The counsellees' view of an unclassified variant in BRCA1/2: recall, interpretation, and impact on life

Evaluation of laboratory perspectives on hereditary cancer panels

Genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility is a rapidly evolving field and partly a result of next-generation sequencing (NGS) allowing analysis of multiple cancer susceptibility genes simultaneously. This qualitative study explored laboratory perspectives on hereditary cancer panels. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of clinical laboratories offering hereditary cancer panels via NGS. Several themes emerged from the responses pertaining to hereditary cancer panel development, the importance of communication of panel properties with patients, variant reporting policies, and the future of hereditary cancer gene testing. Clinical utility was discussed as primary consideration during panel development. In addition, while participants indicated gene and syndrome overlap prompted panel development in general, laboratories differed in their opinions of whether phenotypic overlap warrants offering pan-cancer panels only versus cancer specific panels. Participants stressed the importance of patients understanding implications of panel testing, including what is tested for and limitations of testing. While all laboratories discussed the limitations of a variant of uncertain significance result, they differed significantly in their reporting methods. This study provides healthcare providers information on the laboratory approach to panel testing, highlighting both commonalities and differences in laboratory approaches, and may allow providers to make more informed decisions when ordering hereditary cancer panels.

Molecular Testing in Breast Cancer: A Guide to Current Practices

CONTEXT

-Molecular diagnostics play a role in the management of many cancers, including breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE

-To provide an update on molecular testing in current clinical practice, targeted at practicing pathologists who are not breast cancer specialists.

DATA SOURCES

-This study is a narrative literature review.

CONCLUSIONS

-In addition to routine hormone (estrogen and progesterone) receptor testing, new and recurrent tumors are tested for HER2 amplification by in situ hybridization or overexpression by immunohistochemistry. Intrinsic subtyping of tumors represents a fundamental advance in our understanding of breast cancer biology, but currently it has an indirect role in patient management. Clinical next-generation sequencing (tumor profiling) is increasingly used to identify potentially actionable mutations in tumor tissue. Multianalyte assays with algorithmic analysis, including MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and Prosigna, play a larger role in breast cancer than in many other malignancies. Given that a proportion of breast cancers are familial, testing of nontumor tissue for cancer predisposition mutations also plays a role in breast cancer care.

Lynch Syndrome Limbo: Patient Understanding of Variants of Uncertain Significance

Providers and patients encounter challenges related to the management of Variants of Unknown Significance (VUS). A VUS introduces new counseling dilemmas for the understanding and psychosocial impact of uncertain genetic test results. This descriptive study uses Mishel's theory of uncertainty in illness to explore the experience of individuals who have received a VUS as part of the genetic testing process. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 adult individuals who received a VUS for Lynch syndrome mismatch repair genes between 2002 and 2013. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed. Most individuals recalled their result and perceived various types of uncertainty associated with their VUS. Half of the participants appraised their variant as a danger and implemented coping strategies to reduce the threat of developing cancer. Mobilizing strategies to reduce their risk included vigilant cancer surveillance, information seeking and notifying relatives. The majority of participants were unaware of the possibility of a VUS before receiving their result and expected reclassification over time. These results provide insight into the ways healthcare providers can support patients who receive VUS for Lynch syndrome. Findings also provide direction for future work that can further explicate the impact of receiving a VUS.

Non-genetic health professionals' attitude towards, knowledge of and skills in discussing and ordering genetic testing for hereditary cancer

Non-genetic health professionals (NGHPs) have insufficient knowledge of cancer genetics, express educational needs and are unprepared to counsel their patients regarding their genetic test results. So far, it is unclear how NGHPs perceive their own communication skills. This study was undertaken to gain insight in their perceptions, attitudes and knowledge. Two publically accessible databases were used to invite NGHPs providing cancer genetic services to complete a questionnaire. The survey assessed: sociodemographic attributes, experience in ordering hereditary cancer genetic testing, attitude, knowledge, perception of communication skills (e.g. information giving, decision-making) and educational needs. Of all respondents (N = 49, response rate 11 %), most have a positive view of their own information giving (mean = 53.91, range 13–65) and decision making skills (64–77 % depending on topic). NGHPs feel responsible for enabling disease and treatment related behavior (89–91 %). However, 20–30 % reported difficulties managing patients’ emotions and did not see management of long-term emotions as their responsibility. Correct answers on knowledge questions ranged between 41 and 96 %. Higher knowledge was associated with more confidence in NGHPs’ own communication skills (r_s = .33, p = 0.03). Although NGHPs have a positive view of their communication skills, they perceive more difficulties managing emotions. The association between less confidence in communication skills and lower knowledge level suggests awareness of knowledge gaps affects confidence. NGHPs might benefit from education about managing client emotions. Further research using observation of actual counselling consultations is needed to investigate the skills of this specific group of providers.

Routine use of gene panel testing in hereditary breast cancer should be performed with caution

Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer occurring in women. Ten percent of these cancers are considered hereditary. Among them, 30% are attributed to germline mutations in the tumor suppressor genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Other genes of lower penetrance are also known, explaining together up to 40% of the hereditary risk of breast cancer. New techniques, such as next-generation sequencing, allow the simultaneous analysis of multiple genes in a cost-effective way. As a logical consequence, gene panel testing is entering clinical practice with the promise of personalized care. We however advocate that gene panel testing is not ready for non-specialist clinical use, as it generates many variants of unknown significance and includes more genes than are presently considered clinically useful. We hereby review the data for each gene that can change the risk management of patients carrying a pathogenic variant.

Family Studies for Classification of Variants of Uncertain Classification: Current Laboratory Clinical Practice and a New Web-Based Educational Tool

Multi-gene cancer panels often identify variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) that pose a challenge to health care providers in managing a patient's cancer risk. Family segregation analysis can yield powerful data to re-classify a VUS (as either benign or pathogenic). However, financial and personnel resources to coordinate these studies are limited. In an informal assessment we found that family studies for variant classification are done by most clinical genetics laboratories that offer hereditary cancer panel testing. The process for family studies differs substantially across laboratories. One near universal limitation is that families usually have too few individuals for an informative co-segregation analysis. A unique and potential resource-saving approach is to engage patients and their families in expanding their own pedigrees for segregation analysis of their VUS. We describe a novel public educational tool ( FindMyVariant.org ) designed to inform patients and genetic counselors about strategies to improve the probability of variant classification using familial segregation. While the web tool is designed to be useful for any gene, the project was primarily focused on VUS's returned in cancer risk genes. FindMyVariant.org is a resource for genetic providers to offer motivated families who are willing to gather information about their family relationships and history. Working alongside clinical or research genetic laboratories, the information they collect may help reclassify their VUS using segregation analysis.

Patient Recall, Interpretation, and Perspective of an Inconclusive Long QT Syndrome Genetic Test Result

Patients' perceptions of inconclusive results have been previously investigated in cancer genetics. The differences in how patients recall and interpret an uninformative test result compared to a known pathogenic result can affect medical decisions post disclosure. However, there is little to no data available on patients' interpretation and perception of uninformative genetic results in inherited heart disease. We report the results of a qualitative analysis of 16 telephone interviews with participants who received a negative or a variant of unknown significance (VUS) result from Long QT syndrome (LQTS) genetic testing. Our results suggest that the type of result (negative versus VUS) does not affect recall, regardless of the reason for testing. When receiving a negative result, a majority of participants appropriately perceived no change in their diagnosis, while the perception of risk for family members varied. The majority of participants felt they maintained an awareness of their condition after the result disclosure, and that clinical follow-up was similar to that planned prior to the genetic test result. Further work is needed to determine if there are any differences between obtaining a VUS result versus a negative result in this population.

Classification and Clinical Management of Variants of Uncertain Significance in High Penetrance Cancer Predisposition Genes

In 2008, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) proposed a system for classifying sequence variants in highly penetrant breast and colon cancer susceptibility genes, linked to clinical actions. This system uses a multifactorial likelihood model to calculate the posterior probability that an altered DNA sequence is pathogenic. Variants between 5%-94.9% (class 3) are categorized as variants of uncertain significance (VUS). This interval is wide and might include variants with a substantial difference in pathogenicity at either end of the spectrum. We think that carriers of class 3 variants would benefit from a fine-tuning of this classification. Classification of VUS to a category with a defined clinical significance is very important because for carriers of a pathogenic mutation full surveillance and risk-reducing surgery can reduce cancer incidence. Counselees who are not carriers of a pathogenic mutation can be discharged from intensive follow-up and avoid unnecessary risk-reducing surgery. By means of examples, we show how, in selected cases, additional data can lead to reclassification of some variants to a different class with different recommendations for surveillance and therapy. To improve the clinical utility of this classification system, we suggest a pragmatic adaptation to clinical practice.

Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists

BACKGROUND

Mainstreaming genetic medicine, increased media coverage and clinical trials for BRCA mutation carriers are leading oncologists into more patient discussions about BRCA genetic testing. BRCA variants of uncertain significance (VUS) occur in 10-20% of tests. VUS detection introduces additional uncertainty for patient and potentially clinician. We aimed to explore the ability of breast cancer specialists (BCS) in the UK to correctly respond to a VUS report.

METHODS

A survey sent to 800 UK BCS collected demographics data, VUS general knowledge and interpretation and communication based on two genetics reports. A separate survey of UK clinical geneticists collected demographics data, laboratory reporting practice and methods used to clarify VUS pathogenicity including classification systems.

RESULTS

Of the 155 BCS (22.5%) who completed the survey, 12% reported no genetics training. Ninety five percent referred patients for BRCA genetic tests, 71% felt unsure about the clinical implications of the test reports presented here. A VUS report from a patient with a positive family history was interpreted and theoretically communicated correctly by 94% but when presented with a different VUS report with no management guidance and negative family history, 39% did not know how to communicate this result to the patient. Geneticists reported multiple VUS classification systems; the most commonly used was word-based in 32%.

CONCLUSIONS

A consistent and standardised format to report particularly VUS results across all diagnostic laboratories plus additional training of UK BCS will be necessary for effective mainstreaming of BRCA testing to the oncology clinic.

Next-Generation Testing for Cancer Risk: Perceptions, Experiences, and Needs Among Early Adopters in Community Healthcare Settings

BACKGROUND

Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are driving a shift from single-gene to multigene panel testing for clinical genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). This study explored perceptions, experiences, and challenges with NGS testing for GCRA among U.S. community-based clinicians.

METHODS

Surveys delivered at initial and 8-month time points, and 12-month tracking of cases presented in a multidisciplinary web-based case conference series, were conducted with GCRA providers who participated in a 235-member nationwide community of practice.

RESULTS

The proportion of respondents ordering panel tests rose from 29% at initial survey (27/94) to 44% (46/107) within 8 months. Respondents reported significantly less confidence about interpreting and counseling about NGS compared with single-gene test results (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). The most cited reasons for not ordering NGS tests included concerns about clinical utility, interpreting and communicating results, and lack of knowledge/skills. Multigene panels were used in 204/668 cases presented during 2013, yielding 37 (18%) deleterious (7% in low/moderate-penetrance genes), 88 (43%) with ≥1 variant of uncertain significance, 77 (38%) uninformative negative, and 2 (1%) inconclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite concerns about utility and ability to interpret/counsel about NGS results, a rapidly increasing uptake of NGS testing among community clinicians was documented. Challenges identified in case discussions point to the need for ongoing education, practice-based support, and opportunities to partner in research that contributes to characterization of lesser known genes.

A preliminary investigation of genetic counselors' information needs when receiving a variant of uncertain significance result: a mixed methods study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to explore genetic counselors' information preferences on reports of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results from cancer genetic testing.

METHODS

This mixed methods report (quantitative and qualitative approaches) utilized a survey of genetic counselors containing closed- and open-ended questions to explore genetic counselors' information needs and perceptions of the industry's current information sharing practices. Descriptive statistics were calculated for responses to the closed-ended questions, and thematic analysis guided the interpretation of the open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Of the 267 participants (28.6% response rate), the majority indicated a perceived lack of information on VUS laboratory reports, were concerned about the perceived practice of withholding information, and stated the information they wanted to see. Although most did not indicate how additional information would be used, some reported they would provide information directly to patients, and others reported that the information would be used to contextualize the VUS result when counseling patients.

CONCLUSION

This analysis identified information that genetic counselors believe is needed in VUS reports, indicating what they believe are best practices in lieu of guidelines for laboratories currently providing genetic testing services. Future studies should explore how genetic counselors use additional information contained in VUS reports.Genet Med 17 9, 739-746.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing-pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of BRCA1/2 testing for tailoring cancer treatment and extension of testing to tumour tissue for somatic mutation is moving BRCA1/2 mutation screening from a primarily prevention arena delivered by specialist genetic services into mainstream oncology practice. A considerable number of gene tests will identify rare variants where clinical significance cannot be inferred from sequence information alone. The proportion of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) is likely to grow with lower thresholds for testing and laboratory providers with less experience of BRCA. Most VUS will not be associated with a high risk of cancer but a misinterpreted VUS has the potential to lead to mismanagement of both the patient and their relatives.

DESIGN

Members of the Clinical Working Group of ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) global consortium (www.enigmaconsortium.org) observed wide variation in practices in reporting, disclosure and clinical management of patients with a VUS. Examples from current clinical practice are presented and discussed to illustrate potential pitfalls, explore factors contributing to misinterpretation, and propose approaches to improving clarity.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Clinicians, patients and their relatives would all benefit from an improved level of genetic literacy. Genetic laboratories working with clinical geneticists need to agree on a clinically clear and uniform format for reporting BRCA test results to non-geneticists. An international consortium of experts, collecting and integrating all available lines of evidence and classifying variants according to an internationally recognized system, will facilitate reclassification of variants for clinical use.

Parents' Perspectives on Variants of Uncertain Significance from Chromosome Microarray Analysis

Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for unexplained anomalies and developmental delay has improved diagnosis rates, but results classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUS) may challenge both clinicians and families. We explored the impact of such results on families, including parental knowledge, understanding and interpretation. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with parents (N = 14) who received genetic counseling for a VUS in their child. Transcripts were analyzed through an iterative coding process. Participants demonstrated a range of recall and personal interpretation regarding whether test results provided a causal explanation for their children's health issues. Participants maintained contradictory interpretations, describing results as answers while maintaining that little clarification of their child's condition had been provided. Reported benefits included obtaining medical services and personal validation. Parents described adaptation/coping processes similar to those occurring after positive test results. Recall of terminology, including "VUS" and precise CMA abnormalities, was poor. However, most demonstrated conceptual understanding of scientific uncertainty. All participants expressed intentions to return for recommended genetics follow-up but had misconceptions about how this would occur. These results provide insight into the patient-and-family experience when receiving uncertain genomic findings, emphasize the importance of exploring uncertainty during the communication process, and highlight areas for potential attention or improvement in the clinical encounter.

Facilitators and Challenges in Psychosocial Adaptation to Being at Increased Familial Risk of Breast Cancer

Little is known about the process of psychosocial adaptation to familial risk in tested and untested individuals at increased familial risk of cancer. This paper presents findings from a qualitative study of 36 women participating in the Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast cancer (kConFab) Psychosocial study. Facilitators and challenges in psychosocial adaptation were identified through semi-structured interviews. The women, who were either tested (carriers or non-carriers of breast cancer susceptibility mutations) or untested (ineligible for testing or eligible but delayed or declined testing), described personal, support network and healthcare characteristics that impacted on the adaptation process. Challenges in one domain could be overcome by facilitators in other domains and key differences relating to whether women had undergone testing, or not, were identified. Tested and untested women with an increased familial risk of breast cancer may benefit from support tailored to their mutation testing status in order to enhance adaptation.

Variants of unknown significance on chromosomal microarray analysis: parental perspectives

Chromosomal microarray is the recommended first-tier genetic test when a child presents with idiopathic developmental delay (DD), intellectual disability (ID), and/or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Microarray may discover variants of unknown clinical significance (VUS) and been suggested to cause parental stress and anxiety. A retrospective, mixed methods study investigated parental perceptions of chromosomal microarray results that contain VUS. Surveys were sent to parents of children with DD/ID/ASD following a VUS result to seek information regarding parental understanding of the result, perceived value, and perceptions of child vulnerability and parental stress. Parents reported that chromosomal microarray was important for understanding their child's diagnosis and they were satisfied with the information. A majority of parents reported high confidence in their ability to explain a VUS result to others. Of the parents who reported they received support, many reported that the support was from a genetic counselor. Based on these results, VUS results are important to parents of children with DD/ID/ASD and genetic counseling regarding VUS results contributes positively to both parental understanding and support.

Variants of unknown significance in BRCA testing: impact on risk perception, worry, prevention and counseling

BACKGROUND

Sequence-based BRCA testing can identify variants of unknown significance (VUS). Relatively little is known about how well a test outcome of VUS is understood by patients and referring physicians, and whether genetic counselors have an interest in the development of VUS management guidelines.

DESIGN

Self-administered questionnaires were completed by 36 VUS counselees, 75 women with a BRCA mutation and 33 with no mutation found (NMF). We also surveyed 24 genetic counselors and 22 referring family physicians.

RESULTS

One-third of VUS failed to recall the clinical significance of their result. Incorrect recall was significantly higher among VUS with high-school-only education (70% versus 19%, P = 0.02). Risk perception, cancer worry and uptake of surveillance and risk-reducing surgeries among VUS counselees were more similar to NMF than to mutation carriers. Genetic counselors accurately predicted the difficulties counselees would have with a VUS result and identified the need for VUS management guidelines. Referring physicians unanimously stated that genetic testing was indicated for unaffected siblings of VUS carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

While VUS seems to be correctly perceived by counselees as more similar to NMF than to a pathogenic mutation, miscomprehension of VUS is more common, particularly in counselees with lower education. VUS-related educational interventions for both VUS counselees and their referring physicians are needed. We encourage the development of national VUS-related guidelines for genetic counselors.

Active approach for breast cancer genetic counseling during radiotherapy: long-term psychosocial and medical impact

Genetic counseling and DNA testing (GCT) for breast cancer is increasingly being actively offered to newly diagnosed patients. Little is known about the consequences of such an approach. Therefore, the long-term psychosocial and medical impact of referring breast cancer patients for GCT during an early phase of treatment was studied. A group of 112 breast cancer patients who had been actively offered GCT during adjuvant radiotherapy 7-14 years earlier, returned a self-report questionnaire. We compared their experiences with a group of 127 breast cancer patients who had not met the criteria for GCT. In total, 239 women participated in this long-term follow-up study (72% response rate). Nearly 75% of them had received regular mammography surveillance in the past 3 years. Preventive surgery was reported more often in the counseling group (specifically in the BRCA1/2 mutation carriers). Like the comparative group, only a minority of patients who had received GCT were experiencing high levels of depression (5%) or psychological distress (14%). Breast cancer patients can be actively approached and referred for GCT at the beginning of their radiotherapy without a threat to psychological functioning in the long term.

Systematic review of educational tools used during the BRCA1/2 genetic testing process

This review describes the characteristics of available educational tools used for BRCA1/2 genetic testing. To identify the tools, we conducted a systematic search in electronic databases, and contacted over 1000 cancer genetics professionals. This review is based on 68 tools from the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, France and Ireland. The tools vary in format and scope depending on the genetic testing phase for which they are intended. We found that a wide diversity of educational materials are available and used for BRCA1/2 genetic testing around the world. However, a substantial number of tools fail to address important aspects of genetic testing.

Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA testing: evaluation of surgical decisions, risk perception, and cancer distress

Studies suggest that patients carrying a BRCA variant of uncertain significance (VUS) may have lingering confusion concerning results interpretation. Counseling for uninformative BRCA-negative (UN) results is thought to be more straightforward, despite the fact that both results lead to similar methods of empiric cancer risk counseling. This study compared surgical choices and perceptions between 71 patients with VUS results and 714 patients with UN results. All patients underwent genetic counseling because of a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer between 1997 and 2010, and completed a 2-year follow-up survey. Risk-reducing mastectomy rates in both groups were 7% (p = 1.00) and risk-reducing oophorectomy rates were 5% and 3%, respectively (p = 0.42). The VUS group reported less cancer distress reduction than the UN group (23.0% vs 35.8%, respectively, p = 0.043). Over 90% of both groups found the counseling process helpful. Overall, the study suggests that VUS results disclosed in genetic counseling did not cause excessive surgery or exaggerated cancer distress, though patients with a VUS found counseling somewhat less informative or reassuring. Future research on communication of VUS results, including pre-and post-test counseling, is essential for full realization of the potential for genomic medicine.

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.

Follow-up of carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of unknown significance: variant reclassification and surgical decisions

PURPOSE

: Approximately 5-10% of patients who undergo genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 receive a variant of unknown significance (VUS) result. The ambiguous nature of a VUS may increase difficulty in patient understanding and decision making regarding risk reduction and surveillance options, including cancer risk-reducing surgeries. VUS reclassification to benign or deleterious may occur in time; however, clinical decisions may need to be made expeditiously, and some patients may pursue irreversible treatments before VUS reclassification.

METHODS

: We reviewed the surgical decisions of 107 women postdisclosure of a BRCA VUS result counseled at our institute between 1998 and 2009.

CONCLUSION

: Among women receiving a BRCA VUS result at our center, 11 of 107 (10.3%) pursued cancer risk-reducing mastectomy and 22 of 107 (20.6%) pursued cancer risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Reclassification of VUS occurred up to 9 years after testing, and 5 of 22 (22.7%) women followed up for 8 or more years continue to have a VUS result. We discuss considerations for providers of genetic services to discuss with patients who receive a VUS result.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies suggest that learning a DNA-test-result has no direct impact on the medical-decisions and psychological well-being of counselees. Their perception, especially their recollections and interpretations of their cancer-risks and heredity, predict and/or mediate this impact. These studies were criticized for their small range of predictors, mediators, outcomes and contextual factors. We studied the short-term impact of DNA-testing with an extended model.

METHODS

Three months after disclosure of BRCA1/2-test-results, we sent counselees a questionnaire about their perception, medical and psychological outcomes, and medical, familial and psychological contexts. 248 affected women participated; 30 had received pathogenic-mutations, 16 unclassified-variants and 202 uninformative-results.

RESULTS

The actually communicated genetic-information and the contextual variables predicted the counselees' perception, but did not directly predict any outcomes. The counselees' perception predicted and/or completely mediated the counselees' medical intentions and behavior, physical and psychological life-changes, stigma, mastery, negativity and cancer-worries. Short-term distress was related to the perception not only of their own risks, but also of their relatives' risks and heredity-likelihood. Effect sizes were medium to large.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The outcomes of DNA-testing were better predicted by the counselees' perception than by the actually given genetic-information. We recommend genetic-counselors to have tailored, interactive dialogues about the counselees' perception.

Family communication matters: the impact of telling relatives about unclassified variants and uninformative DNA-test results

BACKGROUND

Unclassified variant and uninformative BRCA1/2 results are not only relevant for probands to whom results are disclosed but also for untested relatives. Previous studies have seldom included relatives and have not explained how their lives were influenced by these results. We explored the family communication timeline of genetic counseling: (1) genetic counselors communicate the relatives' cancer risk, (2) probands perceive this risk and (3) communicate this to relatives; (4) relatives perceive this information, and (5) experience an impact on their lives.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective descriptive study in 13 probands with an unclassified variant and 5 with an uninformative result, and in, respectively, 27 and 12 of their untested female relatives from moderate cancer risk families. In questionnaires, probands described their perception of the DNA-test result (i.e., recollections and interpretations of cancer risks and heredity likelihood). Relatives described the communication process, their perception, and impact (i.e., medical decisions, distress, quality of life, and life changes). Bootstrap analysis was used to analyze mediation effects.

RESULTS

The relatives' own perception strongly predicted breast self-examination, breast/ovarian surveillance or surgery, levels of distress and quality of life, and amount of reported life changes. The extent to which the proband had communicated the DNA-test result in an understandable, direct, reassuring way, predicted the relatives' perception. The actual communicated relatives' cancer risks or the proband's perception did not predict relatives' perception and impact measures. Family characteristics influenced the communication process but not the relatives' perception and outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Relatives seem to make poorly informed decisions on the basis of their own perception, which was unrelated to the information that probands had communicated on the basis of the actual communicated result. Therefore, genetic counselors may guide probands in the communication process and may directly inform relatives, if possible.

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.

Prevalence of alterations in DNA mismatch repair genes in patients with young-onset colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Direct germline analysis could be used to screen high-risk patients for mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes associated with Lynch Syndrome. We examined the prevalence of mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 in a population-based sample of patients with young-onset (age <50 years) colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Young-onset CRC cases were randomly selected from 3 Colon Cancer Family Registry sites. DNA was extracted from peripheral blood leukocytes; MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 were sequenced, and duplication and deletion analyses was performed for MLH1 and MSH2. Results were reported as deleterious or suspected deleterious, likely neutral, variant of uncertain significance, or no alteration detected. Germline data were compared to Amsterdam II criteria (ACII) and immunohistochemistry results in secondary analyses.

RESULTS

Among 195 subjects, 11 had deleterious/suspected deleterious mutations (5.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8%-9.9%), 12 had likely neutral alterations (6.2%; 95% CI, 3.2%-10.5%), 14 had variants of uncertain significance (7.2%; 95% CI, 4.0%-11.8%), 2 had a likely neutral alteration and a variant of uncertain significance (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.1%-3.7%), and 156 had no alteration detected (80.0%; 95% CI, 73.7%-85.4%). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for detecting deleterious/suspected deleterious mutations, based on ACII, were 36.4% (4/11), 96.7% (178/184), 40.0% (4/10), and 96.2% (178/185), respectively; based on immunohistochemistry these values were 85.7% (6/7), 91.9% (136/148), 33.3% (6/18), and 99.3% (136/137), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a population-based sample of young-onset CRC cases, germline mutations in MLH1, MSH, and/or MSH6 were more prevalent than reported for CRC patients overall. Because only about 5% of young-onset CRC cases had confirmed deleterious or suspected deleterious mutations, further comparative effectiveness research is needed to determine the most appropriate screening strategy for Lynch Syndrome in this high-risk group.

[Cognitive, emotional and behavioral impact of an uncertain outcome after study of BRCA1/2: review of the literature]

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in oncogenetics have enabled the development of tests for predisposition to breast and ovarian cancers. Where no mutation has been identified in the BRCA1 or 2 genes, the proband (first person tested in a family with a genetic risk) can receive an uncertain outcome: negative inconclusive or identification of a variant of unknown clinical significance. From the demonstration of such outcomes, their psychological impact has been studied among women concerned.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to summarize the results of studies about the impact of delivering an uncertain BRCA1/2 genetic result on emotional (general or cancer specific distress), cognitive (perception of risk) and behavioral (decisions of medical care) reactions of consultants. It is also to identify factors particularly associated with personal or familial medical history that may alter this impact.

METHODOLOGY

A literature review was conducted from a key word search on the databases PsycINFO and PubMed (breast*, BRCA*, genetic*, familial, mutation, heredit*) crossed with terms related to the psychological impact and mutation status. Included papers are quantitative studies focused on the psychological impact of the uncertain genetic test result, compared to the impact resulting from positive or true negative result, or from test refusal.

RESULTS

The results of the eight selected articles generally suggest a less emotional distress and a lower perceived risk of predisposition or to develop cancer facing uncertain genetic result compared to positive result. Intentions of breast cancer surveillance are optimal, indicating the absence of "false reassurance", while demand for prophylactic surgery appears to be less frequent. Nevertheless risk factors of inappropriate psychological reactions may be highlighted as pretest clinical distress, a personal cancer history or multiple family history of cancer.

CONCLUSION

Current data suggest psychological reactions adapted to the clinical significance of uncertain genetic test results. These findings are preliminary given the small number of studies and their restriction to populations with similar sociocultural characteristics.

Distress and psychosocial needs of a heterogeneous high risk familial cancer population

In order to assess the levels of distress and psychosocial support needs of a high risk population, we undertook a study to look at both the objective and subjective levels of distress and the wants and needs of individuals from a high familial cancer risk population. Three hundred and eighteen individuals (160 affected, 158 unaffected) completed several distress and psychosocial needs questionnaires (including the Brief Symptom Inventory-18). Sixty key informants were also surveyed about their perspective on the support needs of this population. In the largely female (90%), largely HBOC syndrome group (approximately 90%), 20% had significant levels of generalized distress, with no significant differences between affected and unaffected individuals. Generalized distress was also not significantly different as a function of mutation status. Individuals who received inconclusive test results, however, were more likely to indicate somatic symptoms of distress. Those individuals who did not have social support were more likely to be those who had never had cancer and who either had a mutation, received inconclusive test results, or were not tested. Key informants were most likely to indicate that patients need more support. These results provide evidence for the importance of establishing regular psychosocial distress screening, including a focus on somatic symptoms, in such high risk populations.

Preferences regarding genetic research results: comparing veterans and nonveterans responses

OBJECTIVE

Communicating genetic research results to participants presents ethical challenges. Our objectives were to examine participants' preferences in receiving future genetic research results and to compare preferences reported by veteran and nonveterans participants.

METHODS

Secondary analysis was performed on data collected in 2000-2004 from 1,575 consent forms signed by Mexican-American participants enrolled in 2 genetic family studies (GFS) in San Antonio: The Family Investigation of Nephropathy and Diabetes (FIND) and the Extended FIND (EFIND). The consent forms for these studies contained multiple-choice questions to examine participants' preferences about receiving their (1) clinical lab results and (2) future genetic research results. The FIND and EFIND databases had information on subjects' demographic characteristics and some selected clinical variables. We identified veterans using the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA's) centralized data repository. We compared veterans' and nonveterans' preferences using Student's t test for continuous variables and χ² test for discrete variables. A logistic regression analyzed subjects' preference for receiving their research results, controlling for other socio-demographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

The sample included 275 (18%) veterans and 1,247 (82%) nonveterans. Our results indicated a strong desire among the majority of participants 1,445 (95%) in getting their clinical lab research results. Likewise, 93% expressed interest in being informed about their future genetic results. There was no significant difference in veterans' and nonveterans' preference to disclosure of the research results (χ² test; p > 0.05). Regression analysis showed no significant relationship (p = 0.449) between the outcome (receiving research results) and veterans' responses after controlling for demographics and educational levels.

CONCLUSION

Participants believed they would prefer receiving their genetic research results. Veterans are similar to nonveterans in their preferences. Offering genetic research results to participants should be based on well defined and structured plans to enhance interpretation of genetic data.

Clinical relevance of rare germline sequence variants in cancer genes: evolution and application of classification models

Multifactorial models developed for BRCA1/2 variant classification have proved very useful for delineating BRCA1/2 variants associated with very high risk of cancer, or with little clinical significance. Recent linkage of this quantitative assessment of risk to clinical management guidelines has provided a basis to standardize variant reporting, variant classification and management of families with such variants, and can theoretically be applied to any disease gene. As proof of principle, the multifactorial approach already shows great promise for application to the evaluation of mismatch repair gene variants identified in families with suspected Lynch syndrome. However there is need to be cautious of the noted limitations and caveats of the current model, some of which may be exacerbated by differences in ascertainment and biological pathways to disease for different cancer syndromes.

A simple method for co-segregation analysis to evaluate the pathogenicity of unclassified variants; BRCA1 and BRCA2 as an example

Background

Assessment of the clinical significance of unclassified variants (UVs) identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is very important for genetic counselling. The analysis of co-segregation of the variant with the disease in families is a powerful tool for the classification of these variants. Statistical methods have been described in literature but these methods are not always easy to apply in a diagnostic setting.

Methods

We have developed an easy to use method which calculates the likelihood ratio (LR) of an UV being deleterious, with penetrance as a function of age of onset, thereby avoiding the use of liability classes. The application of this algorithm is publicly available http://www.msbi.nl/cosegregation. It can easily be used in a diagnostic setting since it requires only information on gender, genotype, present age and/or age of onset for breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Results

We have used the algorithm to calculate the likelihood ratio in favour of causality for 3 UVs in BRCA1 (p.M18T, p.S1655F and p.R1699Q) and 5 in BRCA2 (p.E462G p.Y2660D, p.R2784Q, p.R3052W and p.R3052Q). Likelihood ratios varied from 0.097 (BRCA2, p.E462G) to 230.69 (BRCA2, p.Y2660D). Typing distantly related individuals with extreme phenotypes (i.e. very early onset cancer or old healthy individuals) are most informative and give the strongest likelihood ratios for or against causality.

Conclusion

Although co-segregation analysis on itself is in most cases insufficient to prove pathogenicity of an UV, this method simplifies the use of co-segregation as one of the key features in a multifactorial approach considerably.

Introduction to molecular and clinical genetics of colorectal cancer syndromes

The understanding of molecular genetics in the field of gastroenterology has rapidly grown over the last two decades. In recent years many genes involved in the disorders of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract such as colorectal cancer (CRC) and inflammatory bowel disease have been identified. The elucidation of the molecular genetics of these diseases made it possible to study the high-penetrance susceptibility genes for disease-causing mutations with direct implications for relatives of affected individuals. The most immediate application of these advances is the opportunity of pre-symptomatic diagnosis in relatives of affected individuals by molecular genetic testing. In this article, the most commonly employed mutation detection procedures; the outcome and use of these tests in clinical practice are discussed. We focus on the three most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes (CCS): Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis and MUTYH-associated polyposis.