Cited by 56BRCA gene mutations in cancerCancer survivorship and careFamily Support in Illness

Psychological aspects, risk and protective factors related to BRCA genetic testing: a review of the literature

Lombardi, Lucia, Bramanti, Sonia M., Babore, Alessandra, Stuppia, Liborio, Trumello, Carmen, Antonucci, Ivana, Cavallo, Alessandra·2019·Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract

Purpose The primary aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of short-, intermediate- and long-term psychological effects, such as anxiety, depression and distress, on individuals undergoing genetic testing to determine BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation. The different instruments used for the measurement of each construct were reported. In addition, risk and protective factors associated with psychological outcomes of genetic tests were explored.Methods Bibliographic databases were searched for studies published over the period 1998-2018. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method, 21 articles were selected for the current review.Results Overall, the collected data revealed rather diverse results, although most studies reported higher levels of distress, anxiety and depression in carriers, as compared to non-carriers. The two genders were not equally represented, with men constituting only 6% of the sample. Risk factors and protective factors that may influence psychological outcomes and adjustment to genetic tests are highlighted and discussed in this review.Conclusions The increased risk of developing cancer associated with positive genetic testing results may be experienced as traumatic by many patients, although not all individuals with positive genetic testing results will experience increased distress. Hence, future studies should consider specific risk factors in order to select those who are more likely to be in need of psychological support. Finally, it is necessary to increase the number of male samples to better understand the male experience related to genetic testing outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00520-019-04918-7

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lombardi, L., Bramanti, S. M., Babore, A., Stuppia, L., Trumello, C., Antonucci, I., & Cavallo, A.
Affiliations
University of Chieti-Pescara (IT)
Corresponding author
Babore, Alessandra
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2019-06-15
Volume
27
Issue
10
Pages
3647-3656
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
OpenAlex
W2950841310
Cited by
56
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 2
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
BRCA1, BRCA2, genetic testing, psychological distress, anxiety, depression, risk factors, protective factors, genetic carriers, psychological support
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Breast Neoplasms, Depression, Female, Genetic Counseling, Genetic Testing, Humans, Male, Mutation, Risk Factors, Stress, Psychological, BRCA1 Protein, BRCA2 Protein, Protective Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review