Skip to main content
Log in

Women at risk of ovarian cancer: attitudes towards and expectations of the familial ovarian cancer clinic

  • Published:
Familial Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Familial ovarian cancer clinics are a recent development and little is known about the characteristics of women who attend. One hundred and ninety-seven women with a family history of ovarian cancer completed a questionnaire prior to their initial attendance at the Familial Ovarian Cancer Clinic in Edinburgh. Issues relating to screening procedures were the most commonly cited barriers to attendance, with a proportion finding gynaecological examination embarrassing (17.0%) or uncomfortable (18.0%). Expectations of the clinic were high in terms of access to resources and information. The vast majority of women would prefer to have regular screening (94.7%) and genetic testing (93.2%) if it were available. Attitudes to prophylactic surgery and chemoprevention were more diverse, but would be considered by 54.3% and 43.9% of respondents respectively. Although the current screening procedure for ovarian cancer is of unproven efficacy, a high proportion of women believed in its ability to reduce mortality (77.9%) and to detect tumours at an early stage (65.8%). There was a trend for women to believe this more strongly at follow-up. This study highlights the need to make women more aware of the limitations of current ovarian cancer screening techniques, particularly where the alternative management strategy of prophylactic surgery might otherwise be dismissed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lerman C, Lustbader E, Rimer B et al. Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: a randomized trial. J Nat Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 286-92.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ritvo P, Irvine J, Robinson G et al. Psychological adjustment to familial genetic risk assessment for ovarian cancer. Psychometric Med 1997; 59: 104.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cull A, Anderson EDC, Campbell S et al. The impact of genetic counselling about breast cancer risk on women's risk perceptions and levels of distress. Br J Cancer 1999; 79: 501-8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ford D, Easton DF, Bishop DT et al. Risks of cancer in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Lancet 1994; 343: 692-5.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Austoker J. Screening for ovarian, prostatic, and testicular cancers. BMJ 1994; 309: 315-20.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bombard AT, Fields AL, Aufox S et al. The genetics of ovarian cancer: an assessment of current screening protocols and recommendations for counselling families at risk. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1996; 39: 860-72.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Michie S, Marteau TM, Bobrow M. Genetic counselling: the psychological impact of meeting patients' expectations. J Med Genet 1997; 34: 237-41.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hallowell N, Murton F, Statham H et al. Women's need for information before attending genetic counselling for familial breast or ovarian cancer: a questionnaire, interview, and observational study. Br Med J 1997; 314: 281-3.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Julian-Reynier C, Eisinger F, Chabal F et al. Cancer genetics clinics: target population and consultees' expectations. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A: 398-403.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fallowfield LJ, Rodway A, Baum M. What are the psychological factors influencing attendance, non-attendance and re-attendance at a breast screening centre? J Royal Soc Med 1990; 83: 547-51.

    Google Scholar 

  11. de Koning HJ, Fracheboud J, Boer R et al. Nation-wide breast cancer screening in the Netherlands: support for breast-cancer mortality reduction. National evaluation team for breast cancer screening. Int J Cancer 1995; 60: 777-80.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Feig S. Estimation of currently attainable benefit from mammographic screening of women aged 40-49 years. Cancer 1995; 75: 2412-9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cooper GS, Yuan Z, Bowlin SJ et al. An ecological study of the effectiveness of mammography in reducing breast cancer mortality. Am J Public Health 1998; 88: 281-4.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Robinson GE, Rosen BP, Bradley LN et al. Psychological impact of screening for familial ovarian cancer: Reactions to initial assessment. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 65: 197-205.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Andolf E, Jorgensen C, Uddenberg N et al. Psychological effects of ultrasound screening for ovarian carcinoma. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 11: 155-62.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Green J, Murton F, Statham H. Psychosocial issues raised by a familial ovarian cancer register. J Med Genet 1993; 30: 575-9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mackay J, Crosbie AEC, Steel CM et al. Clinical and ethical dilemmas in familial ovarian cancer. In Sharp F, Blackett A, Leake R, Berek J (eds): Ovarian Cancer 4. London: Chapman and Hall, 1995: 81-9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rimer BK, Schildkraut JM, Lerman C et al. Participation in a women's breast cancer risk counseling trial: Who participates? Who declines? Cancer 1996; 77: 2348-55.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schwartz MD, Lerman C, Miller SM et al. Coping disposition, perceived risk, and psychological distress among women at increased risk for ovarian cancer. Health Psychol 1995; 14: 232-5.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cull A, Fry A, Rush R, Steel CM. Cancer risk perceptions and distress among women attending a familial ovarian cancer clinic. Br J Cancer (In press).

  21. Hailey BJ. Family history of breast cancer and screening behavior: an inverted U-shaped curve? Medical Hypotheses 1991; 36: 397-403.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sheppard, R., Fry, A., Rush, R. et al. Women at risk of ovarian cancer: attitudes towards and expectations of the familial ovarian cancer clinic. Familial Cancer 1, 31–37 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011539800994

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011539800994

Navigation