Influence of Anchoring on Miscarriage Risk Perception Associated with Amniocentesis

INFLUENCE OF ANCHORING ON MISCARRIAGE RISK PERCEPTION ASSOCIATED WITH AMNIOCENTESIS Publication No. ___________ Regina Nuccio, BS Supervisory Professor: Claire N. Singletary, MS, CGC Amniocentesis is the most common invasive procedure performed during pregnancy (Eddleman, et al., 2006). One important factor that women consider when making a decision about amniocentesis is the risk of miscarriage associated with the procedure. People use heuristics such as anchoring, the action of using a prior belief regarding the magnitude of risk as a frame of reference for new information to be synthesized, to better understand risks that they encounter in their lives. This study aimed to determine a woman’s perception of miscarriage risk associated with amniocentesis before and after a genetic counseling session and to determine what factors are most likely to anchor a woman’s perception of miscarriage risk associated with amniocentesis. Most women perceived the risk as low or average pre-counseling and were likely to indicate the numeric risk of amniocentesis as <1% risk. A higher percentage of patients correctly identified the numeric risk as <1% post-counseling when compared to pre-counseling. However, the majority of patients’ feeling about the risk perception did not change after the genetic counseling session (60%), regardless of how they perceived the risk before discussing amniocentesis with a genetic counselor. Those whose risk perception did change after discussing amniocentesis with a genetic counselor showed a decreased risk perception (p<0.0001). Of the multitude of factors studied, only two showed significance: having a friend or relative with a personal or family history of a genetic disorder was associated with a lower risk perception (p=0.001) and having a child already was associated with a lower risk perception (p=0.038). The lack of significant factors may reflect the uniqueness of each patient’s heuristic framework and reinforces the importance of genetic counseling to elucidate individual concerns.

ACCURACY OF THE BRCAPRO RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL IN MALES PRESENTING TO MD ANDERSON FOR BRCA TESTING

ACCURACY OF THE BRCAPRO RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL IN MALES PRESENTING TO MD ANDERSON FOR BRCA TESTING Publication No. _______ Carolyn A. Garby, B.S. Supervisory Professor: Banu Arun, M.D. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) syndrome is due to mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Women with HBOC have high risks to develop breast and ovarian cancers. Males with HBOC are commonly overlooked because male breast cancer is rare and other male cancer risks such as prostate and pancreatic cancers are relatively low. BRCA genetic testing is indicated for men as it is currently estimated that 4-40% of male breast cancers result from a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (Ottini, 2010) and management recommendations can be made based on genetic test results. Risk assessment models are available to provide the individualized likelihood to have a BRCA mutation. Only one study has been conducted to date to evaluate the accuracy of BRCAPro in males and was based on a cohort of Italian males and utilized an older version of BRCAPro. The objective of this study is to determine if BRCAPro5.1 is a valid risk assessment model for males who present to MD Anderson Cancer Center for BRCA genetic testing. BRCAPro has been previously validated for determining the probability of carrying a BRCA mutation, however has not been further examined particularly in males. The total cohort consisted of 152 males who had undergone BRCA genetic testing. The cohort was stratified by indication for genetic counseling. Indications included having a known familial BRCA mutation, having a personal diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer, or having a family history suggestive of HBOC. Overall there were 22 (14.47%) BRCA1+ males and 25 (16.45%) BRCA2+ males. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed for the cohort overall, for each particular indication, as well as for each cancer subtype. Our findings revealed that the BRCAPro5.1 model had perfect discriminating ability at a threshold of 56.2 for males with breast cancer, however only 2 (4.35%) of 46 were found to have BRCA2 mutations. These results are significantly lower than the high approximation (40%) reported in previous literature. BRCAPro does perform well in certain situations for men. Future investigation of male breast cancer and men at risk for BRCA mutations is necessary to provide a more accurate risk assessment.