The "Psychosocial Aspects in Hereditary Cancer" questionnaire in women attending breast cancer genetic clinics: Psychometric validation across French-, German- and Spanish-language versions

Genetic clinicians' confidence in BOADICEA comprehensive breast cancer risk estimates and counselees' psychosocial outcomes: a prospective study

Counseling for familial breast cancer focuses on communicating the gene test result (GENE) to counselees, but risk prediction models have become more complex by including non‐genetic risk factors (NGRF) and polygenic risk scores (PRS). We examined genetic clinicians' confidence in counseling and counselees' psychosocial outcomes, using the BOADICEA risk prediction tool with different categories of risk factors as input. A prospective observational study in Dutch, French and German genetic clinics was performed including 22 clinicians, and 406 of 460 (88.3%) eligible cancer‐unaffected women at high breast cancer risk assessed at pre‐test and 350 (76.1%) at post‐test. We performed multilevel analyses accounting for the clinician, and counselees' characteristics. Overall, risk estimates category by GENE versus GENE+ NGRF, or GENE+NGRF+PRS differed in 11% and 25% of counselees, respectively. In multilevel analyses, clinicians felt less confident in counseling when the full model provided lower breast cancer risks than GENE (i.e., in 8% of cases). Older counselees expressed higher breast cancer risk perception and worries about the hereditary predisposition when the full model provided higher breast cancer risks than GENE only. Genetic clinicians appear confident with breast cancer risk comprehensive models, which seem only to affect perceptions of older counselees.

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.