712; GRP = 45%vs38%, P = 0.108). Associations between psychological distress and risk perception (table 5) No correlation was found between the levels of perception of risk and anxiety (CRP r = 0.050 p = 0.60;GRP r = 0.087 p = 0.35) and depression (CRP r = -0.31 p = 0.74;GRP r = 0.072 p = 0.53). No correlation was discovered between distress

levels and family history of tumour (r = 0.050 p = 0.60). No significant differences in distress levels were revealed between affected and non-affected subjects (Distress = 12.42 vs 13.32 p = 0.46) and between eligible and non-eligible subjects (Distress = 18.82 vs 13.37). However, the non-affected and the non-eligible subjects were above the cut-off point of disturbance in adaptation. GSK2245840 manufacturer Associations between objective and subjective risks (table 5) The subjective risk was found

to be correlated to objective risk BRCApro (CRP r = 0.254 p = 0.006; GRP r = 0.322 p < 0.000). However, the percentage levels of subjective risk were found to be significantly higher than for objective risk (CRP = 39%vs11%, p < 0.000; GRP = 40%vs19%, p < 0.000). Accuracy of the perception of risk (table 3) Compared to the objective risk a significant percentage of individuals overestimated the risk of developing a tumour (57%, p < 0.000), while only CHIR98014 solubility dmso 11% underestimated the risk. The remaining 32% made an AZD2171 order accurate estimation. Concerning the risk of being a carrier of the genetic mutation a significant number of subjects overestimated the risk (67%, p < 0.000), while 7% underestimated

it and 26% had an accurate perception. Eligible subjects made a significantly more accurate estimate of their risk compared to non-eligible ones, CRP(P = 0.001) and GRP (P = 0.006). Discussion The subjects with less cancer affected relatives significantly overestimated their risk of being mutation carrier (p = 0.028). No association was found between other medical-demographic or psychological variables and DOCK10 the accuracy of the risk estimate. The results show that most of the sample overestimated their cancer and genetic risk. This Italian sample, under this aspect, does not differ from samples of subjects with higher risk of breast cancer and/or ovary tumours from other countries, like Spain [17], United Kingdom [36], USA [10], Netherlands [7] and Australia [37]. The relevant overestimation of risk leads to the belief that information gathered during counseling sessions does not adequately reach the patient, as elsewhere reported in literature [5, 38, 39]. However, in the present study this misunderstanding seems to be associated to eligibility conditions and to the number of cancer affected relatives.