Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec 16;17(1):132.
doi: 10.1186/s12905-017-0488-6.

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey

Katie E J Hann  1 , Lindsay Fraser  1 , Lucy Side  1   2 , Sue Gessler  1 , Jo Waller  3 , Saskia C Sanderson  3   4 , Madeleine Freeman  3 , Ian Jacobs  1   5 , Anne Lanceley  6 ; PROMISE study team
Affiliations

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey

Katie E J Hann et al. BMC Womens Health. .

Abstract

Background: Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals' (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one's own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced.

Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women.

Results: One hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and 'others'. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients.

Conclusions: Larger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

Keywords: Genetic testing; Health care professionals; Ovarian cancer; Risk stratification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the UCL research ethics committee (project ID: 8053/002). The data collected was anonymous, therefore formal consent was not required. HCPs who voluntarily accessed the survey, and completed and submitted it, did so in the knowledge that they were thereby giving consent for their anonymous responses to be included in the study. The participant information preface to the online survey explained these steps in the consent process and stated that since data was anonymous formal verbal or written consent was not required. The study was approved by UCL research ethics committee (project ID: 8053/002) and was open to participants for 3 months from March 2016.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

As co-inventor of the ‘Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm’ Ian Jacobs has a right to a royalty stream via MGH and QMUL which own the algorithm and is a Director of Abcodia Ltd. which has licensed the algorithm. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

References

    1. Ovarian Cancer Statistics [http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/st.... Accessed October 2017.
    1. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Kalsi JK, et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10022):945–956. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01224-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Slade I, Riddell D, Turnbull C, Hanson H, Rahman N. Development of cancer genetic services in the UK: a national consultation. Genome Med. 2015;7(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s13073-015-0128-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nippert I, Julian-Reynier C, Harris H, Evans G, van Asperen CJ, Tibben A, et al. Cancer risk communication, predictive testing and management in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK: general practitioners’ and breast surgeons’ current practice and preferred practice responsibilities. J Community Genet. 2014;5(1):69–79. doi: 10.1007/s12687-013-0173-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zhang S, Royer R, Li S, McLaughlin JR, Rosen B, Risch HA, et al. Frequencies of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among 1,342 unselected patients with invasive ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(2):353–357. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.01.020. - DOI - PubMed