Cargando…

Factors influencing receptivity to future screening options for pancreatic cancer in those with and without pancreatic cancer family history

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is considered the most lethal cancer and approximately 10% of PC is hereditary. The purpose of the study was to assess attitudes of at-risk family members with two or more relatives affected with pancreas cancer (PC) toward PC risk and future screening options. MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Breitkopf, Carmen Radecki, Sinicrope, Pamela S, Rabe, Kari G, Brockman, Tabetha A, Patten, Christi A, McWilliams, Robert R, Ehlers, Shawna, Petersen, Gloria M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410777/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22738386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1897-4287-10-8
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is considered the most lethal cancer and approximately 10% of PC is hereditary. The purpose of the study was to assess attitudes of at-risk family members with two or more relatives affected with pancreas cancer (PC) toward PC risk and future screening options. METHODS: At-risk family members and primary care controls were surveyed regarding perceived PC risk, PC worry/concern, attitude toward cancer screening, screening test accuracy, and intentions regarding PC screening via blood testing or more invasive endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). RESULTS: PC family members reported greater perceived risk of PC than controls (54% vs. 6%, respectively, p < 0.0001). PC family members also reported higher levels of PC worry/concern than controls (p < 0.0001), although 19% of PC family members indicated they were “not at all concerned” about getting PC. PC family members indicated greater acceptance of a false-negative result on a PC screening test relative to controls (12% vs. 8%, p = 0.02). Both groups reported high (>89%) receptivity to the potential PC screening options presented, though receptivity was greater among PC family members as compared to controls (p < 0.0001) for EUS. In multivariable analyses, degree of PC concern (p < 0.0001) was associated with intention to screen for PC by blood test and EUS, while perceived PC risk was associated with likelihood of undergoing EUS only (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Receptivity to screening options for PC appears high. Clinicians should address behavioral and genetic risk factors for PC and foster appropriate concern regarding PC risk among at-risk individuals.