0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Family Risk Discussions After Feedback on Genetic Risk of Melanoma FREE

Jennifer L. Hay, PhD1; Mallorie Gordon, MA2; Yuelin Li, PhD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
2Department of Psychology, New School for Social Research, New York, New York
JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(3):342-343. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.3421.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

First-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with melanoma may be among the first to seek melanoma genetic risk information.1 Testing may subsequently prompt useful discussions regarding melanoma risk, early detection, and prevention with multiple family members. To explore this potential, this study examined the intended discussions of FDRs of patients with melanoma with diverse family members after receiving hypothetical melanoma genetic risk feedback information.

The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The study used a 3-by-2 experimental pre-post design, where feedback type and risk level were varied and participants were randomized to 1 of the 6 scenario conditions.2 For feedback type, “mutation feedback” was modeled on inherited mutations in CDKN2A (gene encoding p16INK4A) linked to hereditary melanoma.3 “Gene environment feedback” was modeled on the melanocortin receptor gene (MC1R), which interacts with sun exposure to heighten population melanoma risk.4 “Nongenetic feedback” was based on a nongenetic melanoma risk assessment that includes factors such as mole number.5 Risk level was varied by whether the findings were positive (test identified higher risk) or negative. All scenarios explicitly reminded participants of their increased risk due to family history regardless of test findings.

Assessment of family discussions at baseline (before scenario exposure), asked how much (Not at all to A lot) participants had spoken about melanoma risk with their (a) mother, (b) father, (c) sister(s), (d) brother(s), (e) children, and (f) grandchildren (if they currently had this relative). Assessment at follow-up (after scenario exposure), asked how much participants intended to speak about melanoma risk with each family member.

The McNemar test of change in proportions was used to test pre-post changes in discussion rates. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to account for the clustered data of multiple family members per participant and to examine the extent to which the experimental manipulations influenced intention to discuss melanoma risk at follow-up.

The sample (N = 139) was mostly female (n = 97 [70%]) and non-Hispanic white (n = 135 [97%]). The median age was 48 years; most patients had only 1 FDR with melanoma (n = 128 [92%]) and no personal melanoma history (n = 110 [79%]). Approximately half (n = 76 [55%]) had a sun-sensitive phenotype (skin type I/II, indicating skin prone to burning). Baseline discussion rates did not differ by experimental conditions (P > .05 for all).

At baseline, frequency of melanoma risk discussions across all family member types was higher, on average, among women than men (t95.47 = 2.34, P < .05), but did not differ based on whether they had 1 or more FDRs with melanoma, whether they had a personal history of melanoma, or whether they had a sun-sensitive phenotype (skin type I/II) or not (P > .05 for all). The GEE model–estimated intentions were higher if the participant received positive (n = 128 [92%]) rather than negative (n = 100 [72%]) feedback (χ21 = 11.98, P = .001). There were no significant differences by feedback type, nor a significant interaction (risk level by feedback type). As reported in the Figure, discussion with all family members increased significantly (McNemar test, P < .05 for all), but these gains were highest for discussions with siblings and children. For example, intended discussion with brothers increased to 73% from 42% reported at baseline.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Family Discussions About Melanoma Risk

Percentage of participants reporting some or a lot of discussion with family members at baseline and after intervention. Error bars indicate standard error.

aDiscussion with grandchildren did not include an error bar due to very low numbers for this group.

Graphic Jump Location

Genetic testing for melanoma risk presents multiple opportunities for family risk awareness and prevention.6 Findings indicate that FDRs of patients with melanoma are likely to talk with a range of family members about melanoma risk and that positive risk feedback (high-risk mutation, gene environment, and nongenetic) increases intended discussions more than negative feedback. Increased communication with siblings and children, in particular, may be a worthwhile outcome of melanoma genetic testing. Specific guidance on the importance of family communication and risk reduction may be particularly important in the provision of negative genetic testing information.

Accepted for Publication: August 11, 2014.

Corresponding Author: Mallorie Gordon, MA, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Ave, Seventh Floor, New York, NY 10022 (hayj@mskcc.org).

Published Online: October 22, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.3421.

Author Contributions: Drs Hay and Li had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Hay, Gordon.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Hay, Gordon, Li.

Drafting of the manuscript: Hay, Gordon.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Li.

Obtained funding: Hay.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Hay, Gordon.

Study supervision: Hay.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported in part by The Martell Foundation.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The Martell Foundation had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: Charlotte Ariyan, MD, PhD, Mary Sue Brady, MD, and Daniel Coit, MD, provided clinic and patient access. We thank our study participants for their valued participation.

Koehly  LM, Peters  JA, Kenen  R,  et al.  Characteristics of health information gatherers, disseminators, and blockers within families at risk of hereditary cancer: implications for family health communication interventions. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2203-2209.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hay  JL, Baguer  C, Li  Y, Orlow  I, Berwick  M.  Interpretation of melanoma risk feedback in first-degree relatives of melanoma patients. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2012;2012:1-7. doi:10.1155/2012/374842.
Link to Article
Nelson  AA, Tsao  H.  Melanoma and genetics. Clin Dermatol. 2009;27(1):46-52.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Raimondi  S, Sera  F, Gandini  S,  et al.  MC1R variants, melanoma and red hair color phenotype: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer. 2008;122(12):2753-2760.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Glanz  K, Schoenfeld  E, Weinstock  MA, Layi  G, Kidd  J, Shigaki  DM.  Development and reliability of a brief skin cancer risk assessment tool. Cancer Detect Prev. 2003;27(4):311-315.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Aspinwall  LG, Taber  JM, Leaf  SL, Kohlmann  W, Leachman  SA.  Melanoma genetic counseling and test reporting improve screening adherence among unaffected carriers 2 years later. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(10):1687-1697.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Family Discussions About Melanoma Risk

Percentage of participants reporting some or a lot of discussion with family members at baseline and after intervention. Error bars indicate standard error.

aDiscussion with grandchildren did not include an error bar due to very low numbers for this group.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

References

Koehly  LM, Peters  JA, Kenen  R,  et al.  Characteristics of health information gatherers, disseminators, and blockers within families at risk of hereditary cancer: implications for family health communication interventions. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2203-2209.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hay  JL, Baguer  C, Li  Y, Orlow  I, Berwick  M.  Interpretation of melanoma risk feedback in first-degree relatives of melanoma patients. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2012;2012:1-7. doi:10.1155/2012/374842.
Link to Article
Nelson  AA, Tsao  H.  Melanoma and genetics. Clin Dermatol. 2009;27(1):46-52.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Raimondi  S, Sera  F, Gandini  S,  et al.  MC1R variants, melanoma and red hair color phenotype: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer. 2008;122(12):2753-2760.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Glanz  K, Schoenfeld  E, Weinstock  MA, Layi  G, Kidd  J, Shigaki  DM.  Development and reliability of a brief skin cancer risk assessment tool. Cancer Detect Prev. 2003;27(4):311-315.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Aspinwall  LG, Taber  JM, Leaf  SL, Kohlmann  W, Leachman  SA.  Melanoma genetic counseling and test reporting improve screening adherence among unaffected carriers 2 years later. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(10):1687-1697.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

627 Views
0 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
How Can I Apply the Results?

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
Are the results credible?