Percepções sobre o Aconselhamento Genético e Testagem para Câncer de Mama e Ovário Hereditário na População de Goiás

Amanda Vitória de Oliveira Lima; Isadora Alves Gamboa; João Victor Martins Bordigoni; Pedro Henrique Paulino Pereira de Souza; Ysabelle de Oliveira Saraiva; Jalsi Tacon Arruda

doi:10.32635/2176-9745.RBC.2026v72n2.5439

Authors

Amanda Vitória de Oliveira Lima Universidade Evangélica de Goiás (UniEVANGÉLICA). Anápolis (GO), Brasil. https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4953-8570
Isadora Alves Gamboa Universidade Evangélica de Goiás (UniEVANGÉLICA). Anápolis (GO), Brasil. https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5703-4888
João Victor Martins Bordigoni Universidade Evangélica de Goiás (UniEVANGÉLICA). Anápolis (GO), Brasil. https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3470-7659
Pedro Henrique Paulino Pereira de Souza Universidade Evangélica de Goiás (UniEVANGÉLICA). Anápolis (GO), Brasil. https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2146-9689
Ysabelle de Oliveira Saraiva Universidade Evangélica de Goiás (UniEVANGÉLICA). Anápolis (GO), Brasil. https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7800-8685
Jalsi Tacon Arruda Universidade Evangélica de Goiás (UniEVANGÉLICA). Anápolis (GO), Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7091-4850

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32635/2176-9745.RBC.2026v72n2.5439

Keywords:

Breast Neoplasms, Genetic Counseling/statistics & numerical data, Women's Health

Abstract

Introduction: Genetic counseling for hereditary breast cancer represents an essential preventive strategy, especially in populations with facilitated access to testing, as provided by current legislation in Goiás, Brazil. However, sociocultural and informational barriers may still limit adherence. Objective: To understand the perception of the population of Goiás regarding genetic testing and counseling for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. Method: This was an observational, cross-sectional, exploratory, and mixed-methods study with a convenience sample of 239 adult residents of Goiás. Data was collected through an electronic questionnaire disseminated via social media and messaging applications. Sociodemographic variables and 11 statements addressing benefits, practical aspects, and barriers to genetic counseling were evaluated using a Likert scale. Results: Most participants were female (80.8%), aged 18-50 years (84.1%), and had more than 12 years of schooling (82%). Overall perception of genetic counseling was positive, with high agreement regarding its perceived benefits. Participants with a personal history of cancer showed lower agreement with advantages and greater perception of family impact. Sex differences were observed in cultural barriers: men demonstrated lower predisposition to testing and greater influence of religious and fatalistic beliefs. Family history was associated with lower resistance to testing. Conclusion: The population of Goiás demonstrated broad acceptance of genetic counseling. Previous experiences with the disease influence perceptions of benefits and barriers. Educational and personalized strategies should consider these nuances to enhance adherence.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

International Agency for Research on Cancer. Global Cancer Observatory: cancer today [Internet]. Lyon: IARC; 2023 [acesso 2025 nov 5]. Disponível em: https://gco.iarc.fr/today

Instituto Nacional de Câncer. Estimativa 2026: incidência de câncer no Brasil [Internet]. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2026 [acesso 2025 nov 5]. Disponível em: https://ninho.inca.gov.br/jspui/handle/123456789/17914

Saj F, Nag S, Nair N, et al. Management of BRCA-associated breast cancer patients in low and middle-income countries: a review. ecancermedicalscience. 2024;18:1744. doi: https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2024.1744 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2024.1744

Ponce-Chazarri L, Ponce-Blandón JA, Immordino P, et al. Barriers to breast cancer screening adherence in vulnerable populations. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(3):604. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15030604 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15030604

Pulukuri BD, Penke VB, Palati DJ, et al. BRCA biological functions. In: Valarmathi MT, editor. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: diagnostic and therapeutic implications. London: IntechOpen; 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107406 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107406

Ren W, Chen M, Qiao Y, et al. Global guidelines for breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Breast. 2022;64:85-99. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2022.04.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2022.04.003

Dusic EJ, Theoryn T, Wang C, et al. Barriers, interventions, and recommendations: improving the genetic testing landscape. Front Digit Health. 2022;4:961128. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.961128 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.961128

Speiser D, Bick U. Primary prevention and early detection of hereditary breast cancer. Breast Care (Basel). 2023;18(6):450-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000533391 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000533391

Casa Civil (GO). Lei nº 20.707, de 14 de janeiro de 2020. Dispõe sobre a realização do exame de detecção de mutação genética que especifica [Internet]. Goiânia: Governo do Estado de Goiás; 2020 [acesso 2025 jul 11]. Disponível em: https://legisla.casacivil.go.gov.br/api/pesquisa/legislacoes/100911/pdf

Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Sci Psychol. 1932;22(140):1-55.

SPSS®: Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) [Internet]. Versão 31.0.0.0. [Nova York]. International Business Machines Corporation. [acesso 2025 mar 9]. Disponível em: https://www.ibm.com/br-pt/spss?utm_content=SRCWW&p1=Search&p4=43700077515785492&p5=p&gclid=CjwKCAjwgZCoBhBnEiwAz35Rwiltb7s14pOSLocnooMOQh9qAL59IHVc9WP4ixhNTVMjenRp3-aEgxoCubsQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Pearson K. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Lond Edinb Dubl Phil Mag. 1900;50(302):157-75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440009463897 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440009463897

Conselho Nacional de Saúde (BR). Resolução nº 466 de 12 de dezembro de 2012. Aprova diretrizes e normas regulamentadoras de pesquisas envolvendo seres humanos. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF. 2013 jun 13; Edição 112; Seção 1:59.

Silva DFL, Santos RCP, Gonçalves RS, et al. Para além do racismo institucional? Uma análise do conteúdo da Política de Saúde para a População Negra. Cien Saude Colet. 2023;28(9):2527-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232023289.11602022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232023289.11602022en

Carvalho KP, Batista CB, Queiroz IS. A saúde da população negra e a construção de políticas públicas pautadas no cuidado interseccional. Mnemosine. 2023;19(2):88-111. doi: https://doi.org/10.12957/mnemosine.2023.85820

Vicente RM, Garnelo L, Pontes AL, et al. Condições de trabalho dos profissionais de saúde indígena no maior Polo Base do Brasil. Cad Saude Publica. 2022;38(12):e00110321. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311XPT110321 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311xpt110321

Cerri RA, Garnelo L. O contexto da produção de normativas na implementação da política de saúde indígena. Interface (Botucatu). 2025;29:e240100. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/interface.240100 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/interface.240576

McDaniels BA, Hianik RS, Bellcross C, et al. The impact of genetic counseling educational tools on patients’ knowledge of molecular testing terminology. J Cancer Educ. 2020;35:864-70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01535-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01535-0

Crimi M, Mineri R, Godino L, et al. Building awareness on genetic counselling: the launch of Italian Association of Genetic Counsellors (AIGeCo). J Community Genet. 2020;11:495-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-020-00483-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-020-00483-3

Kopel J. The influence of religious affiliation and attitudes of clinical genetic testing among medical students in the West Texas region. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2023;13(4):25. doi: https://doi.org/10.55729/2000-9666.1212 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55729/2000-9666.1212

Cohen-Kfir N, Bentwich ME, Kent A, et al. Challenges to effective and autonomous genetic testing and counseling for ethno-cultural minorities: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21:98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00537-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00537-8

Choi J, Lee S, An B. Self-efficacy, self-care behavior, posttraumatic growth, and quality of life in patients with cancer according to disease characteristics. J Hosp Palliat Care. 2016;19:170-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.14475/kjhpc.2016.19.2.170 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14475/kjhpc.2016.19.2.170

Shahsavar Y, Choudhury A. Examining influential factors in newly diagnosed cancer patients and survivors: emphasizing distress, self-care ability, peer support, health perception, daily life activity, and the role of time since diagnosis. PLoS One. 2023;18(9):e0291064. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291064 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291064

Getie A, Ayalneh M, Bimerew M. Global prevalence and determinant factors of pain, depression, and anxiety among cancer patients: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMC Psychiatry. 2025;25(156):1-17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-06599-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-06599-5

Tasnim F, Galiatsatos P, Chai J, et al. Identifying the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Genet Med. 2025;27(4):1123-38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.102825 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.102825

Voth EM, Ahn S, Chon HS, et al. Barriers to uptake of genetic services among ovarian cancer patients at a university-based cancer center. Gynecol Oncol. 2023;175(2):358-65.

Padamsee TJ, Muraveva A, Yee LD, et al. Experiencing the cancer of a loved one influences decision-making for breast cancer prevention. J Health Psychol. 2017;25(8):1064-75. doi: https://doi.org/10282510.1177/1359105317746480 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317746480

Ongaro G, Hamilton JG, Groner V, et al. A multi-level analysis of barriers and promoting factors to cascade screening uptake among male relatives of BRCA1/2 carriers: a qualitative study. Psychooncology. 2025;34(5):e70160. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.70160 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.70160

Greenberg S, Slager S, Neil BO, et al. What men want: qualitative analysis of what men with prostate cancer want to learn regarding genetic referral, counseling, and testing. Prostate. 2020;80(5):441-50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23959 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23959

Clarke N, Gallagher P, Kearney PM, et al. Impact of gender on decisions to participate in faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study. Psychooncology. 2016;25(12):1456-62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4085 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4085

Núcleo de Informação e Coordenação do Ponto BR. Pesquisa sobre o uso das tecnologias de informação e comunicação nos domicílios brasileiros: TIC Domicílios 2024 [Internet]. São Paulo: NIC.br; 2024 [acesso 2025 dez 3]. Disponível em: https://cetic.br/pt/tics/domicilios/2024/individuos

Cidades@ [Internet]. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; c2017. Panorama Goiás; [acesso 2025 dez 2]. Disponível em: https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/go/pesquisa/10102/122229