Routine assessment of psychosocial problems after cancer genetic counseling: results from a randomized controlled trial

Personalising genetic counselling (POETIC) trial: Protocol for a hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation randomised clinical trial of a patient screening tool to improve patient empowerment after cancer genetic counselling

BACKGROUND

Genetic counselling aims to identify, and address, patient needs while facilitating informed decision-making about genetic testing and promoting empowerment and adaptation to genetic information. Increasing demand for cancer genetic testing and genetic counsellor workforce capacity limitations may impact the quality of genetic counselling provided. The use of a validated genetic-specific screening tool, the Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument (GPRI), may facilitate patient-centred genetic counselling. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness and implementation of using the GPRI in improving patient outcomes after genetic counselling and testing for an inherited cancer predisposition.

METHODS

The PersOnalising gEneTIc Counselling (POETIC) trial is a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial using a randomised control trial to assess the effectiveness of the GPRI in improving patient empowerment (primary outcome), while also assessing implementation from the perspective of clinicians and the healthcare service. Patients referred for a cancer risk assessment to the conjoint clinical genetics service of two metropolitan hospitals in Victoria, Australia, who meet the eligibility criteria and consent to POETIC will be randomised to the usual care or intervention group. Those in the intervention group will complete the GPRI prior to their appointment with the screening results available for the clinicians' use during the appointment. Appointment audio recordings, clinician-reported information about the appointment, patient-reported outcome measures, and clinical data will be used to examine the effectiveness of using the GPRI. Appointment audio recordings, health economic information, and structured interviews will be used to examine the implementation of the GPRI.

DISCUSSION

The POETIC trial takes a pragmatic approach by deploying the GPRI as an intervention in the routine clinical practice of a cancer-specific clinical genetics service that is staffed by a multidisciplinary team of genetics and oncology clinicians. Therefore, the effectiveness and implementation evidence generated from this real-world health service setting aims to optimise the relevance of the outcomes of this trial to the practice of genetic counselling while enhancing the operationalisation of the screening tool in routine practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry registration number 12621001582842p. Date of registration: 19th November 2021.

Parent Quality of Life After Disclosure of Pediatric Oncology Germline Sequencing Results

PURPOSE

To characterize parents' quality of life (QoL) after germline genomic sequencing for their children with cancer.

METHODS

Participants were n = 104 parents of children with cancer enrolled in a prospective study of clinical tumor and germline genomic sequencing. Parents completed surveys at study consent (T0), before disclosure of their child's germline results (T1), and again ≥5 weeks after results disclosure (T2). Bivariate associations with QoL were examined, followed by a multivariable regression model predicting parents' psychological distress.

RESULTS

At T2, parental distress significantly differed by their children's germline result type (positive, uncertain, negative; P = .038), parent relationship status (P = .04), predisclosure genetics knowledge (P = .006), and predisclosure worry about sequencing (P < .001). Specifically, parents of children with positive (ie, pathogenic or likely pathogenic) results experienced greater distress than those of children with negative results (P = .029), as did parents who were single, more knowledgeable about genetics, and with greater worry. In the adjusted regression model, a positive germline result remained significantly associated with parents' lower QoL at T2 follow-up (F [4,92] = 9.95; P < .001; R2 = .30; β = .19; P = .031).

CONCLUSION

Germline genomic sequencing for children with cancer is associated with distress among parents when revealing an underlying cancer predisposition among their affected children. Genetic education and counseling before and after germline sequencing may help attenuate this impact on QoL by addressing parents' concerns about test results and their health implications. Assessing parents' worry early in the testing process may also aid in identifying those most likely in need of psychosocial support.

The Clinical and Psychosocial Outcomes for Women Who Received Unexpected Clinically Actionable Germline Information Identified through Research: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Comparative Study

Background Research identifying and returning clinically actionable germline variants offer a new avenue of access to genetic information. The psychosocial and clinical outcomes for women who have received this ‘genome-first care’ delivering hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk information outside of clinical genetics services are unknown. Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed-methods case-control study compared outcomes between women who did (cases; group 1) and did not (controls; group 2) receive clinically actionable genetic information from a research cohort in Victoria, Australia. Participants completed an online survey examining cancer risk perception and worry, and group 1 also completed distress and adaptation measures. Group 1 participants subsequently completed a semi structured interview. Results: Forty-five participants (group 1) and 96 (group 2) completed the online survey, and 31 group 1 participants were interviewed. There were no demographic differences between groups 1 and 2, although more of group 1 participants had children (p = 0.03). Group 1 reported significantly higher breast cancer risk perception (p < 0.001) compared to group 2, and higher cancer worry than group 2 (p < 0.001). Some group 1 participants described how receiving their genetic information heightened their cancer risk perception and exacerbated their cancer worry while waiting for risk-reducing surgery. Group 1 participants reported a MICRA mean score of 27.4 (SD 11.8, range 9−56; possible range 0−95), and an adaptation score of 2.9 (SD = 1.1). Conclusion: There were no adverse psychological outcomes amongst women who received clinically actionable germline information through a model of ‘genome-first’ care compared to those who did not. These findings support the return of clinically actionable research results to research participants.

Préoccupations et besoins d’aide psychologiques chez les femmes à risque génétique de cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire : une étude prospective observationnelle en Allemagne, Espagne et France

Objectifs et contexte : L’arrivée des tests de panel de gènes a augmenté la complexité de la communication en consultation d’oncogénétique. Une attention quant à l’impact de cette communication sur les préoccupations et les besoins d’aide psychologique s’avère d’autant plus indispensable. Cette étude vise à en quantifier le type et l’ampleur, avant et après la communication du résultat de test génétique, chez des femmes s’adressant à la consultation d’oncogénétique pour réaliser un test de susceptibilité au cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire en Allemagne, Espagne et France.

Participants et mesures : Parmi les 752 personnes invitées consécutivement à participer à cette étude, 646 (86 %) ― dont 510 (68 %) atteintes d’un cancer du sein―ont répondu à un questionnaire (PAHC (Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer)) portant d’une part sur les préoccupations spécifiques à la démarche en oncogénétique et d’autre part sur leurs besoins d’aide psychologique ; questionnaire proposé après la consultation initiale d’oncogénétique initiale (T1) et, pour 460 (61 %) d’entre elles, deux mois après la communication du résultat du test (T2).

Résultats : Soixante-dix-neuf (17,2 %), 19 (4,1 %), 259 (56,3 %), 44 (9,6 %), 59 (12,8 %) femmes ont reçu respectivement les résultats suivants : un variant pathogène sur BRCA1/2 ou sur autre gène à risque élevé ou modéré, un résultat négatif non informatif, un résultat négatif vrai, ou la présence d’un variant dont la signification clinique est incertaine (VUS). Le type de préoccupations et les besoins d’aide psychologique se sont révélés variables selon les pays. Cependant, globalement, les préoccupations les plus fréquentes (> 70 %) étaient relatives à la perte d’un proche familial par cancer, et les moins fréquentes (< 5 %) relatives au soutien des proches. La plupart de ces préoccupations persistent deux mois plus tard, à la suite du résultat de test génétique. En revanche, le besoin d’aide psychologique a globalement diminué sur le plan statistique, excepté, selon le pays, pour les préoccupations familiales/sociales, les difficultés émotionnelles ou les aspects pratiques.

Conclusions : Dans notre étude portant sur des femmes issues de trois pays européens s’adressant à la consultation oncogénétique en vue de réaliser un test de susceptibilité au cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire, la plupart des préoccupations liées à la situation génétique persistent deux mois après la communication du résultat de test, et les besoins d’aide psychologique se manifestent surtout dans le champ des relations et des émotions.

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.

How to support cancer genetics counselees in informing at-risk relatives? Lessons from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

In hereditary and familial cancer, counselees are requested to inform their at-risk relatives. We developed an intervention to support counselees in this task.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted aimed at improving cancer genetic counselees' i) knowledge, ii) motivation to disclose information, and ii) self-efficacy in this regard. Eligible participants were randomized to telephonic counseling (n = 148), or standard care (n = 157) and assessed at baseline, 1 week post-intervention, and 4 months after study enrolment.

RESULTS

No between-group differences were found in participants' knowledge, motivation, and self-efficacy. Knowledge concerning which second-degree relatives to inform was lower compared to first-degree relatives. About 60% of the participants was of the opinion that they needed to inform more relatives than stated in their summary letter and only about 50% were correctly aware of which information to disclose. Of note, at baseline, almost 80% of the participants had already correctly informed their at-risk relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Since, unexpectedly, counselees already informed most of their relatives before the intervention was offered, efficacy of the intervention could not convincingly be determined. Counselees' knowledge about whom to inform about what is suboptimal.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Future interventions should target a more homogeneous sample and address counselees' understanding and recall.

A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials to Assess Outcomes of Genetic Counseling

With the advancements in precision medicine and health care reform, it is critical that genetic counseling practice respond to emerging evidence to maximize client benefit. The objective of this review was to synthesize evidence on outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of genetic counseling to inform clinical practice. Seven databases were searched in conducting this review. Studies were selected for inclusion if they were: (a) RCTs published from 1990 to 2015, and (b) assessed a direct outcome of genetic counseling. Extracted data included study population, aims, and outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidelines. A review of 1654 abstracts identified 58 publications of 54 unique RCTs that met inclusion criteria, the vast majority of which were conducted in cancer genetic counseling setting. Twenty-seven publications assessed 'enhancements' to genetic counseling, and 31 publications compared delivery modes. The methodological rigor varied considerably, highlighting the need for attention to quality criteria in RCT design. While most studies assessed several client outcomes hypothesized to be affected by genetic counseling (e.g., psychological wellbeing, knowledge, perceived risk, patient satisfaction), disparate validated and reliable scales and other assessments were often used to evaluate the same outcome(s). This limits opportunity to compare findings across studies. While RCTs of genetic counseling demonstrate enhanced client outcomes in a number of studies and pave the way to evidence-based practice, the heterogeneity of the research questions suggest an important need for more complementary studies with consistent outcome assessments.

Prevalence and detection of psychosocial problems in cancer genetic counseling

Only a minority of individuals who undergo cancer genetic counseling experience heightened levels of psychological distress, but many more experience a range of cancer genetic-specific psychosocial problems. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of such psychosocial problems, and to identify possible demographic and clinical variables associated significantly with them. Consenting individuals scheduled to undergo cancer genetic counseling completed the Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer (PAHC) questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Distress Thermometer (DT) prior to or immediately following their counseling session. More than half of the 137 participants reported problems on three or more domains of the PAHC, most often in the domains 'living with cancer' (84%), 'family issues' (46%), 'hereditary predisposition' (45%), and 'child-related issues' (42%). Correlations between the PAHC, the HADS and the DT were low. Previous contact with a psychosocial worker, and having a personal history of cancer were associated significantly with HADS scores, but explained little variance (9%). No background variables were associated significantly with the DT. Previous contact with a psychosocial worker, and having children were significantly associated with several PAHC domains, again explaining only a small percentage of the variance (2-14%). The majority of counselees experience specific cancer genetic counseling-related psychosocial problems. Only a few background variables are associated significantly with distress or psychosocial problems. Thus we recommend using the PAHC or a similar problem-oriented questionnaire routinely in cancer genetic counseling to identify individuals with such problems.