#1099
Background: Efforts are now focused on increasing access to genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations to address cancer disparities in African American women; however, limited empirical data are available on the effects of these services. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of genetic counseling among African American women at increased risk for hereditary disease.
 Materials and Methods: This study was conducted between February 2003 and November 2006. Participants were African American women (n=139) at increased risk for having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation. The effects of genetic counseling, including culturally tailored (CTGC) versus standard (SGC) counseling, on changes in risk perception and psychological functioning were evaluated.
 Results: Women who participated in genetic counseling had a significantly greater likelihood of reporting reductions in perceived risk compared to non-participants (P=0.03). Women who received BRCA1/2 results also had a significantly greater likelihood of reporting decreases in cancer worry (P=0.03). Similar effects were found among women who had a high prior probability of having a BRCA1/2 mutation (P=0.03) and those affected with cancer (P=0.04). There were no differences in CTGC and SGC in study outcomes.
 Discussion: African American women may experience some benefit from receiving BRCA1/2 test results. Participation in counseling and receiving test results may be especially beneficial to African American women who have high prior probability of having a BRCA1/2 mutation and those affected with cancer. Continued efforts should be made to increase access to genetic counseling and testing among African American women at increased risk for hereditary disease.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 1099.
Background: For patients with metastatic prostate cancer, treatment is primarily palliative, relying mainly on the suppression of systemic androgen hormone levels. To help document the achievement of palliation and to characterize positive and negative effects of treatment, we evaluated qualityof-life (QOL) parameters in patients with metastatic prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to two methods of androgen deprivation. Methods: Patients (n = 739) with stage M 1 (bone or soft tissue metastasis) prostate cancer were enrolled in a QOL protocol that was a companion to Southwest Oncology Group INT-0105, a randomized doubleblind trial comparing treatment with bilateral orchiectomy (surgical castration) plus either flutamide or placebo. Patients completed a comprehensive battery of QOL questionnaires at random assignment to treatment and at 1, 3, and 6 months later. Data were collected on three treatment-specific symptoms (diarrhea, gas pain, and body image), on physical functioning, and on emotional functioning. All P values are two-sided. Results: Questionnaire return rates for this study never dropped below 80%; only 2% of the patients did not submit baseline QOL assessments. Cross-sectional analyses (corrected for multiple testing) identified statistically significant differences that favored orchiectomy plus placebo for two of the five primary QOL parameters as follows: patients receiving flutamide reported more diarrhea at 3 months (P = .001) and worse emotional functioning at 3 and 6 months (both P<.003). Longitudinal analyses replicated these findings. Other analyzed QOL parameters favored the group receiving placebo but were not statistically significant after adjustment for multiple testing. Conclusions: We found a consistent pattern of better QOL outcomes at each follow-up assessment during the first 6 months of treatment for orchiectomized patients with metastatic prostate cancer who received placebo versus flutamide. Improvement over time was evident in both treatment groups but more so for patients receiving placebo. [J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1537-44]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.