Exploring the short-term impact of DNA-testing in breast cancer patients: the counselees' perception matters, but the actual BRCA1/2 result does not

Clinical implications of VUS reclassification in a single-centre series from application of ACMG/AMP classification rules specified for BRCA1/2

BACKGROUND

BRCA1/2 testing is crucial to guide clinical decisions in patients with hereditary breast/ovarian cancer, but detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) prevents proper management of carriers. The ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) BRCA1/2 Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) has recently developed BRCA1/2 variant classification guidelines consistent with ClinGen processes, specified against the ACMG/AMP (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular-Pathology) classification framework.

METHODS

The ClinGen-approved BRCA1/2-specified ACMG/AMP classification guidelines were applied to BRCA1/2 VUSs identified from 2011 to 2022 in a series of patients, retrieving information from the VCEP documentation, public databases, literature and ENIGMA unpublished data. Then, we critically re-evaluated carrier families based on new results and checked consistency of updated classification with main sources for clinical interpretation of BRCA1/2 variants.

RESULTS

Among 166 VUSs detected in 231 index cases, 135 (81.3%) found in 197 index cases were classified by applying BRCA1/2-specified ACMG/AMP criteria: 128 (94.8%) as Benign/Likely Benign and 7 (5.2%) as Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic. The average time from the first report as 'VUS' to classification using this approach was 49.4 months. Considering that 15 of these variants found in 64 families had already been internally reclassified prior to this work, this study provided 121 new reclassifications among the 151 (80.1%) remaining VUSs, relevant to 133/167 (79.6%) families.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrated the effectiveness of new BRCA1/2 ACMG/AMP classification guidelines for VUS classification within a clinical cohort, and their important clinical impact. Furthermore, they suggested a cadence of no more than 3 years for regular review of VUSs, which however requires time, expertise and resources.

Misunderstood terms and concepts identified through user testing of educational materials for fragile X premutation: "Not weak or fragile?"

Complicated genetic mechanisms and unpredictable health risks associated with the FMR1 premutation can result in challenges for patient education when the diagnosis is made in a newborn. From October 15, 2018, to December 10, 2021, North Carolina parents could obtain FMR1 premutation results about their newborns through a voluntary expanded newborn screening research study. The study provided confirmatory testing, parental testing, and genetic counseling. We developed web-based educational materials to augment information about fragile X premutation conveyed by a genetic counselor. Many genetics education materials are developed for the lay population. However, relatively little research is published on how well individuals understand these materials. We conducted three rounds of iterative user testing interviews to help refine web-based educational materials that support understanding and self-paced learning. The participants included 25 parents with a 2-year college degree or less and without a child identified with fragile X syndrome, premutation, or gray-zone allele. Content analysis of interview transcripts resulted in iterative changes and ultimately saturation of findings. Across all rounds of interviews, there were two terms that were commonly misunderstood (fragile and carrier) and two terms that elicited initial misconceptions that were overcome by participants. Many also had difficulty understanding the relationship between fragile X premutation and fragile X syndrome as well as appreciating the implications of having a "fragile X gene." Website layout, formatting, and graphics also influenced comprehension. Despite iterative changes to the content, certain issues with understandability persisted. The findings support the need for user testing to identify misconceptions that may interfere with understanding and using genetic information. Here, we describe a process used to develop and refine evidence-based, understandable parental resources on fragile X premutation. Additionally, we provide recommendations to address ongoing educational challenges and discuss the potential impact of bias on the part of expert content developers.

Quality of information and decision regrets during fertility-sparing management for atypical hyperplasia and endometrial cancer in a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate satisfaction with information, treatment, and decision regret during management to preserve fertility for atypical hyperplasia (AH) or endometrial cancer (EC).

METHODS

A cohort study with standardized management using chlormadinone acetate was established through a national referral centre between January 2013 and November 2019. During this period, a questionnaire was given to 136 patients aged 19 to 43 years who were followed for fertility preservation for AH or EC. The questionnaire included the validated EORTC-QLQ-INFO25, as well as questions from the validated EVAPIL questionnaire, the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire, and the Decision Regret Scales concerning treatment tolerability and general satisfaction. The main outcomes measured were the quality and satisfaction with the information and treatment received and the decision regret.

RESULTS

75 patients (55.1 %) responded to the questionnaire. Overall, patients were satisfied with the information received (median 75.0, range: 25-100) and thought it was helpful (median 100.0, range: 25-100). However, 54.7 % wished for more information. Most women (52.0 %) indicated that psychological support should be available. Patients who were less satisfied with the information received or wished to receive more information thought about stopping treatment more frequently. Decision regret was not related to treatment outcome (remission, hysterectomy, live birth), and 47 of the 56 patients who did not obtain a live birth did not regret fertility preservation. None of the nine patients who regretted fertility preservation obtained a live birth. Almost all the patients reported side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicated information tools that detail conservative treatment for AH and EC as well as its secondary effects should be provided to improve adherence to treatment and follow-up. Furthermore, psychological support should be systematically proposed.

Breast/ovarian cancer genetic counseling: Do anxiety, depression, and health care-related fears influence cancer worry and risk perception?

BACKGROUND

The impact of family and personal cancer history and emotional factors, such as depression and anxiety, on disease representation has received limited attention in studies investigating the development of cancer-related worry and risk perception within the context of genetic counseling. The current study endeavors to fill this gap by exploring the extent to which depression and anxiety influence cancer worry and risk perception, and the role of health care-related fear as potential mediator in this relationship.

METHODS

A sample of 178 women who underwent their first genetic counseling for breast/ovarian cancer, 52% of whom had previous cancer diagnoses, completed questionnaires assessing sociodemographic and clinical information, emotional distress in terms of anxiety and depression, cancer-related worry, risk perception, and health care-related fears.

RESULTS

Results of mediation analyses showed that cancer-related worry and risk perception increased with rising levels of depression and anxiety, with health care-related fears acting as a mediator in the relationship of depression and anxiety with cancer worry and risk perception. Covariate analysis revealed that previous cancer diagnosis increases cancer-related worry but not risk perception, while the number of family members affected by cancer increases both outcomes.

CONCLUSION

These findings emphasize the need for a holistic approach in genetic counseling and have implications for the clinical practice.

Assessment of psychosocial difficulties by genetic clinicians and distress in women at high risk of breast cancer: a prospective study

We examined how often genetic clinicians correctly identify psychosocial difficulties in women at high breast cancer risk and explored effects of this assessment and the genetic test result on counselees’ distress. A prospective observational study of counselee–clinician dyads was performed in three French, German and Spanish genetic clinics, involving 709 counselees (participation rate, 83.4%) and 31 clinicians (participation rate, 100%). Counselee–clinician agreement in perceived psychosocial difficulties was measured after the pre-test genetic consultation. Multivariate mixed linear models accounting for clinicians were tested. Predicted distress levels were assessed after the pre- (T1) and post-test result disclosure consultations (T2). Depending on the difficulty domain, clinicians adequately assessed the presence or absence of difficulties in 51% (“familial issues”) to 59% (“emotions”) of counselees. When counselees’ and clinicians’ perceptions disagreed, difficulties were generally underestimated by clinicians. Counselees’ distress levels remained stable from T1 to T2, irrespective of clinicians’ appraisal adequacy, and the genetic test result disclosure. Psychological referral need were found in 20–42% of counselees, more frequently observed for difficulties in the “emotions” domain. Our findings suggest that the genetic test result is a suboptimal indicator for psychological referral. Instead, clinicians should focus on emotions expressed by counselees to appraise their needs for psychological support.

Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM): A clinical trial assessing a multimodal cancer genetics services delivery program and its impact on diverse populations

Advances in the application of genomic technologies in clinical care have the potential to increase existing healthcare disparities. Studies have consistently shown that only a fraction of eligible patients with a family history of cancer receive recommended cancer genetic counseling and subsequent genetic testing. Care delivery models using pre-test and post-test counseling are not scalable, which contributes to barriers in accessing genetics services. These barriers are even more pronounced for patients in historically underserved populations. We have designed a multimodal intervention to improve subsequent cancer surveillance, by improving the identification of patients at risk for familial cancer syndromes, reducing barriers to genetic counseling/testing, and increasing patient understanding of complex genetic results. We are evaluating this intervention in two large, integrated healthcare systems that serve diverse patient populations (NCT03426878). The primary outcome is the number of diagnostic (hereditary cancer syndrome) findings. We are examining the clinical and personal utility of streamlined pathways to genetic testing using electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. We will assess downstream care utilization of individuals receiving usual clinical care vs. genetic testing through the study. We will evaluate the impacts of a literacy-focused genetic counseling approach versus usual care genetic counseling on care utilization and participant understanding, satisfaction, and family communication. By recruiting participants belonging to historically underserved populations, this study is uniquely positioned to evaluate the potential of a novel genetics care delivery program to reduce care disparities.

Exome sequencing study in a clinical research setting finds general acceptance of study returning secondary genomic findings with little decisional conflict

The most appropriate strategies for managing secondary genomic findings (SF) in clinical research are being developed and evaluated. We surveyed patients at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to evaluate decisional conflict regarding enrolling in a study that returns SF. Responses were collected using a cross-sectional survey after informed consent but before return of SF. Sixty-six adults of 116 eligible participants responded. No participant explicitly declined because they did not want to possibly receive a SF. Sixty-five of 66 (98%) participants thought it was appropriate to return SFs in research; one participant was unsure. Decisional conflict regarding enrolling in a study returning SF was low overall with 68% of participants reporting a score of less than 10 on a 100-point decisional conflict scale, implying that they felt informed, clear on what they wanted, and supported. Lower genetic literacy was weakly associated with higher decisional conflict (Spearman's rho = -0.297, p = .015). Six participants reported confusion related to the choices about SFs. Our data suggest that participants in our study feel it is appropriate to receive SF and have little decisional conflict about potentially receiving such information; however, some participants may need further education and counseling.

Uncertainty in the Process of Communicating Cancer-related Genetic Risk Information with Patients: A Scoping Review

In the era of precision medicine, patients must manage the uncertainty caused by ambiguous genetic information. To aid health practitioners in effectively communicating genetic information, this study classified the types of uncertainty involved in these communication processes. A search of recent literature turned up 64 articles that measured and/or discussed patients' perceptions and/or feelings of uncertainty related to the communication process of cancer-related genetic information. In reviewing these papers, six types of uncertainty regarding cancer-related genetic information were identified: (1) uncertainty about understanding genetic information (n = 25; 39.1%); (2) uncertainty about future cancer risks (n = 34; 53.1%); (3) uncertainty about managing known genetic information or mutation status (n = 33; 51.6%); (4) uncertainty about the utility of genetic information (n = 5; 7.8%); (5) uncertainty about genetic test results before undergoing testing or receiving the results (n = 10; 15.6%); and (6) uncertainty about the impact of genetic results on family and life (n = 11; 17.2%). These six types of uncertainty serve as a helpful taxonomy for developing, validating, and utilizing future measures of uncertainty in the context of cancer-related genetic risk communication.

Psychosocial problems in women attending French, German and Spanish genetics clinics before and after targeted or multigene testing results: an observational prospective study

OBJECTIVES AND SETTING

Advances in multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility has increased the complexity of counselling, requiring particular attention to counselees' psychosocial needs. Changes in psychosocial problems before and after genetic testing were prospectively compared between genetic test results in women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic susceptibility in French, German and Spanish clinics.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES

Among 752 counselees consecutively approached, 646 (86%) were assessed after the initial genetic consultation (T1), including 510 (68%) affected with breast cancer, of which 460 (61%) were assessed again after receiving the test result (T2), using questionnaires addressing genetic-specific psychosocial problems (Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer (PAHC)-six scales). Sociodemographic and clinical data were also collected.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine (17.2%), 19 (4.1%), 259 (56.3%), 44 (9.6%) and 59 (12.8%) women received a BRCA1/2, another high/moderate-risk pathogenic variant (PV), negative uninformative, true negative (TN) or variant of uncertain significance result (VUS), respectively. On multiple regression analyses, compared with women receiving another result, those with a VUS decreased more in psychosocial problems related to hereditary predisposition (eg, coping with the test result) (ß=-0.11, p<0.05) and familial/social issues (eg, risk communication) (ß=-0.13, p<0.05), almost independently from their problems before testing. Women with a PV presented no change in hereditary predisposition problems and, so as women with a TN result, a non-significant increase in familial/social issues. Other PAHC scales (ie, emotions, familial cancer, personal cancer and children-related issues) were not affected by genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic risk in European genetics clinics, psychosocial problems were mostly unaffected by genetic testing. Apart from women receiving a VUS result, those with another test result presented unchanged needs in counselling in particular about hereditary predisposition and familial/social issues.

Experiences and interpretations of BRCA1/2 testing among women affected by breast or ovarian cancer who received a negative result

The aim of this study was to retrospectively describe the genetic testing motives and experiences of women with a previous breast and/or ovarian cancer diagnosis, who received negative BRCA1/2 results including variants of unknown significance and no pathogenic variant detected. One hundred and thirteen women (mean age 56.17 years) were recruited from a familial cancer centre in metropolitan Australia, an average 3.4 years after undergoing testing. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire focusing on the retrospective experience of and motives for undergoing BRCA1/2 testing. The study found that the primary motives for undergoing BRCA1/2 testing were (a) to know more about whether their cancer was hereditary, and (b) to have more certainty about the risk of their children developing cancer. In terms of perceptions of personal risk, 35% of women perceived that their risk of breast cancer to be the same or lower than the general population and 80% believed the negative test result to mean that a risk-conferring gene had not been detected. Yet, the average estimate of the likelihood that their cancer was hereditary was 48 out of a possible 100. Psychologically, women did not interpret the negative BRCA1/2 result as a positive outcome. Half were not relieved by the result and were as or more worried than before. Psychological morbidity was high with 17%, 100%, and 36% experiencing clinically significant depression, anxiety, and cancer-specific distress, respectively. Self-ratings of the likelihood that their cancer was hereditary were more closely associated with their personal family cancer histories than with measures of psychological distress. These results have implications for adherence to risk-reducing behaviours and quality of life. Given that these women are not routinely followed up in clinical practice, these findings highlight the importance of post-test genetic counselling and longer-term follow-up for women with negative BRCA1/2 results. Additional time and emotional support from genetic counsellors may help this group of women make sense of the meaning of their test result and adjust psychologically, particularly to uncertainty around the cause of their family history.

Communication about genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients: a scoping review

Genetic testing of patients with cancer is increasingly offered to guide management, resulting in a growing need for oncology health professionals to communicate genetics information and facilitate informed decision-making in a short time frame. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesise what is known about health professionals’ communication about genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer with cancer patients. Four databases were systematically searched using a recognised scoping review method. Areas and types of research were mapped and a narrative synthesis of the findings was undertaken. Twenty-nine papers from 25 studies were included. Studies were identified about (i) information needs, (ii) process and content of genetic counselling, (iii) cognitive and emotional impact, including risk perception and recall, understanding and interpretation of genetic test results, and anxiety and distress, (iv) patients’ experiences, (v) communication shortly after diagnosis and (vi) alternatives to face-to-face genetic counselling. Patients’ need for cancer-focused, personalised information is not always met by genetic counselling. Genetic counselling tends to focus on biomedical information at the expense of psychological support. For most patients, knowledge is increased and anxiety is not raised by pre-test communication. However, some patients experience anxiety and distress when results are disclosed, particularly those tested shortly after diagnosis who are unprepared or unsupported. For many patients, pre-test communication by methods other than face-to-face genetic counselling is acceptable. Research is needed to identify patients who may benefit from genetic counselling and support and to investigate communication about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer by oncology health professionals.

A Systematic Review of the Psychological Implications of Genetic Testing: A Comparative Analysis Among Cardiovascular, Neurodegenerative and Cancer Diseases

Background: Genetic testing is performed for different purposes, such as identifying carriers, predicting a disease onset in presymptomatic individuals or confirming a diagnosis. However, these tests may have notable psychological effects, such as generating anxiety and depression. These effects may depend on people's perception of risk, severity, and controllability of the disease; and the availability of treatments. To date, there are no reports that analyze these factors specifically, and their role in influencing genetic test users' experience. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the psychological implication of undergoing genetic testing for cardiovascular, neurodegenerative and cancer diseases. Articles were searched on PubMed, Google Scholar, and PsychInfo. Results: 47 studies were included, 9 concerning cardiovascular disease, 18 neurodegenerative disorders, and 20 for cancer disease. According to the reviewed studies, people experience no significant increase in distress and anxiety, or adverse impacts on quality of life, except the Huntington disease, which is characterized by depressive symptoms, suicidal ideations, and hopelessness in gene carriers. People tend to consider genetic tests as valid information to take important preventive decisions. Genetic risk for cardiovascular disease is perceived to be manageable; genetic analysis for some neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., Alzheimer) or cancer (breast cancer in particular) is considered useful because the problem could be addressed in advance with preventive behaviors. Conclusions: Genetic tests should be proposed along with proper psychological support and counseling focused on users' genetic health literacy; perception of risk, beliefs about disease controllability, in order to foster fruitful medical decisions.

Dealing With BRCA1/2 Unclassified Variants in a Cancer Genetics Clinic: Does Cosegregation Analysis Help?

Background: Detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes poses relevant challenges for counseling and managing patients. VUS carriers should be managed similarly to probands with no BRCA1/2 variants detected, and predictive genetic testing in relatives is discouraged. However, miscomprehension of VUSs is common and can lead to inaccurate risk perception and biased decisions about prophylactic surgery. Therefore, efforts are needed to improve VUS evaluation and communication at an individual level.

Aims: We aimed at investigating whether cosegregation analysis, integrated with a careful review of available functional data and in silico predictions, may improve VUSs interpretation and counseling in individual families.

Methods: Patients with Breast Cancer (BC) and/or Ovarian Cancer (OC) fulfilling established criteria were offered genetic counseling and BRCA1/2 testing; VUSs identified in index cases were checked in other relatives affected by BC/OC whenever possible. As an alternative, if BC/OC clustered only in one branch of the family, the parental origin of the VUS was investigated. Public prediction tools and databases were used to collect additional information on the variants analyzed.

Results: Out of 1045 patients undergoing BRCA1/2 testing in the period October 2011–April 2018, 66 (6.3%) carried class 3 VUSs. Cosegregation analysis was performed for 13 VUSs in 11 kindreds. Seven VUSs (53.8%) did not cosegregate with breast/ovarian cancer in the family, which provided evidence against their role in cancer clustering in those families. Among the 6 cosegregating VUSs, for two (BRCA1 c.5152+2T>G and BRCA2 c.7975A>G) additional evidence exists from databases and in silico tools supporting their pathogenicity, which reinforces the hypothesis they may have had a predisposing effect in respective families. For the remaining four VUSs (31%), cosegregation analysis failed to provide relevant information.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that cosegregation analysis in a clinical context may be helpful to improve test result interpretation in the specific family and, therefore, should be offered whenever possible. Besides, obtaining and sharing cosegregation data helps gathering evidence that may eventually contribute to VUS classification.

Counselees' Expressed Level of Understanding of the Risk Estimate and Surveillance Recommendation are Not Associated with Breast Cancer Surveillance Adherence

We studied counselees’ expressed understanding of the risk estimate and surveillance recommendation in the final consultation for breast cancer genetic counseling in relation with their risk perception, worry and cancer surveillance adherence 1 year post-counseling. Consecutive counselees were included from 2008 to 2010. Counselees with an indication for diagnostic DNA-testing for themselves or a breast cancer affected relative were requested to complete online questionnaires before and after counseling and one year after counseling (N = 152–124). Self-reported surveillance was compared to surveillance recommendations. Consultations were videotaped. Counselees’ reactions to the risks and recommendations were coded. Statements about the risk perception and surveillance intentions of breast cancer unaffected counselees were transcribed. Associations with outcomes were explored. Almost all breast cancer unaffected counselees (>90 %) reacted to their risk estimate with an utterance indicating understanding and this reaction was not significantly associated with their post-visit risk perception alignment. Over one-third (38.6 %) overestimated their risk post-counseling. Few counselees (5.8 %) expressed surveillance intentions. One year after counseling, about three-quarters (74.0 %) of the breast cancer unaffected counselees had adhered to the surveillance recommendation. Almost one-quarter (23.3 %) had performed more mammograms/MRI scans than recommended, which was associated with prior mammography uptake (n = 47; X² = 5.2; p = .02). Counselees’ post-counseling overestimation of their risk, high levels of worry and high surveillance uptake were not reflected in their reactions to the counselor’s information during the final visit.

The Life Course Perspective: a Guide for Genetic Counselors

This is the first article in a two part series about utilizing the life course perspective (LCP) in genetic counseling. LCP can be a useful tool for genetic counselors when counseling people with a known genetic mutation. Previous theories such as Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSMSR) examine current reactions to a positive genetic test result. LCP extends beyond the current time to explore temporal and contextual elements of the experience. A review of research revealed, LCP has been used to study the perspective of caregivers of people with Alzheimer's disease, referral for a family history of breast cancer, Mexican American caregivers of older adult, social class and cancer incidence and cancer and the sense of mastery. Incorporating LCP into a study explaining the experiences of people living with a positive test result for a genetic mutation such as the BRCA mutation provides a comprehensive exploration of this experience.

Medical genetic counseling for breast cancer in primary care: a synthesis of major determinants of physicians' practices in primary care settings

OBJECTIVES

This paper aims to identify relevant potential predictors of medical genetic counseling for breast cancer (MGC-BC) in primary care and to develop a comprehensive questionnaire to study MGC-BC.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to identify the predictors of MGC-BC among primary care physicians. Relevant articles were identified in selected databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and 4 selected relevant electronic journals.

RESULTS

An inductive analysis of the 193 quantitatively tested variables, conducted by 3 researchers, showed that 6 conceptual categories of determinants, namely (1) demographic, (2) organizational, (3) experiential, (4) professional, (5) psychological, and (6) cognitive, influence MGC-BC practices.

CONCLUSION

There is a scarcity of literature addressing the medical behavior determinants of MGC-BC. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies put into action to support the integration of MGC-BC in primary care medical practices and routines. However, our results shed light on 2 levels of actions that could improve genetic counseling services in primary care: (1) medical training and educational efforts emphasizing family history collection (individual level), and (2) clarification of roles and responsibilities in ordering and referral practices in genetic counseling and genetic testing for better healthcare management (organizational level).

Maximising survival: the main concern of women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer who undergo genetic testing for BRCA1/2

PURPOSE

Little is known about how women with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer who test positive for a BRCA gene manage the impact of a positive test result on their everyday lives and in the longer term. This study defined the experience and needs of women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and a positive BRCA test over time.

METHODS

A grounded theory approach was taken using qualitative interviews (n = 49) and reflective diaries. Data collected from December 2006 until March 2010 was analysed using the constant comparative technique to trace the development of how women manage their concerns of inherited cancer.

RESULTS

A four stage substantive theory of maximising survival was generated that defines the experience of women and how they resolve their main concerns. The process of maximising survival begins prior to genetic testing in women from high risk families as they expect to get a cancer diagnosis at some time. Women with cancer felt they had experienced the worst with a cancer diagnosis and altruistically tested for the sake of their children but a positive test result temporarily shifted their focus to decision-making around their personal health needs.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to clinical practice through raising awareness and adding insights into how women cope with living with inherited cancer risk and the personal and familial ramifications that ensue from it. A clear multi-professional structured care pathway for women from genetic testing result disclosure to undergoing risk-reducing surgery and/or surveillance should be developed.

Adults' perceptions of genetic counseling and genetic testing

PURPOSE

This study described the perceptions of genetic counseling and testing of adults (N = 116) attending a genetic education program. Understanding perceptions of genetic counseling, including the importance of counseling topics, will contribute to patient-focused care as clinical genetic applications for common, complex disorders evolve.

METHODS

Participants completed a survey addressing: the importance of genetic counseling topics, benefits and negative effects of genetic testing, and sharing test results.

RESULTS

Topics addressing practical information about genetic conditions were rated most important; topics involving conceptual genetic/genomic principles were rated least important. The most frequently identified benefit and negative effect of testing were prevention/early detection/treatment and psychological distress. Participants perceived that they were more likely to share test results with first-degree than other relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest providing patients with practical information about genetic testing and genetic contributions to disease, while also determining whether their self-care abilities would be enhanced by teaching genetic/genomic principles.

100 years Lynch syndrome: what have we learned about psychosocial issues?

In the care of patients with Lynch Syndrome (LS), a range of psychosocial issues are encountered, which significantly affect patient outcomes. A brief historical background of 'psycho-onco-genetics' (the domain where psychology, oncology and genetics meet) in relation to LS is presented, followed by an overview of important psychosocial issues identified in the past 20 years. The identification of mismatch repair genes in 1993-1994 made possible genetic counseling and testing for patients who had cancer and for potentially high-risk relatives without cancer. At that time, concerns were raised about the potentially negative psychosocial impact of predictive genetic testing. Since 1993, a large number of studies have been conducted to investigate the possible psychosocial benefits and limitations of such testing. This article presents an overview of: the uptake of and motivations for genetic testing, its psychosocial impact (e.g. psychological adaptation, impact on risk perception and self-concept, and concerns about, and experiences of, genetic discrimination), psychological screening instruments, adherence to and decision-making about preventive strategies, family communication, lifestyle changes, reproductive technology utilization, and professional psychosocial support needs of members of families with LS. Finally, challenges for the future are discussed, including population screening and genomic testing.

Patient compliance based on genetic medicine: a literature review

For this literature review, medical literature data bases were searched for studies on patient compliance after genetic risk assessment. The review focused on conditions where secondary or tertiary preventive options exist, namely cancer syndromes (BRCA-related cancer, HNPCC/colon cancer), hemochromatosis, thrombophilia, smoking cessation, and obesity. As a counterpart, patient compliance was assessed regarding medication adherence and medical advice in some of the most epidemiologically important conditions (including high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, and coronary heart disease) after receiving medical advice based on nongenetic risk information or a combination of genetic and nongenetic risk information. In the majority of studies based on genetic risk assessments, patients were confronted with predictive rather than diagnostic genetic profiles. Most of the studies started from a knowledge base around 10 years ago when DNA testing was at an early stage, limited in scope and specificity, and costly. The major result is that overall compliance of patients after receiving a high-risk estimate from genetic testing for a given condition is high. However, significant behavior change does not take place just because the analyte is "genetic." Many more factors play a role in the complex process of behavioral tuning. Without adequate counseling and guidance, patients may interpret risk estimates of predictive genetic testing with an increase in fear and anxiety.

Cancer risk comparative perception and overscreening behaviours of non-carriers from BRCA1/2 families

Cancer-free women who are from families with an inherited form of breast and/or ovarian cancer (BRCA1/2) are referred to as 'unaffected non-carriers' when the results of genetic testing for the inherited gene are negative. Recent studies have identified overscreening behaviours (undergoing more screening tests for cancer than are medically warranted) among these women, even though they do not require specific cancer monitoring. Overscreening behaviours deserve particular attention due to their potential psychological drivers and implications. The principal objective of this study was to examine the factors, including state anxiety, feelings of self-vulnerability, and the comparative perception of cancer risk that might explain these overscreening behaviours. Unaffected non-carriers women (n = 77) were asked about these different variables. Overscreening was associated with and determined by feelings of self-vulnerability and the comparative perception of cancer risk, but was not associated with anxiety. An increase in feelings of self-vulnerability or elevated comparative pessimism (CP) was related to the participants' decision to be frequently screened. Patients' perceptions of the risk should be considered in measures or information aimed at preventing inappropriate overscreening behaviours.

Short-term psychological impact of the BRCA1/2 test result in women with breast cancer according to their perceived probability of genetic predisposition to cancer

Background:

The effect of BRCA1/2 gene test result on anxiety, depression, cancer-related thought intrusion or avoidance and perceived control over cancer risk was assessed in breast cancer (BC) patients, according to their perceived probability of genetic predisposition to cancer.

Methods:

Two hundred and forty-three (89% response rate) women with BC completed questionnaires after an initial genetic counselling visit (T1), of which 180 (66%) completed questionnaires again after receiving the BRCA1/2 results (T2). The discrepancy between women's perceived probability of cancer genetic predisposition at T1 and the geneticist's computed estimates was assessed.

Results:

In all, 74% of women received a negative uninformative (NU), 11% a positive BRCA1/2 and 15% an unclassified variant (UV) result. On hierarchical regression analysis, in women with a positive BRCA1/2 result (vs NU or UV), a lower perceived probability of cancer genetic predisposition than objective estimates at T1 predicted lower levels of anxiety at T2 (β=−0.28; P<0.01), whereas in women receiving a UV result (vs NU or positive BRCA1/2), a lower perceived probability of cancer genetic predisposition than objective estimates at T1 predicted higher levels of anxiety (β=0.20; P<0.01), depression (β=0.19; P<0.05) and intrusion (β=0.18; P<0.05) at T2.

Conclusion:

The type of BRCA1/2 test result differently affects distress according to women's perceived probability of genetic predisposition before testing.

Comparison of the screening practices of unaffected noncarriers under 40 and between 40 and 49 in BRCA1/2 families

This study aimed to 1) compare the cancer screening practices of unaffected noncarrier women under 40 and those aged 40 to 49, following the age-based medical screening guidelines, and 2) consider the way the patients justified their practices of screening or over-screening. For this study, 131 unaffected noncarriers-77 women under age 40 and 54 between 40 and 49, all belonging to a BRCA1/2 family-responded to a questionnaire on breast or ovarian cancer screenings they had undergone since receiving their negative genetic test results, their motives for seeking these screenings, and their intentions to pursue these screenings in the future. Unaffected noncarriers under age 40 admitted practices that could be qualified as over-screening. Apart from mammogram and breast ultrasounds, which the women under 40 reported seeking less often, these women's screening practices were comparable to those of women between 40 and 49. Cancer prevention and a family history of cancer were the two most frequently cited justifications for pursuing these screenings. We suggest that health care professionals discuss with women under 50 the ineffectiveness of breast and ovarian cancer screenings so that they will adapt their practices to conform to medical guidelines and limit their exposure to the potentially negative impacts of early cancer screening.

Genetic counseling does not fulfill the counselees' need for certainty in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer families: an explorative assessment

BACKGROUND

Many cancer-patients undergo DNA testing in the BRCA1/2 genes to receive information about the likelihood that cancer is heritable. Previous nonsystematic studies suggested that DNA testing often does not fulfill the counselees' needs for certainty. We explored the balance between the counselees' need for certainty and perceived certainty (NfC-PC, i.e., level of fulfillment of NfC) regarding the specific domains of DNA test result, heredity and cancer. We also examined relationships of NfC-PC with coping styles and distress.

METHOD

Before disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (T1), questionnaires were filled in by 467 cancer-patients. Another questionnaire (T2) was filled in after disclosure of pathogenic mutation results (n = 30), uninformative results (n = 202) or unclassified-variants (n = 16).

RESULTS

Before and after DNA test result disclosure, overall 58-94% of all counselees experienced unfulfilled NfC regarding the DNA test result, heredity and cancer. Compared with T1, the communication of pathogenic mutations (T2) caused more fulfillment of the NfC about the DNA test result, but less about cancer and heredity (p < .01). Compared with T1, unclassified variants (T2) did not significantly change the extent of fulfillment of all counselees' needs for certainty (NfC > PC). Compared with T1, uninformative results (T2) caused more fulfillments of all needs than before disclosure (p < 0.01). Counselees differentiated NfC and PC between the domains of DNA-test result, heredity and cancer (p < 0.01). The unfulfilled needs for certainty (NfC-PC) were uncorrelated with cognitive understanding of the DNA test result.

CONCLUSION

The counselees' NfC needs more attention in research and practice, for example, when the potential uncertainties of testing are discussed. The counselees' NfC may be assessed and used in tailored, mutual communication of DNA test results.

The counselees' self-reported request for psychological help in genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer: not only psychopathology matters

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown that counselees do not experience psychopathological levels of distress after DNA test result disclosure. However, it has not systematically been studied whether the absence of psychopathology also means that counselees do not want to receive help. Their self-reported request for help may be related not only with psychopathology/distress but also with other psychological needs (e.g., surgery decisions), genetics-specific needs (e.g., feeling vulnerable/stigmatized), and existential concerns (e.g., meaning in life).

METHODS

Questionnaires were filled in by Dutch cancer patients, before and after disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer: pathogenic mutation results (n = 30), uninformative results (n = 202), or unclassified variants (n = 16). Newly developed questions measured request for help, psychopathology was estimated with factor analyses on distress/psychopathology instruments, and several validated questionnaires measured other needs/concerns.

RESULTS

One-third of all counselees who reported a request for psychological help had actually received help. The level of psychopathology correlated between 0.34 and 0.44 with this self-reported need-for-help. Other needs, genetics-specific distress, and existential concerns correlated strongly/moderately with the counselees' self-reported need-for-help. Examples of other needs were intention to undergo surgery, inaccuracy of their interpretation, the impact of cancer, and family communication difficulties. Genetics-specific distress was for instance feeling vulnerable to develop cancer, stigma, and lack of mastery. Existential concerns were, among others, lack of purpose in life, low self-acceptance, and an unfulfilled wish for certainty.

CONCLUSIONS

The request for help is related to multiple factors. Referral to psychosocial professionals may be improved by not only discussing psychopathology during genetic-counseling sessions but also by other needs and existential concerns. Questions about other needs and existential issues may be added to psychological screening instruments.

A counselee-oriented perspective on risk communication in genetic counseling: explaining the inaccuracy of the counselees' risk perception shortly after BRCA1/2 test result disclosure

PURPOSE

Genetic counseling may help counselees understand their genetic risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer. However, many studies have shown that their perception of their risks is inaccurate. Information-oriented variables often predicted the level of accuracy, focusing on specific processes of receiving and processing risks. We examined counselee-oriented predictors about how counselees embed cancer risks in their lives. These predictors reflect the personal meaning of genetic risks and are expected to explain/mediate the impact of genetic counseling on risk-perception-accuracy.

METHOD

We analyzed 248 questionnaires of a prospective study, filled in by probands with breast/ovarian cancer and pathogenic mutations, unclassified variants, or uninformative results (n = 30, 16, and 202, respectively). Mediation regression analyses were performed to examine whether counselee predictors mediated/explained the influence of information predictors on the accuracy. Information-oriented predictors regarded presentation format, communicated information, question format, education, pedigree information, cancer experience, and cognitive processes/heuristics. Counselee-oriented predictors regarded their self/personality, life/existence, and need for certainty about DNA test result, heredity, and cancer.

RESULTS

Both information-oriented and counselee-oriented variables significantly predicted the accuracy of the counselees' risk perception, with moderate to large effect sizes. Counselee-oriented variables completely mediated/explained the effects of information-oriented variables on the accuracy.

DISCUSSION

Counselees seemed to transform objective cancer risks into personally relevant information. Only through this personal meaning of genetic information, information-oriented processes seemed to cause inaccurate perceptions. Genetic counselors are suggested to focus communication on these personal processes.

A whisper-game perspective on the family communication of DNA-test results: a retrospective study on the communication process of BRCA1/2-test results between proband and relatives

Objective of this paper is to study how DNA-test result information was communicated and perceived within families. A retrospective descriptive study in 13 probands with a BRCA1/2 unclassified variant, 7 with a pathogenic mutation, 5 with an uninformative result, and in 44, 14, and 12 of their 1st and 2nd degree relatives respectively. We examined differences and correlations between: (a) information actually communicated (b) probands' perception, (c) relatives' perception. The perception consisted of recollections and interpretations of both their own and their relatives' cancer-risks, and heredity-likelihood (i.e. likelihood that cancer is heritable in the family). Differences and low correlations suggested few similarities between the actually communicated information, the probands' and the relatives' perception. More specifically, probands recalled the communicated information differently compared with the actually communicated information (R = .40), and reinterpreted this information differently (R = .30). The relatives' perception was best correlated with the proband's interpretation (R = .08), but this perception differed significantly from their proband's perception. Finally, relatives reinterpreted the information they received from their proband differently (R = .25), and this interpretation was only slightly related with the original message communicated by the genetic-counsellor (R = .15). Unclassified-variants were most frequently misinterpreted by probands and relatives, and had the largest differences between probands' and relatives' perceptions. Like in a children's whisper-game, many errors occur in the transmission of DNA-test result information in families. More attention is required for how probands disseminate information to relatives. Genetic-counsellors may help by supporting the probands in communicating to relatives, e.g. by providing clear summary letters for relatives.

Adaptación española de la Escala de Control Personal Percibido ("Perceived Personal Control") en Consejo Genético

Objetivo: Analizar la validez y la fiabilidad de la adaptación de la escala Perceived Personal Control (PPC) en el contexto español para pacientes portadoras de mutación en los genes BRCA1/2 responsables del cáncer de mama y ovario hereditario (CMOH). Método: Adaptación transcultural y validación de la escala Perceived Personal Control (PPC) desarrollada por Shiloh y colaboraradores mediante traducción, retrotraducción y validación a través de un análisis factorial exploratorio con rotación Oblimin en una muestra de 176 mujeres portadoras de genes BRCA 1/2 para CMOH. Resultados: La versión española de la PPC reduce a seis los nueve ítems de la escala original, dado que esta estructura es la que ofrece una solución factorial más satisfactoria. El análisis factorial mostró un solo factor que explica el 51,07% de la varianza, en el que todos los ítems tenían cargas factoriales por encima de 0,4. El coeficiente α de Cronbach fue de 0,84 para el conjunto de la escala, la cual permite obtener valores que oscilan entre 0 (bajo grado de percepción de control) y 2 (alto grado de percepción de control). Conclusiones: La adaptación española de la Escala de Percepción de Control (PPC6) posee propiedades psicométricas satisfactorias en la versión de 6 ítems con un solo factor, por lo que su utilización en contexto español Consejo Genético para cáncer hereditario parece adecuada.