years after surgery. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2010;19(6):462–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bresser PJ, Seynaeve C, Van Gool AR, Brekelmans CT, Meijers-Heijboer H, van Geel AN, et al. Satisfaction with prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction in genetically predisposed women. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(6):1675–82 discussion 83–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hallowell N, Baylock B, Heiniger L, Butow PN, Patel D, Meiser B, et al. Looking different, feeling different: women's reactions to risk-reducing breast and ovarian surgery. Familial Cancer. 2012;11(2):215–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Payne DK, Biggs C, Tran KN, Borgen PI, Massie MJ. Women's regrets after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7(2):150–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Frost MH, Schaid DJ, Sellers TA, Slezak JM, Arnold PG, Woods JE, et al. Long-term satisfaction and psychological and social function following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA. 2000;284(3):319–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Howard AF, Balneaves LG, Bottorff JL. Women's decision making about risk-reducing strategies in the context of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a systematic review. J Genet Couns. 2009;18(6):578–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. van Dijk S, van Roosmalen MS, Otten W, Stalmeier PF. Decision making regarding prophylactic mastectomy: stability of preferences and the impact of anticipated feelings of regret. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(14):2358–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Howard AF, Balneaves LG, Bottorff JL, Rodney P. Preserving the self: the process of decision making about hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer risk reduction. Qual Health Res. 2011;21(4):502–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jamal L, Schupmann W, Berkman BE. An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era. J Genet Couns. 2020;29(5):718–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tong A, Kelly S, Nusbaum R, Graves K, Peshkin BN, Valdimarsdottir HB, et al. Intentions for risk-reducing surgery among high-risk women referred for BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic counseling. Psychooncology. 2015;24(1):33–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. van Driel CMG, Oosterwijk JC, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, van Asperen CJ, Zeijlmans van Emmichoven IA, de Vries J, et al. Psychological factors associated with the intention to choose for risk-reducing mastectomy in family cancer clinic attendees. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2016;30:66–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Miller SM. Monitoring versus blunting styles of coping with cancer influence the information patients want and need about their disease. Implications for cancer screening and management. Cancer. 1995;76(2):167–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Mellon S, Gold R, Janisse J, Cichon M, Tainsky MA, Simon MS, et al. Risk perception and cancer worries in families at increased risk of familial breast/ovarian cancer. Psychooncology. 2008;17(8):756–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee AJ, Cunningham AP, Kuchenbaecker KB, Mavaddat N, Easton DF, Antoniou AC, et al. BOADICEA breast cancer risk prediction model: updates to cancer incidences, tumour pathology and web interface. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(2):535–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Herrmann-Lingen CH, Buss U, Snaith RP. Hospital anxiety and depression scale, German version (HADS-D). 3rd ed. Bern: Hogrefe; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Fahrenberg J, Hampel R, Selg H. Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  36. O’Connor AM. Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9501500105.

  37. Katapodi MC, Munro ML, Pierce PF, Williams RA. Psychometric testing of the decisional conflict scale: genetic testing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Nurs Res. 2011;60(6):368–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Voss U, Müller H, Schermelleh-Engel K. Towards the assessment of adaptive vs. rigid coping styles: validation of the Frankfurt monitoring blunting scales by means of confirmatory factor analysis. Personal Individ Differ. 2006;41(2):295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Miller SM. Monitoring and blunting: validation of a questionnaire to assess styles of information seeking under threat. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52(2):345–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hinz A, Brahler E. Normative values for the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) in the general German population. J Psychosom Res. 2011;71(2):74–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bresser PJ, Seynaeve C, Van Gool AR, Niermeijer MF, Duivenvoorden HJ, van Dooren S, et al. The course of distress in women at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer due to an (identified) genetic susceptibility who opt for prophylactic mastectomy and/or salpingo-oophorectomy. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2007;43(1):95–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Cicero G, De Luca R, Dorangricchia P, Lo Coco G, Guarnaccia C, Fanale D, et al. Risk perception and psychological distress in genetic counselling for hereditary breast and/or ovarian Cancer. J Genet Couns. 2017;26(5):999–1007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Harmsen MG, Hermens RP, Prins JB, Hoogerbrugge N, de Hullu JA. How medical choices influence quality of life of women carrying a BRCA mutation. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2015;96(3):555–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Beran TM, Stanton AL, Kwan L, Seldon J, Bower JE, Vodermaier A, et al. The trajectory of psychological impact in BRCA1/2 genetic testing: does time heal? Ann Behav Med. 2008;36(2):107–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Allford A, Qureshi N, Barwell J, Lewis C, Kai J. What hinders minority ethnic access to cancer genetics services and what may help? Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(7):866–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Haroun I, Graham T, Poll A, Sun P, Hill K, Weitzner E, et al. Reasons for risk-reducing mastectomy versus MRI-screening in a cohort of women at high hereditary risk of breast cancer. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2011;20(3):254–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Howard AF, Bottorff JL, Balneaves LG, Kim-Sing C. Women's constructions of the 'right time' to consider decisions about risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing oophorectomy. BMC Womens Health. 2010;10:24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hamilton JG, Lobel M, Moyer A. Emotional distress following genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a meta-analytic review. Health Psychol. 2009;28(4):510–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rojas KE, Butler E, Gutierrez J, Kwait R, Laprise J, Wilbur JS, et al. Choosing high-risk screening vs. surgery and the effect of treatment modality on anxiety and breast-specific sensuality in BRCA mutation carriers. Gland Surg. 2019;8(3):249–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Razavi D, Delvaux N, Farvacques C, Robaye E. Screening for adjustment disorders and major depressive disorders in Cancer in-patients. Br J Psychiatry. 1990;156(1):79–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Ringwald J, Wochnowski C, Bosse K, Giel KE, Schaffeler N, Zipfel S, et al. Psychological distress, anxiety, and depression of Cancer-affected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: a systematic review. J Genet Couns. 2016;25(5):880–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF, Evans DG, Lynch HT, Isaacs C, et al. Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA. 2010;304(9):967–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Razdan SN, Patel V, Jewell S, McCarthy CM. Quality of life among patients after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(6):1409–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Maguire P, Pitceathly C. Key communication skills and how to acquire them. Bmj. 2002;325(7366):697–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the German Federal Ministry of Health for funding this study. Further, we are grateful to the women who participated in this study for sharing their views and experiences.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. We acknowledge support for the Article Processing Charge from the DFG (Research Foundation, 491454339). This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health (Grant no. IIA5–2512 FSB 002). The funder had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or writing the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Julia Dick and Anja Tüchler contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany

    Julia Dick, Anja Tüchler, Kerstin Rhiem & Rita K. Schmutzler

  2. Institut Curie, Supportive Care Department, Psycho-oncology Unit, 26 rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris Cedex 05, Paris, France

    Anne Brédart

  3. Paris University, Psychology Institute, Psychopathology and health process laboratory UR4057, 71 avenue Edouard Vaillant, 92774, Boulogne-Billancourt, France

    Anne Brédart

  4. Department of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Frank Vitinius

  5. Psychologische Praxis, Bonn, Germany

    Kirsten Wassermann

Authors
  1. Julia Dick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anja Tüchler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Brédart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frank Vitinius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kirsten Wassermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kerstin Rhiem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rita K. Schmutzler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: RS, KR, KW; Acquisition of data: KW; Analysis of data: JD, AT; Drafting the manuscript: JD, AT, FV, AB, KR; Revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content: AT, AB, FV, KR, RS. All authors have given final approval of the version to be published. Each author has contributed sufficiently to the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. All authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerstin Rhiem.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval for the study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty at the University Cologne (22.05.2013/No. 13–028). All included patients gave their informed consent to participating in this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dick, J., Tüchler, A., Brédart, A. et al. Psychological factors and the uptake of preventative measures in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers: results of a prospective cohort study. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 20, 38 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-022-00244-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-022-00244-y

Keywords

Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice

ISSN: 1897-4287