1
|
Pauley K, Khan A, Kohlmann W, Jeter J. Considerations for Germline Testing in Melanoma: Updates in Behavioral Change and Pancreatic Surveillance for Carriers of CDKN2A Pathogenic Variants. Front Oncol 2022; 12:837057. [PMID: 35372037 PMCID: PMC8967159 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.837057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2021] [Accepted: 02/23/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
The largest proportion of hereditary melanoma cases are due to pathogenic variants (PVs) in the CDKN2A/p16 gene, which account for 20%-40% of familial melanomas and confer up to a 30%-70% lifetime risk for melanoma in individuals with these variants. In addition, PVs in the CDKN2A gene also increase risk for pancreatic cancer (~5-24% lifetime risk). Individuals with PVs in the CDKN2A gene also tend to have an earlier onset of cancer. Despite these known risks, uptake of germline testing has been limited in the past, largely due to perceptions of limited benefit for patients. Prevention recommendations have been developed for individuals with CDKN2A PVs as well the providers who care for them. On the patient level, behavioral modifications regarding melanoma prevention such as wearing sunscreen, limiting prolonged sun exposure and practicing general sun safety can help reduce risks. Germline testing can provide motivation for some individuals to adhere to these lifestyle changes. On the provider level, pancreatic cancer surveillance for individuals with CDKN2A PVs has been increasingly endorsed by expert consensus, although the efficacy of these surveillance methods remains under study. This review summarizes the updated surveillance guidelines for individuals with CDKN2A PVs and explores the impact of genetic counseling and testing in influencing behavioral changes in these individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristen Pauley
- Family Cancer Assessment Clinic, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Ambreen Khan
- Family Cancer Assessment Clinic, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Wendy Kohlmann
- Family Cancer Assessment Clinic, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Joanne Jeter
- Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Vears DF, Minion JT, Roberts SJ, Cummings J, Machirori M, Blell M, Budin-Ljøsne I, Cowley L, Dyke SOM, Gaff C, Green R, Hall A, Johns AL, Knoppers BM, Mulrine S, Patch C, Winkler E, Murtagh MJ. Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0258646. [PMID: 34748551 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258646] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 10/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.
Collapse
|
3
|
Villafane-Bernier C, Lapointe J, Raîche C, Lauzier S, Chiquette J, Bouchard K, Pelletier S, Omeranovic A, Rhéaume J, Brousseau C, Hébert J, Dorval M, Nabi H. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of a French Version of the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale (GCSS) as an Outcome Measure of Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Healthcare (Basel) 2021; 9:1145. [PMID: 34574919 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9091145] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2021] [Revised: 08/26/2021] [Accepted: 08/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: The Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale (GCSS) is a widely used tool to evaluate patient satisfaction. To our knowledge, a validated French-language version of this tool is not yet available. This article reports on the cross-cultural adaptation and validation of a French version of the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale (GCSS) to evaluate genetic counseling services for patient consultation in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). (2) Methods: The scale was culturally adapted following guidelines from Beaton et al. (2000). Cognitive interviews were conducted to ensure items were understood according to the intended meaning. The internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, and testing of group differences were assessed using a sample of 172 patients who attended a pretest group genetic counseling session. (3) Results: Participants understood all items according to the intended meaning. The internal consistency was high for the total scale (0.90) and for the corrected item-to-total correlations (varying between 0.62 and 0.78). No floor or ceiling effects were observed. Group difference analyses generally followed expectations. (4) Conclusion: This process generated a French version of the GCSS that is clearly understood by patients, and has psychometric properties adequately in line those reported for its original English version.
Collapse
|
4
|
Primiero CA, Yanes T, Finnane A, Soyer HP, McInerney-Leo AM. A Systematic Review on the Impact of Genetic Testing for Familial Melanoma I: Primary and Secondary Preventative Behaviours. Dermatology 2021; 237:806-815. [PMID: 33588421 DOI: 10.1159/000513919] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2020] [Accepted: 12/12/2020] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Increasing availability of panel testing for known high-penetrance familial melanoma genes has made it possible to improve risk awareness in those at greatest risk. Prior to wider implementation, the role of genetic testing in preventing melanoma, through influencing primary and secondary preventative behaviours, requires clarification. METHODS Database searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies describing preventative behaviour outcomes in response to genetic testing for melanoma risk. Publications describing original research of any study type were screened for eligibility. RESULTS Eighteen publications describing 11 unique studies were reviewed. Outcomes assessed are based on health behaviour recommendations for those at increased risk: adherence to sun-protective behaviour (SPB); clinical skin examinations (CSE); skin self-examinations (SSE); and family discussion of risk. Overall, modest increases in adherence to primary prevention strategies of SPB were observed following genetic testing. Importantly, there were no net decreases in SPB found amongst non-carriers. For secondary preventative behaviour outcomes, including CSE and SSE, increases in post-test intentions and long-term adherence were reported across several subgroups in approximately half of the studies. While this increase reached significance in mutation carriers in some studies, one study reported a significant decline in annual CSE adherence of non-mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS Evidence reviewed suggests that genetic testing has a modestly positive impact on preventative behaviour in high-risk individuals. Furthermore, improvements are observed regardless of mutation carrier status, although greater adherence is found in carriers. While additional studies of more diverse cohorts would be needed to inform clinical recommendations, the findings are encouraging and suggest that genetic testing for melanoma has a positive impact on preventative behaviours.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clare A Primiero
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Tatiane Yanes
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Anna Finnane
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - H Peter Soyer
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia,
- Department of Dermatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia,
| | - Aideen M McInerney-Leo
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Taber JM, Aspinwall LG, Drummond DM, Stump TK, Kohlmann W, Champine M, Cassidy P, Leachman SA. Priority of Risk (But Not Perceived Magnitude of Risk) Predicts Improved Sun-Protection Behavior Following Genetic Counseling for Familial Melanoma. Ann Behav Med 2021; 55:24-40. [PMID: 32415830 PMCID: PMC7880221 DOI: 10.1093/abm/kaaa028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Understanding multiple components of risk perceptions is important because perceived risk predicts engagement in prevention behaviors. PURPOSE To examine how multiple components of risk perceptions (perceived magnitude of and worry about risk, prioritization of the management of one's risk) changed following genetic counseling with or without test reporting, and to examine which of these components prospectively predicted improvements in sun-protection behavior 1 year later. METHODS A prospective, nonrandomized study design was used. Participants were 114 unaffected members of melanoma-prone families who (i) underwent genetic testing for a CDKN2A/p16 mutation (n = 69) or (ii) were at comparably elevated risk based on family history and underwent genetic counseling but not testing (no-test controls, n = 45). Participants reported risk perception components and sun-protection behavior at baseline, immediately following counseling, and 1 month and 1 year after counseling. RESULTS Factor analysis indicated three risk components. Carriers reported increased perceived magnitude and priority of risk, but not cancer worry. No-test controls showed no changes in any risk perception. Among noncarriers, priority of risk remained high at all assessments, whereas magnitude of risk and cancer worry decreased. Of the three risk components, greater priority of risk uniquely predicted improved self-reported sun protection 1 year post-counseling. CONCLUSIONS Priority of risk (i) seems to be a component of risk perceptions distinguishable from magnitude of risk and cancer worry, (ii) may be an important predictor of daily prevention behavior, and (iii) remained elevated 1 year following genetic counseling only for participants who received a positive melanoma genetic test result.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer M Taber
- Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH
| | - Lisa G Aspinwall
- Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | | | - Tammy K Stump
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
| | - Wendy Kohlmann
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Marjan Champine
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Primiero CA, Yanes T, Finnane A, Soyer HP, McInerney-Leo AM. A Systematic Review on the Impact of Genetic Testing for Familial Melanoma II: Psychosocial Outcomes and Attitudes. Dermatology 2021; 237:816-826. [PMID: 33508831 DOI: 10.1159/000513576] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2020] [Accepted: 12/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although genetic testing for known familial melanoma genes is commercially available, clinical implementation has been restrained as utility is unclear, concerns of causing psychological distress are often cited, and consumer interest and perceptions are not well understood. A review of studies exploring participant-reported psychosocial outcomes and attitudes towards genetic testing for familial melanoma will provide insight into common emotional and cognitive responses. METHODS Database searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were conducted using a date range of January 1995 to June 2020. Studies examining any psychosocial outcomes alongside genetic testing (real or hypothetical), in participants described as having a high risk of melanoma, were eligible. A narrative synthesis of results was used to describe psychosocial outcomes and summarise participant beliefs and attitudes towards genetic testing. RESULTS Limited evidence of adverse psychosocial outcomes was found. No impacts on perceived risk or control were reported, and minimal decisional regret was recorded. Generalised distress was comparable between both genetic mutation carriers and non-carriers, often decreasing over time from pretesting levels. Melanoma-specific distress was frequently higher in carriers than non-carriers; however, this difference was present prior to testing and often associated with personal melanoma history. Overall, participants' attitudes towards testing were largely positive, with benefits more frequently described than limitations, and support for testing minors was strong. CONCLUSIONS This review has found evidence of few adverse psychological outcomes following genetic testing. There was no indication of increased distress after genetic test results had been disclosed. If these findings were replicated in additional, larger, diverse populations over a longer follow-up period, this would be compelling evidence to guide clinical recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clare A Primiero
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Tatiane Yanes
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Anna Finnane
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - H Peter Soyer
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Department of Dermatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Aideen M McInerney-Leo
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia,
| |
Collapse
|