Abstract P6-10-17: Psychosocial adjustment, cancer worry and perceived risk in 6-13 year old girls from breast cancer families
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Many parents discuss familial and genetic risk of breast cancer (BC) with offspring. What girls know and perceive of BC risk and its psychosocial impact is unknown. Methods: In the multisite LEGACY Girls Study, 6-13 YO daughters and their parents/guardians from BC families (FH+) and families without BC (FH-) were recruited to examine early determinants of, and responses to BC risk. Parents/guardians completed surveys reporting on their daughters’ psychosocial adjustment (PSA). Mothers and daughters 10-13 YO completed surveys reporting their PSA and perceptions of breast cancer risk. We used linear and logistic regressions with variable selection. Results: 731 parents/guardians reported on their own and the PSA of 898 daughters (450 FH+, 448 FH-), and 447 girls (10-13 YO) completed surveys (227 FH+, 220 FH-). FH+ girls have lower somatization and internalizing behaviors by parent/guardian report than FH- girls (Table 1). Intrusive BC (IBC) worry, and avoidant BC (ABC) worry were significantly higher in FH+ girls. IBC worry (coef=0.8, p=0.04) and ABC worry (coef 1.8, p=0.007) were higher in daughters whose mother had BC. Daughter perceived stress (PS), anxiety, depression, somatization, and internalizing did not differ by mother BC history. In multivariable models, daughter-anxiety was associated with mother-anxiety (Coef 1.4, p<0.0001) and BRCA+ family (coef -13.5, p=0.040). Daughter-depression was associated with mother-anxiety (coef 1.0, p=0.009). Daughter-IBC worry was associated with mother-IBC worry (coef 0.2, p<0.001). Daughter-ABC worry was associated with mother-IBC worry (coef 0.2, p=0.002) and being FH+ (coef 1.3, p=0.02). Daughter-PS was associated with mother-depression (coef 0.2, p=0.003). Somatization was not associated with any variables in multivariable models. FH+ girls were more likely to report themselves at higher risk for BC, although many reported uncertainty about their own BC risk. Table 1Daughter Psychosocial AdjustmentFH+ Mean(SD)FH-Mean(SD)By parent/guardian reportn=437n=431Anxiety46.7 (30.3)49.1 (29.1)Depression51.2 (27.2)52.8 (27.3)Somatization43.9 (30.7)**50.3 (30.7)**Internalizing46.1 (29.6)*50.8 (29.1)*Daughter reportedn=228n=222Anxiety40.2 (28.5)42.4 (29.5)Depression32.4 (26.2)32.4 (27.7)Somatization36.5 (25.5)44.0 (27.7)Internalizing33.1 (25.5)34.0 (26.7)IBC Worry2.0 (3.4)**1.2 (2.4)**ABC Worry3.8 (5.8)**2.0 (4.3)**Perceived Stress4.8 (2.8)4.6 (2.8)Daughter Perceived BC Riskn=219n=209Higher risk for BC than peers85 (39%)**27 (13%)**Same risk as peers57 (26%)54 (26%)Lower risk than peers19 (9%)35 (17%)Responded 'not sure'58 (26)93 (45)* p<0.05, ** p<0.01 Conclusions: Pre-adolescent girls from BC families have lower somatization and internalizing behaviors by parent report, but higher self-reported BC worry. Daughter general anxiety, depression and BC worry are associated with corresponding mother affect. Some girls from BC families are aware of their increased risk and related research suggests this may increase with age. Understanding how PSA and BC worry changes over time and the impact on health and risk behaviors can inform interventions to optimize responses to growing up in families at familial and genetic risk for breast cancer. Citation Format: Angela R Bradbury, Linda Patrick-Miller, Brian Egleston, Lisa Schwartz, Colleen B Sands, Wendy Chung, Gord Glendon, Lisa Tuchman, Cindy Moore, Paula Rauch, Irene Andrulis, Saundra Buys, Caren J Frost, Esther M John, Theresa Keegan, Julia Knight, Mary Beth Terry, Mary Daly. Psychosocial adjustment, cancer worry and perceived risk in 6-13 year old girls from breast cancer families [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-10-17.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».