Is the psychological impact of genetic testing moderated by support and sharing of test results to family and friends?

Feasibility and acceptability of a personalised primary prevention strategy for women and men at high risk of breast and prostate cancer: the 3PC study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Several primary prevention strategies, including chemoprevention, prophylactic surgery and lifestyle modifications, have been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (Pca). However, the uptake of these preventive measures is considered suboptimal, limiting their impact on cancer prevention. A personalised primary prevention strategy has yet to be tested for cancer prevention. Therefore, we aim to determine the feasibility, acceptability and potential benefits and harms of this strategy in women and men at high risk of BC and Pca.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a two-arm, parallel-group mixed-methods pilot randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation. The study aims to recruit 60 women and 60 men at high risk of BC and PCa in two specialised sites: the Breast Diseases Center and the Department of Urologic Oncology of the CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Canada. Assessments include intentions to uptake, actual uptake rates of primary preventive measures and decision regret. Feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and the study will be measured by quantifying the recruitment rate, appropriateness of randomisation process and satisfaction metrics. Data will be collected using mixed methods. Quantitative measures will be assessed at baseline and 6 months post randomisation. Quantitative analysis will include descriptive statistics for all variables of interest. Generalised linear mixed models with random intercepts will be used to assess the overall intervention effect. Semistructured interviews will be conducted at the end of follow-up, and a thematic analysis will be performed using NVivo to understand participants' perspectives.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of CHU de Québec-Université Laval (4 October 2022; 2023-6315). The findings of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at national and international conferences and through social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The protocol for this study was registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry (ISRCTN15749766) https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN15749766).

A Cross-sectional Study of Regret in Cancer Patients After Sharing Test Results for Pathogenic Germline Variants of Hereditary Cancers With Relatives

BACKGROUND

Research on whole genome/exome sequencing is increasing worldwide. However, challenges are emerging in relation to receiving germline pathogenic variant results and sharing them with relatives.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence of and reasoning related to regret among patients with cancer who shared single-gene testing results and whole exome sequencing with family members.

METHODS

This was a single-center, cross-sectional study. The Decision Regret Scale was administered, and descriptive questionnaires were used with 21 patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Eight patients were classified as having no regret, 9 patients were classified as having mild regret, and 4 patients were classified as having moderate to strong regret. Reasons patients felt that sharing was the right decision included the following: to allow relatives and children to take preventive measures, the need for both parties to be aware of and ready for the hereditary transmission of cancer, and the need to be able to discuss the situation with others. On the other hand, some patients did not think it was a good decision to share the information because of the associated anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Regret over sharing test results for pathogenic germline variants of hereditary cancers with relatives tended to be low. The main reason was that patients believed that they were able to benefit others by sharing.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Healthcare professionals need to understand the postsharing perceptions and experiences of patients and support them throughout the sharing process.

Assessing Psychological Morbidity in Cancer-Unaffected BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers: A Systematic Review

Female BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers have an increased lifetime risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer-unaffected women who are newly diagnosed with this pathogenic variant may experience psychological distress because of imminent health threat. No comprehensible review on psychological morbidity in cancer-unaffected BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers is currently available. This review aims to give an overview about all available the studies in which psychological outcomes have been assessed in cancer-unaffected BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, whether as a primary outcome or secondary measurement. A systematic search across four databases (Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCO) was conducted. Studies had to report on cancer-unaffected pathogenic variant carriers (exclusively or separately) and use a validated measure of psychological morbidity to be eligible. Measures were only included if they were used in at least three studies. The final review consisted of 45 studies from 13 countries. Distress measures, including anxiety and cancer worry, were most often assessed. Most studies found a peak of distress immediately after genetic test result disclosure, with a subsequent decline over the following months. Only some studies found elevated distress in carriers compared to non-carriers in longer follow-ups. Depression was frequently investigated but largely not found to be of clinical significance. Quality of life seemed to be largely unaffected by a positive genetic test result, although there was some evidence that younger women, especially, were less satisfied with their role functioning in life. Body image has been infrequently assessed so far, but the evidence suggested that there may be a decrease in body image after genetic test result disclosure that may decrease further for women who opt for a prophylactic mastectomy. Across all the outcomes, various versions of instruments were used, often limiting the comparability among the studies. Hence, future research should consider using frequently used instruments, as outlined by this review. Finally, while many studies included cancer-unaffected carriers, they were often not reported on separately, which made it difficult to draw specific conclusions about this population.

Communicating the diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome to children and adolescents: when, how, and who?

Klinefelter syndrome (KS) is the most frequent sex chromosome aneuploidy in males. KS diagnosis disclosure has an important impact on diagnosis acceptance and the increase in prenatal diagnostic procedures raises questions regarding communication to children/adolescents. Limited data are currently available on this issue. The aim of the study was to investigate aspects like the best timing (when), topics (how), and healthcare professional (who), which, in the opinion of both KS patients and parents, may be considered the best for diagnosis communication to KS children/adolescents. We also analyzed how participants received the communication in real life and evaluated the differences between the responses given by parents who receive KS diagnosis before or after KS patient birth regarding disclosure of KS communication. KS adult patients, KS mothers, and KS fathers, not belonging to the same family, completed a questionnaire containing quantitative measures (5 points Likert scale), open-ended questions, and multiple choice questions. Parental responses were divided according to the timing at which the communication occurred: prenatal age diagnosis (PRE-D) or postnatal age diagnosis (POST-D). A total of 41 KS adults and 77 KS parents (53 PRE-D, 24 POST-D) were recruited. Most KS patients and most POST-D parents consider that communication should be provided before 14 years of age; most PRE-D parents consider 14–18 years of age the best period for communication. We suggest that communication should occur preferably before 18 years of age by a multidisciplinary team (endocrinologists, psychologists, geneticists, and parents) and that the information should deal not only fertility and hormonal aspects but also metabolic and cognitive features.

Sharing genetic test results of germline pathogenic variants of hereditary cancer with relatives: A single-center cross-sectional study

Objective

This study aimed to determine whether Japanese cancer patients share test results of germline pathogenic variants of hereditary cancer with their relatives.

Methods

This single-center cross-sectional study enrolled 21 Japanese patients who received results of germline pathogenic variants of hereditary cancer at least 6 months prior.

Results

All patients shared their test results with at least one relative, with the following sharing rates: 85.7% for first-degree relatives, 10% for second-degree relatives and 8.3% for third-degree relatives. Patients most commonly shared the information with their children aged >18 years (86.7%), followed by their siblings (73.6%), spouses (64.7%) and parents (54.5%). Three categories were extracted from qualitative analysis: ‘characteristics of my cancer’, ‘knowledge and caution about inheritability’ and ‘utilization of medical care.’

Conclusions

The rate of test result sharing with first-degree relatives was comparable with those in Europe and the USA. Patients with germline pathogenic variants also tended to share their test results more with their children and siblings than with their parents. Informing their relatives of the results was suggestive of the motivation to influence their relatives’ health outcome and contribute to the well-being of their children and siblings.

[Hereditary pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: screening and follow-up strategies in asymptomatic mutation carriers]

The management of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma has deeply evolved over the last years due to the discovery of novel genes of susceptibility, especially SDHx, MAX and TMEM127. While the modalities of diagnosis and management of patients presenting with hereditary pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma are now well defined, screening and follow-up strategies for asymptomatic mutation carriers remain a matter of debate. This raises major questions as these asymptomatic patients will require a lifelong follow-up. The aim of this review is an attempt to give insights on the optimal screening and follow-up strategies of asymptomatic carriers of SDHx, MAX and TMEM127 mutations, with additional thoughts on the forensic and psychological aspects of the management of such patients with rare diseases.

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals' (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one's own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and 'others'. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

"Maybe they have found something new" participants' views on returning cohort psychosocial survey results

BACKGROUND

Although greater attention is currently being paid to participants in research, no studies have dealt so far with the issue of returning aggregate psychosocial results to cohort participants.

OBJECTIVE

(i) To explore participants' views about disclosure of the aggregate results of a French national psychosocial cohort survey on the epidemiology of preventive behaviour in women from families with a hereditary breast cancer risk. (ii) To assess whether it is worth consulting participants before designing the disclosure process.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semi-structured face-to-face interviews and a thematic analysis based on Grounded Theory methods.

PARTICIPANTS

Nineteen interviews were conducted with cancer-free female BRCA mutation carriers/non-carriers aged 31-79 who had participated in a cohort survey by answering self-administered questionnaires.

RESULTS

Participants showed considerable interest in the issue of result disclosure. The preferences expressed about disclosure were rarely relevant to the topic investigated, however, as they often focused on medical knowledge about BRCA and not on the psychosocial findings obtained. This confusion may have been due to the participants' experience of the survey procedures, including its longitudinal nature, the occurrence of very few interactions with the investigators and the wide range of topics addressed in the questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

Investigators should ascertain participants' expectations and preferences by consulting them before disclosing the results obtained. Although the disclosure process may not meet participants' expectations completely, consultation is the key to preventing them from having irrealistic expectations about the information they are going to receive.

Disclosure of research results: a randomized study on GENEPSO-PS cohort participants

BACKGROUND

There exist no recommendations as to how aggregate research results should best be disclosed to long-term cohort participants.

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of cohort results disclosure documents of various kinds on participants' satisfaction.

DESIGN

Randomized study with a 2x2 factorial design.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The GENEPSO-PS cohort is used to study the psychosocial characteristics and preventive behaviour of both BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers; 235 participants wishing to receive 'information about the survey results' answered a self-administered questionnaire.

INTERVENTIONS

The impact of providing the following items in addition to a leaflet about aggregate psychosocial research results was investigated (i) an up-to-date medical information sheet about BRCA1/2 genetic topics, (ii) a photograph with the names of the researchers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Satisfaction profiles drawn up using cluster analysis methods.

RESULTS

Providing additional medical and/or research team information had no significant effect on satisfaction. The patients attributed to the 'poorly satisfied' group (n = 60, 25.5%) differed significantly from those in the 'highly satisfied' group (n = 51, 21.7%): they were younger [odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (0.92-0.99), P = 0.028], less often had a daughter [OR = 4.87 (1.80-13.20), P = 0.002], had reached a higher educational level [OR = 2.94 (1.24-6.95), P = 0.014] and more frequently carried a BRCA1/2 mutation [OR = 2.73 (1.20-6.23), P = 0.017].

CONCLUSIONS

This original approach to disclosing research results to cohort participants was welcomed by most of the participants, but less by the more educated and by BRCA1/2 carriers. Although an easily understandable document is necessary, it might also be worth providing some participants with more in-depth information.