All in the family: evaluation of the process and content of sisters' communication about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results

Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: a review of barriers and breakthroughs

Germline genetic sequencing is now at the forefront of cancer treatment and preventative medicine. Cascade genetic testing, or the testing of at-risk relatives, is extremely promising as it offers genetic testing and potentially life-saving risk-reduction strategies to a population exponentially enriched for the risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. However, many relatives do not complete cascade testing due to barriers that span individual, relationship, healthcare community, and societal/policy domains. We have reviewed the published research on cascade testing. Our aim is to evaluate barriers to cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and explore strategies to mitigate these barriers, with the goal of promoting increased uptake of cascade genetic testing.

Family communication of cancer genetic test results in an ethnically diverse population: a qualitative exploration of more than 200 patients

Previous research on family communication of cancer genetic test results has primarily focused on non-Hispanic White patients with high-risk pathogenic variants (PV). There are limited data on patient communication of moderate-risk PVs, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and negative results. This qualitative study examined communication of positive, negative, and VUS hereditary cancer multi-gene panel (MGP) results in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population. As part of a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 2000 patients who underwent MGP testing at three hospitals in California, USA, free-text written survey responses to the question: "Feel free to share any thoughts or experiences with discussing genetic test results with others" were collected from participant questionnaires administered at 3 and 12-months post results disclosure. Content and thematic analyses were performed using a theory-driven analysis, Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), on 256 responses from 214 respondents. Respondents with high perceived utility of sharing genetic test results often reported positive attitudes towards sharing test results and direct encouragement for genetic testing of others. Respondents with high self-efficacy in the sharing process were likely to report high perceived utility of sharing, whereas patients with low self-efficacy more often had VUS results and were more likely to report uncertainty about sharing. Consistent with TPB, our findings suggest that clinician reinforcement of the utility of genetic testing may increase intent for patients to communicate genetic information. Our findings suggest that clinicians should focus on strategies to improve patient understanding of VUS results.

Examining the communication work of women who have tested BRCA-positive: "I feel this responsibility to let people know"

Inheriting a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene considerably increases a woman's risk levels for developing breast and ovarian cancer. In addition to serious physical health implications, women with a BRCA pathogenic variant may face psychosocial challenges, including those related to navigating the often demanding process of communicating about topics regarding BRCA with family and other social network members. Based on in-depth interviews with 24 women who tested BRCA-positive, we found that-consistent with the conceptualization of communication work articulated by Donovan-Kicken et al. (2012) as an extension of the theory of illness trajectories (Corbin & Strauss, 1988)-the labor of communicating about BRCA genetic risk entails (a) duties, (b) challenges, (c) strategies, and (d) shared work. Within each category, our results illuminate particular characteristics of communication work for women who have tested BRCA-positive, which are commonly tied to the profound health consequences that a pathogenic variant may have for them and, potentially, for their genetic relatives. Our findings offer useful theoretical implications regarding communication work in this context. Furthermore, our results yield valuable practical insight for genetic counselors and other health care professionals regarding the struggles that can accompany communication work for women who have tested BRCA-positive as well as the strategies that participants reported using to manage or avoid these challenges.

Pathogenic germline variants in patients with breast cancer: conversations across generations, practices and patients' attitude

Background: Breast cancer susceptibility genes such as BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2 and many others are increasingly recognized among our patient population. In addition to their impact on treatment decisions of tested patients themselves, identifying at-risk family members offer opportunities for cancer preventive measures. Methods: This is an observational cross-sectional study of adult breast cancer patients with positive breast-cancer-susceptibility germline variants who received treatment at our institution. Patients with variants of uncertain significance (VUS), or who refused to give consent, were excluded. The data was collected from an eligible sample of breast cancer patients using a structured questionnaire developed by the study team and tested for validity and reliability, as well as a clinical chart review form. Patients were invited to participate in the study during their scheduled oncology clinics visit. Results: 169 patients were enrolled, including 42 (24.9%) with pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) BRCA1 variants, 84 (49.7%) with BRCA2 and 43 (25.4%) with non-BRCA variants. All patients were female and the mean age was 45 ± 9.9 years. Among 140 eligible patients, 104 (74.3%) underwent prophylactic mastectomy, while 79 (59.0%) of 134 eligible patients had prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). Results were communicated with family members by majority (n = 160, 94.7%), including 642 first degree female relatives, and 286 (44.5%) of them have taken no action. Fear of positive test results, cost of testing, unwillingness to undergo preventive measures, and social stigma were cited as barriers to genetic testing in 54%, 50%, 34% and 15%, respectively. Conclusion: Risk-reducing interventions including mastectomy and BSO were carried by majority of patients with P/LP variants. However, though the rate of communication of genetic testing results with family members was high, proper preventive measures were relatively low. Cost and fear of cancer diagnosis, were the leading causes that prevented cascade testing in our cohort.

Family Communication about Diagnostic Genetic Testing for Younger-Onset Dementia

Younger-onset dementia (YOD) refers to onset before 65 years of age and may be associated with a genetic cause. Family communication surrounding any genetic risk is complex, and this process may be further complicated in a YOD context due to its effects on cognition, behaviour, and associated psychosocial consequences. This study aimed to investigate how individuals experience family communication about potential genetic risk and testing for YOD. Thematic analysis was performed on verbatim transcripts of nine semi-structured interviews undertaken with family members who attended a neurogenetics clinic due to a relative diagnosed with YOD. The interviews explored the participants’ experiences of learning that YOD might be inherited and the ensuing family communication about genetic testing. Four key themes emerged: (1) a clinical diagnostic odyssey was common and could be a motivator for genomic testing, (2) pre-existing family tension and/or disconnection was a common barrier, (3) family members’ autonomy was considered, and (4) avoidant coping strategies influenced communication. Communication regarding potential YOD genetic risk is a complicated process and may be influenced by pre-existing family dynamics, individual coping mechanisms, and a desire to promote autonomy in relatives. To promote effective risk communication, genetic counsellors should pre-emptively address family tensions that may be exacerbated in the context of genetic testing for YOD, with awareness that family strain during a preceding period of diagnostic odyssey is common. Genetic counsellors can offer psychosocial support to facilitate coping with this tension in an adaptive way. The findings also indicated the importance of extending genetic counselling support to relatives.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50).

CONCLUSION

Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Risk of Pancreatic Cancer in the Long-Term Prospective Follow-Up of Familial Pancreatic Cancer Kindreds

BACKGROUND

A family history of pancreatic cancer is associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk. However, risk estimates for individuals in kindreds with an aggregation of pancreatic cancer (>1 relative) are imprecise because of small samples sizes or potentially impacted by biases inherent in retrospective data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine the age-specific pancreatic cancer risk as a function of family history using prospective data.

METHODS

We compared pancreatic cancer incidence (n = 167) in 21 141 individuals from 4433 families enrolled in the National Familial Pancreatic Cancer Registry with that expected based on Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data and estimated the cumulative probability of pancreatic cancer using competing risk regression.

RESULTS

Familial pancreatic kindred members (kindreds with pancreatic cancer in 2 first-degree relatives [FDRs] or a pathogenic variant) had a standardized incidence ratio of 4.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.01 to 5.90), and sporadic kindred members (kindreds not meeting familial criteria) had a standardized incidence ratio of 2.55 (95% CI = 1.95 to 3.34). Risk in familial pancreatic cancer kindreds increased with an increasing number of FDRs with pancreatic cancer, with a standardized incidence ratio of 3.46 (95% CI = 2.52 to 4.76), 5.44 (95% CI = 4.07 to 7.26), and 10.78 (95% CI = 6.87 to 16.89) for 1, 2, and 3 or more FDRs with pancreatic cancer, respectively. Risk was also higher among individuals with a family history of young-onset (aged younger than 50 years) pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic cancer risk is strongly dependent on family history, including both the degree of relationship(s) and age of onset of pancreatic cancer in relatives. These risk estimates will help inform the design of early detection studies and the risk and benefit analysis of screening trials.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Relationship between genetic knowledge and familial communication of CRC risk and intent to communicate CRCP genetic information: insights from FamilyTalk eMERGE III

Successful translation of genetic information into patient-centered care and improved outcomes depends, at least in part, on patients' genetic knowledge. Although genetic knowledge is believed to be an important facilitator of familial communication of genetic risk information, empirical evidence of this association is lacking. We examined whether genetic knowledge was related to frequency of current familial communication about colorectal cancer and polyp (CRCP) risk, and future intention to share CRCP-related genomic test results with family members in a clinical sample of patients. We recruited 189 patients eligible for clinical CRCP sequencing to the eMERGE III FamilyTalk randomized controlled trial and surveyed them about genetic knowledge and familial communication at baseline. Participants were primarily Caucasian, 47% male, average age of 68 years, mostly well educated, and with high-income levels. Genetic knowledge was positively associated with future-intended familial communication of genetic information (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.23), but not associated with current communication of CRC risk (β = 0.01, p = .58). Greater current communication of CRC risk was associated with better family functioning (β = 0.04, p = 8.2e-5). Participants' genetic knowledge in this study was minimally associated with their intended familial communication of genetic information. Although participants have good intentions of communication, family-level factors may hinder actual follow through of these intentions. Continued focus on improving proband's genetic knowledge coupled with interventions to overcome family-level barriers to communication may be needed to improve familial communication rates.

What people really change after genetic testing (GT) performed in private labs: results from an Italian study

Despite the widespread diffusion of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (GT), it is still unclear whether people who learn about their genetic susceptibility to a clinical condition change their behaviors, and the psychological factors involved. The aim of the present study is to investigate long-term changes in health-related choices, individual tendencies and risk attitudes in an Italian sample of GT users. In the context of the Mind the Risk study, which investigated a sample of Italian adults who underwent GT in a private laboratory, 99 clients participated in the follow up assessment. They completed a self-administered questionnaire investigating: (a) clinical history and motivation for testing, (b) lifestyle and risk behaviors, (c) individual tendencies toward health, and (d) risk-taking attitude and risk tolerance. Such variables were measured at three different time-points: T0—before GT, T1—at 6 months after genetic results, and T2—at 1 year from results. Results showed that, at baseline, participants who stated they intended to modify their behavior after GT results, effectively did so over time. This result held both for participants who received a positive or negative test result. In general, a healthier diet was the most frequently observed long-term behavioral change. As regards psychological variables, a risk-taking attitude and risk tolerance did not seem to affect the decision to change the lifestyle. Finally, we found an overall reduction in anxiety and worry over health over time, but also a reduction in the motivation for health promotion and prevention, health esteem, and positive expectations for their health in the future.

Sharing genetic test results with family members of BRCA, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM carriers

OBJECTIVE

This study explored motivators and challenges/barriers to sharing personal genetic test results (GTR) with family members (FM).

METHODS

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 62 women who had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in aBRCA, PALB2, CHEK2, or ATM gene. Selective qualitative data analysis focused on eliciting motivators and challenges/barriers identified by participants when sharing their GTR with FM.

RESULTS

Motivators to sharing personal GTR with FM included: health protection and prevention; moral obligation; decisional empowerment; familial ties; written resources; and contextualization for a familial cause for cancer. Challenges/barriers to family sharing included: concern for FM reactions; complexities of information; lack of closeness; perceived relevance; and emotional impact.

CONCLUSIONS

All motivators and challenges/barriers were identified across BRCA and non-BRCA carriers, demonstrating commonalities in family sharing of GTR among high- to moderate-penetrance hereditary BC (breast cancer) genes. Despite challenges/barriers, participants disclosed their GTR with most close FM, yet restrictions in communication and/or strain on the timing, manner of disclosing, and strategies used varied across certain FM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These findings offer healthcare providers and researchers preliminary practical implications for broadly improving family sharing interventions across P/LP variants in BC risk genes by demonstrating important elements to include in family sharing letters.

Intrafamilial communication of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic information in Italian women: towards a personalised approach

Genomic testing expansion is accompanied by an increasing need for genetic counselling and intrafamilial communication. Genetic counselling can play an important role in facilitating intrafamilial communication and relationships. We conducted a cross-sectional, multicenter study including 252 Italian women, using a questionnaire divided in two sections, the first one to be filled after the pre-test counselling and the second after receiving BRCA test results. We assessed the factors influencing intrafamilial disclosure of genetic information for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, family members with whom probands are more prone to share genetic information, and the perceived understanding of information received by counselees during genetic counselling. Women were accompanied to the counselling more often by their husband/partner. Among those with a positive BRCA test result, 49% intended to communicate it to their offspring and 27% to their husband/partner. Younger women, those living with their husband/partner, and those who described family communication as open/profound and spontaneous/sincere had a higher probability of being accompanied during genetic counselling and discuss about it with relatives. Spontaneous/sincere or open/profound family communication and joyful/happy familial relationships were associated with the decision to undergo genetic testing as a responsibility towards relatives. Women had a good understanding of counselling contents (mean score 9.27 in a scale 1-10). Genetic counselling providers should consider that genetic information disclosure does not depend only on the clarity of the information provided, but also on pre-existing intrafamilial communication and relationships, family structure and marital status, indicating the need for a personalised approach accounting for these factors.

Utilization of health information technology among cancer genetic counselors

Background

Health information technology (IT) is becoming increasingly utilized by cancer genetic counselors (CGCs). We sought to understand the current engagement, satisfaction, and opportunities to adopt new health IT tools among CGCs.

Methods

We conducted a mixed‐mode survey among 128 board‐certified CGCs using both closed‐ and open‐ended questions. We then evaluated the utilization and satisfaction among 10 types of health IT tools, including the following: cancer screening tool, family health history (FHx) collection tools, electronic health records (EHRs), telegenetics software, pedigree drawing software, genetic risk assessment tools, gene test panel ordering tools, electronic patient education tools, patient communication tools, and family communication tools.

Results

Seven of 10 health IT tools were used by a minority of CGCs. The vast majority of respondents reported using EHRs (95.2%) and genetic risk assessment tools (88.6%). Genetic test panel ordering software had the highest satisfaction rate (very satisfied and satisfied) at 80.0%, followed by genetic risk assessment tools (77.1%). EHRs had the highest dissatisfaction rate among CGCs at 18.3%. Dissatisfaction with a health IT tool was associated with desire to change: EHRs (p < .001), cancer screening tools (p = .010), genetic risk assessment tools (p = .024), and family history collection tools (p = .026). We found that nearly half of CGCs were considering adopting or changing their FHx tool (49.2%), cancer screening tool (44.9%), and pedigree drawing tool (41.8%).

Conclusion

Overall, CGCs reported high levels of satisfaction among commonly used health IT tools. Tools that enable the collection of FHx, cancer screening tools, and pedigree drawing software represent the greatest opportunities for research and development.

What men want: Qualitative analysis of what men with prostate cancer (PCa) want to learn regarding genetic referral, counseling, and testing

BACKGROUND

Guidelines have changed recently to include genetic counseling (GC) and/or genetic testing (GT) for all men with aggressive prostate cancer (PCa). This study aimed to identify what information men with PCa desire before and from GC.

METHODS

Focus groups were conducted with men who have PCa. Audio recordings were analyzed for themes related to GT, the information they desired from health care providers, and implications for family members.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven men with PCa participated in seven focus groups. Nearly all men felt GT was beneficial and impactful for their family and themselves. Most men were unaware of the risks to female relatives associated with hereditary cancer. Participants discussed that genetics should be incorporated at an appropriate time of their diagnostic journey.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that men valued GC and GT for personal and familial implications, and often did not associate PCa genetics with risk for female relatives to develop cancer. Consideration should be given to the GC timing in regard to where men are in their treatment process. Providers referring patients can leverage patient motivations and utilize their relationship with the patient to determine the appropriate timing and personalize discussion with the patient regarding GC and GT.

Exploring relatives' perceptions of participation, ethics, and communication in a patient-driven study for hereditary cancer variant reclassification

Effective communication of genetic information within families depends on several factors. Few studies explore intra-familial communication of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results or active collaboration between family members to classify VUS. Our qualitative study aimed to describe the experiences of individuals asked by family members to participate in the FindMyVariant study, a patient-driven family study which aimed to reclassify a clinically identified familial VUS in a hereditary cancer gene. We collected feedback from 56 individuals from 21 different families through phone interviews and written correspondence, transcribed the interviews, and performed thematic analysis on all text. We describe themes from three main topics: participation, ethical considerations, and study impacts. Participation in the FindMyVariant study, defined as returning a sample for targeted genotyping, was motivated by convenience and a desire to help the family, oneself, and science. Relatives were generally responsive to invitations to participate in FindMyVariant from another family member. Those who declined to participate did so due to concerns about research program confidentiality rather than family dynamics. No major ethical issues arose in response to the patient-driven study structure, and no major changes in stress and anxiety, medical care, or behavior occurred. Participation in patient-driven familial VUS classification studies has a neutral or positive impact on family health communication. While it is important to design studies to minimize familial coercion, intra-familial confidentiality breaches, and misinterpretation of genetic results, these were not major concerns among relatives in this study. Clinicians and laboratories may consider encouraging familial communication about genetic variants using family members as liaisons.

The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice

Following the identification in a proband of a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) or a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation in Lynch syndrome (LS) he or she will be asked to inform at-risk family members about the option for presymptomatic DNA testing. However, in clinical practice multiple factors may complicate the process of information sharing. We critically evaluated studies on the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in both syndromes. A search of relevant MeSH terms and key words in PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO yielded 795 articles published between 2001 and 2017. Thirty of these publications included outcome measures relevant for the current study. Based on information provided by the proband (15 studies) the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing ranged from 15 to 57% in HBOC, while one study in LS kindreds reported an uptake of 70%. Based on information provided by genetics centres (the remaining 15 studies) the uptake ranged from 21 to 44% in HBOC and from 41 to 94% in LS. However, when genetics centres contacted relatives directly a substantial number of additional family members could be tested. Proband-mediated provision of information to at-risk relatives is a standard procedure in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. However, the resulting uptake of presymptomatic testing is disappointing-an issue that is now urgent due to the increased use of genetic testing in clinical oncology. We propose that additional strategies should be introduced including the geneticist directly contacting relatives. The outcomes of these strategies should be carefully monitored and evaluated.

Family communication and patient distress after germline genetic testing in individuals with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Germline genetic testing currently is recommended for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In the current study, the authors assessed how often results are communicated to first-degree relatives within 3 months and the emotional impact of testing on patients.

METHODS

A total of 148 patients who were newly diagnosed with PDAC and who had undergone testing of 32 cancer susceptibility genes at 3 academic centers were selected; 71% participated. Subjects completed the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) and a family communication survey. The results of both surveys were assessed at 3 months according to the genetic test result (positive, negative, or variant of unknown significance [VUS]) and whether a patient met criteria for genetic testing.

RESULTS

A total of 99 patients completed the MICRA survey and 104 completed the family communication survey. The average age of the patients was 67 years, 47% were female, 29% had stage III/IV (AJCC 8th edition) disease, and 42% met genetic testing criteria. Approximately 80% of patients told at least 1 first-degree relative about their result. There was a trend toward greater disclosure among patients who tested positive (93% vs 77% for those with a VUS result [P = .149] and 74% for those who tested negative [P = .069]). Patients not meeting genetic testing criteria were less likely to disclose results (69% vs 93%; P = .003). MICRA scores did not differ by test result, age, stage of disease, or sex.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of result communication was high, although it was lower among patients who did not meet genetic testing criteria, those who tested negative, or those who had a VUS result. Testing-associated distress was similar across patient groups, and was comparable to that reported by other patients with cancer. Improved communication for all patients is crucial given the prognosis of PDAC, which limits time for disclosure.

Men's and Women's Approaches to Disclosure About BRCA-Related Cancer Risks and Family Planning Decision-Making

Little is known about how men and women who test positive for a BRCA gene mutation or have a strong family history of carrying a BRCA mutation manage disclosures about their BRCA-related cancer risks and family planning decision-making. By conducting interviews with 25 men and 20 women, this study investigated men's and women's approaches to disclosing their BRCA-related cancer risks and family planning decision-making. Guided by the Disclosure Decision-Making Model (DD-MM), this study demonstrates that men and women assess both information and the recipients of disclosures when making disclosure decisions. Theoretical implications for the DD-MM are discussed along with practical implications for hereditary cancer risk and family planning.

Patient communication of cancer genetic test results in a diverse population

Research on the communication of genetic test results has focused predominately on non-Hispanic White (NHW) mutation-positive families with high-risk hereditary cancer conditions. Little is known about this process for racially and ethnically diverse individuals or for those with mutations in moderate risk genes. The communication behaviors of study participants who carry a gene mutation were analyzed 3 months after disclosure of genetic test results. Participants were queried about communication of their results, as part of a prospective study of multi-gene panel genetic testing. The responses of particpants who tested positive were analyzed by race/ethnicity and by level of cancer risk (high vs. moderate). Of the 216 mutation-positive study participants, 136 (63%) responded. Self-reported race/ethnicity was 46% NHW, 41% Hispanic, 10% Asian, and 2% Black. The majority (99.0%, n = 135) had shared their results with someone and 96% had told a family member (n = 130). Hispanic respondents were less likely to have told a healthcare provider about their results than NHW (29% vs. 68%, p < .0001). Asian respondents were less likely than NHW to encourage family members to undergo testing (OR = 0.1, p = .03); but Asian family members were more likely to undergo testing (OR = 8.0, p = .03). There were no differences in communication between those with a mutation in a high- or moderate-risk gene. Three months post genetic testing, communication of results was very high; 30% reported a family member underwent genetic testing. Further studies are needed to better understand the communication process in individuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds.

The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study, a Mayo Clinic Genomic Medicine Implementation Study: Design and Initial Results

OBJECTIVES

To identify clinically actionable genetic variants from targeted sequencing of 68 disease-related genes, estimate their penetrance, and assess the impact of disclosing results to participants and providers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study investigates outcomes following the return of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in 68 disease-related genes. The study was initiated in December 2016 and is ongoing. Targeted sequencing was performed in 2533 individuals with hyperlipidemia or colon polyps. The electronic health records (EHRs) of participants carrying P/LP variants in 36 cardiovascular disease (CVD) genes were manually reviewed to ascertain the presence of relevant traits. Clinical outcomes, health care utilization, family communication, and ethical and psychosocial implications of disclosure of genomic results are being assessed by surveys, telephone interviews, and EHR review.

RESULTS

Of 29,208 variants in the 68 genes, 1915 were rare (frequency <1%) and putatively functional, and 102 of these (60 in 36 CVD genes) were labeled P/LP based on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics framework. Manual review of the EHRs of participants (n=73 with P/LP variants in CVD genes) revealed that 33 had the expected trait(s); however, only 6 of 45 participants with non-familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) P/LP variants had the expected traits.

CONCLUSION

Expected traits were present in 13% of participants with P/LP variants in non-FH CVD genes, suggesting low penetrance; this estimate may change with additional testing performed as part of the clinical evaluation. Ongoing analyses of the RAVE Study will inform best practices for genomic medicine.

Disclosure of diagnosis to at-risk relatives by individuals diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM)

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) affects 1 in 200 people and is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in the young. Given that HCM usually is inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern, an HCM diagnosis has implications for biologically related family members. The purpose of this study was to explore probands' disclosure of an HCM diagnosis with these biologically related, at-risk family members. An online survey was posted on the website of the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Association (HCMA), an advocacy and support group for HCM patients and their families. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses to closed-ended questions and demographics. Using an iterative content analysis with the constant comparison approach, we analyzed the responses to open-ended questions inquiring about the nature and role of disclosure communication with at-risk relatives. A total of 315 individuals with a self-reported diagnosis of HCM completed the survey. Most participants (98%) disclosed their diagnosis to at-risk family members. Sixty-four percent disclosed to family members less than 1 year after diagnosis. Participants also disclosed potential treatment options (74.6%) and the emotional impact of the diagnosis (39%). HCM specialists were ranked by participants as being the most helping in explaining the benefit of genetic counseling, while genetic counselor were ranked as least helpful. Emerging themes address the need to encourage screening and genetic testing among family members and to identify external educational resources for use during the disclosure process. Importantly, our study found that the process of disclosure varies based on individuals' experiences and family communication dynamics. However, almost all participants expressed the importance of disclosing the diagnosis of HCM as well as the importance of being screened and expressed needs for additional support during the disclosure process.

Development of a Tool to Guide Parents Carrying a BRCA1/2 Mutation Share Genetic Results with Underage Children

Although most parents carrying a BRCA1/2 genetic mutation share their test result with their underage children, they report needing support to decide if, when, and how to share risk information and what reactions to expect from their children. We developed a tool to guide parents carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation share their genetic result with underage children. Here, we report on the development of this tool using a qualitative methodology. A tool prototype was developed based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration framework. Content was assessed using feedback from focus groups, individual interviews, and a 12-item reading grid. Participants were nine BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with underage children and three cancer genetics health professionals. Thematic content analysis was conducted on interview transcripts. The tool was developed using an iterative process until saturation of data. An independent advisory committee was involved in all steps of tool development until reaching consensus. Rather than a decision aid per se (to communicate or not), the parents wanted a more comprehensive tool to help them communicate genetic test result to their children. To meet parents' needs, a communication guidance booklet was developed, setting out the pros and cons of communication, steps to prepare sharing the test result, communication tips, and parents' testimonies. This communication tool responds to a significant unmet need faced by parents carrying a genetic predisposition to cancer. Future studies are needed to assess how the information from the parent's genetic test result impacts the child's development, health behaviors, and relationship with the parent.

Am I My Family's Keeper? Disclosure Dilemmas in Next-Generation Sequencing

Ever since genetic testing is possible for specific mutations, ethical debate has sparked on the question of whether professionals have a duty to warn not only patients but also their relatives that might be at risk for hereditary diseases. As next-generation sequencing (NGS) swiftly finds its way into clinical practice, the question who is responsible for conveying unsolicited findings to family members becomes increasingly urgent. Traditionally, there is a strong emphasis on the duties of the professional in this debate. But what is the role of the patient and her family? In this article, we discuss the question of whose duty it is to convey relevant genetic risk information concerning hereditary diseases that can be cured or prevented to the relatives of patients undergoing NGS. We argue in favor of a shared responsibility for professionals and patients and present a strategy that reconciles these roles: a moral accountability nudge. Incorporated into informed consent and counseling services such as letters and online tools, this nudge aims to create awareness on specific patient responsibilities. Commitment of all parties is needed to ensure adequate dissemination of results in the NGS era.

Communicating genetic test results within the family: Is it lost in translation? A survey of relatives in the randomized six-step study

Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes is increasingly being integrated into medical care. Test results help inform risks of the individual being tested as well as family members who could benefit from knowing the results. The responsibility for informing relatives of genetic test results falls on the proband, the first family member being tested. However, there are several challenges associated with sharing genetic test results within families including incomplete understanding of test results, emotional distance among family members, and poor communication skills. In this paper we describe the communication process between probands randomized to receive BRCA1/2 genetic test results in an enhanced versus a standard of care counseling session, and their first degree relatives with whom they shared results. We contacted 561 first degree relatives of probands who had undergone BRCA1/2 genetic testing to measure their level of understanding of the test results, their difficulty and distress upon hearing the results, the impact of the test results on their risk perception, and their intention to pursue genetic counseling/testing. 82.1 % of relatives correctly reported the test results of their proband. Distress upon hearing the test result was highest for those relatives whose proband received informative test results. Relatives reported a decrease in cancer risk perception after hearing the test results, regardless of the type of result. Intention to pursue counseling/testing was low, even among those relatives whose proband received informative test results. Male relatives were less likely to be informed of test results and more likely to forget hearing them. These results suggest ways to improve the communication process within families.

Cancer Risk Information Sharing: The Experience of Individuals Receiving Genetic Counseling for BRCA1/2 Mutations

Genetic counseling and testing for familial cancer is a unique context for the communication of risk information in the family. This study utilized a theoretical framework based on the family systems perspective to understand intrafamilial cancer risk communication patterns in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Individuals (n = 120) at an elevated risk for BRCA1/2 mutations were included. Change in communication patterns over time was assessed using McNemar tests. Associations with communication patterns were assessed with multivariable logistic regression. Overall, the proportion of participants encouraged by others significantly (p < .001) increased from before to after genetic counseling. A higher proportion of participants were encouraged by female family members compared with male family members. Participants who were older, had no personal history of cancer, and had a higher cancer risk perception were more likely to be encouraged by others for genetic testing. Participant's intent to encourage family members for genetic testing from before counseling to after receipt of genetic test results decreased by 16.7%. Participants who had no personal history of cancer and had informative test results for a BRCA1/2 mutation were more likely to encourage other family members for genetic testing. In addition, qualitative findings suggested that closeness among family members, concern for family, especially future generations, and cognizance about cancer risk facilitate information sharing and encouragement for genetic testing. Our findings indicate that intrafamilial cancer risk communication varies with the structure of family relationships and that genetic counseling can play an important role in improving intrafamilial cancer risk communication.

Psychosocial and Ethical Issues Relating to Genetic Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes

Two breast cancer susceptibility genes have been identified, BRCA1 and BRCA2, which when inherited in altered form, confer a substantially increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is available to adult men and women at increased risk of carrying such a mutation based on their personal and/or family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Testing has profound implications not only for the individual being tested but for their entire family. It is therefore important that the psychosocial and ethical issues are explored through genetic counseling to ensure individuals make informed decisions about testing. Genetic testing may impact on psychological wellbeing, decisions regarding cancer risk management, childbearing and the wider family. Individuals who test positive for a mutation may face ethical dilemmas regarding childbearing and when and how to inform relatives of the genetic information. Female carriers will also face complex and challenging decisions concerning cancer risk management.

Known unknowns: building an ethics of uncertainty into genomic medicine

Background

Genomic testing has reached the point where, technically at least, it can be cheaper to undertake panel-, exome- or whole genome testing than it is to sequence a single gene. An attribute of these approaches is that information gleaned will often have uncertain significance. In addition to the challenges this presents for pre-test counseling and informed consent, a further consideration emerges over how - ethically - we should conceive of and respond to this uncertainty. To date, the ethical aspects of uncertainty in genomics have remained under-explored.

Discussion

In this paper, we draft a conceptual and ethical response to the question of how to conceive of and respond to uncertainty in genomic medicine. After introducing the problem, we articulate a concept of ‘genomic uncertainty’. Drawing on this, together with exemplar clinical cases and related empirical literature, we then critique the presumption that uncertainty is always problematic and something to be avoided, or eradicated. We conclude by outlining an ‘ethics of genomic uncertainty’; describing how we might handle uncertainty in genomic medicine. This involves fostering resilience, welfare, autonomy and solidarity.

Conclusions

Uncertainty will be an inherent aspect of clinical practice in genomics for some time to come. Genomic testing should not be offered with the explicit aim to reduce uncertainty. Rather, uncertainty should be appraised, adapted to and communicated about as part of the process of offering and providing genomic information.

Changes of Socio-demographic data of clients seeking genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer due to the "Angelina Jolie Effect"

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate socio-demographic characteristics of clients claiming genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in Austria. Furthermore, changes of these parameters before and after Angelina Jolie’s (AJ) disclosure of carrying a BRCA mutation were evaluated.

Methods

In this prospective, nonrandomized study 268 consecutive clients seeking genetic counseling for HBOC at the Medical University of Vienna, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vienna, Austria between June 2012 and June 2014 were included. Socio-demographic data and source of information about HBOC and genetic counseling were evaluated. First, socio-demographic parameters were compared to the general Austrian population. Second, changes in these parameters after AJ’s public disclosure of carrying a BRCA mutation were analyzed.

Results

Subjects were more frequent female, younger and higher educated in comparison to Austria’s general population (p < 0.001). Furthermore, level of education in participants was higher before than after AJ’s disclosure (p = 0.046). Most clients were informed about genetic counseling by physicians. As expected, after AJ’s public announcement patients were more frequent advised to genetic counseling by social media (p = 0.043) and family or friends (p = 0.010) than before.

Conclusions

In this present study we could demonstrate that particularly younger and female participants with high educational level attended significantly more often genetic counseling for HBOC. Increased presence of HBOC in media since AJ’s disclosure of carrying a BRCA mutation had lead that information and awareness about HBOC was obtained by a wider audience from different social background.

Predispositions to Lymphoma: A Practical Review for Genetic Counselors

This review provides a synopsis for genetic counselors of the major concepts of lymphoma predisposition: genomic instability, immune deficiency, inappropriate lymphoproliferation, and chronic antigen stimulation. We discuss syndromes typifying each of these mechanisms. Importantly, our review of the genetic counseling literature reveals sparse discussion of genetically-based immune-mediated lymphoma predisposition, which we address in depth here. We aim to increase awareness among genetic counselors and colleagues in oncology about familial susceptibility and facilitate critical thinking about lymphoma risk assessment. Clinical application of this knowledge is aided by recommendations for collection of personal and family history to guide risk assessment and testing. Lastly, we include a special discussion of genetic counseling issues including perceptions of the context, nature, and magnitude of lymphoma risk, as well as coping with awareness of susceptibility to lymphoma.

Adherence to Recommended Risk Management among Unaffected Women with a BRCA Mutation

Identifying unaffected women with a BRCA mutation can have a significant individual and population health impact on morbidity and mortality if these women adhere to guidelines for managing cancer risk. But, little is known about whether such women are adherent to current guidelines. We conducted telephone surveys of 97 unaffected BRCA mutation carriers who had genetic counseling at least one year prior to the survey to assess adherence to current guidelines, factors associated with adherence, and common reasons for performing and not performing recommended risk management. More than half of participants reported being adherent with current risk management recommendations for breast cancer (69 %, n = 67), ovarian cancer (82 %, n = 74) and both cancers (66 %, n = 64). Older age (OR = 10.53, p = 0.001), white race (OR = 8.93, p = 0.019), higher breast cancer genetics knowledge (OR = 1.67, p = 0.030), higher cancer-specific distress (OR = 1.07, p = 0.002) and higher physical functioning (OR = 1.09, p = 0.009) were significantly associated with adherence to recommended risk management for both cancers. Responses to open-ended questions about reasons for performing and not performing risk management behaviors indicated that participants recognized the clinical utility of these behaviors. Younger individuals and those with lower physical functioning may require targeted interventions to improve adherence, perhaps in the setting of long-term follow-up at a multi-disciplinary hereditary cancer clinic.

Design and Feasibility of an Intervention to Support Cancer Genetic Counselees in Informing their At-Risk Relatives

Cancer genetic counselees receive individualized information regarding heightened risks and medical recommendations which is also relevant for their at-risk relatives. Unfortunately, counselees often insufficiently inform these relatives. We designed an intervention aimed at improving counselees’ knowledge regarding which at-risk relatives to inform and what information to disclose, their motivation to disclose, and their self-efficacy. The intervention, offered by telephone by trained psychosocial workers, is based on the principles of Motivational Interviewing. Phase 1 of the intervention covers agenda setting, exploration, and evaluation, and phase 2 includes information provision, enhancing motivation and self-efficacy, and brainstorming for solutions to disseminate information within the family. Fidelity and acceptability of the intervention were assessed using recordings of intervention sessions and by counselee self-report. A total of 144 counselees participated. Psychosocial workers (n = 5) delivered the intervention largely as intended. Counselees highly appreciated the content of the intervention and the psychosocial workers who delivered the intervention. In the sessions, psychosocial workers provided additional and/or corrective information, and brainstorming for solutions was performed in 70 %. These results indicate that this intervention is feasible and warrants testing in clinical practice. For this, a randomized controlled trial is currently in progress to test the intervention’s efficacy.

Development of the Informing Relatives Inventory (IRI): Assessing Index Patients' Knowledge, Motivation and Self-Efficacy Regarding the Disclosure of Hereditary Cancer Risk Information to Relatives

BACKGROUND

Despite the use of genetic services, counselees do not always share hereditary cancer information with at-risk relatives. Reasons for not informing relatives may be categorized as a lack of: knowledge, motivation, and/or self-efficacy.

PURPOSE

This study aims to develop and test the psychometric properties of the Informing Relatives Inventory, a battery of instruments that intend to measure counselees' knowledge, motivation, and self-efficacy regarding the disclosure of hereditary cancer risk information to at-risk relatives.

METHOD

Guided by the proposed conceptual framework, existing instruments were selected and new instruments were developed. We tested the instruments' acceptability, dimensionality, reliability, and criterion-related validity in consecutive index patients visiting the Clinical Genetics department with questions regarding hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer or colon cancer.

RESULTS

Data of 211 index patients were included (response rate = 62%). The Informing Relatives Inventory (IRI) assesses three barriers in disclosure representing seven domains. Instruments assessing index patients' (positive) motivation and self-efficacy were acceptable and reliable and suggested good criterion-related validity. Psychometric properties of instruments assessing index patients knowledge were disputable. These items were moderately accepted by index patients and the criterion-related validity was weaker.

CONCLUSION

This study presents a first conceptual framework and associated inventory (IRI) that improves insight into index patients' barriers regarding the disclosure of genetic cancer information to at-risk relatives. Instruments assessing (positive) motivation and self-efficacy proved to be reliable measurements. Measuring index patients knowledge appeared to be more challenging. Further research is necessary to ensure IRI's dimensionality and sensitivity to change.

Breast Cancer Genetic Counseling: A Surgeon's Perspective

As surgeons who care for patients with breast cancer, the possibility of a cancer diagnosis being related to a hereditary predisposition is always a consideration. Not only are we as surgeons always trying to identify these patients and families but also we are often asked about a potential hereditary component by the patients and their family members. It is therefore critical that we accurately assess patients to determine who may benefit from genetic testing. Importantly, the potential benefit for identifying a hereditary breast cancer extends beyond the patient to other family members and the risk may not be only for the development of breast cancers, but for other cancers as well. This review was written from the perspective of a surgeon with additional training in cancer genetics in an effort to provide a unique perspective on the issue and feel that a review of some of the more practical considerations is important.

Genetic Testing for Rare Cancer: The Wider Issues

Identification of a potential genetic susceptibility to cancer and confirmation of a pathogenic gene mutation raises a number of challenging issues for the patient with cancer, their relatives and the health professionals caring for them. The specific risks and management issues associated with rare cancer types have been addressed in the earlier chapters. This chapter considers the wider issues involved in genetic counselling and genetic testing for a genetic susceptibility to cancer for patients, families and health professionals. The first part of the chapter will present the issues raised by the current practice in genetic counselling and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. The second part of the chapter will address some of the issues raised by the advances in genetic testing technology and the future opportunities provided by personalised medicine and targeted cancer therapy. Facilitating these developments requires closer integration of genomics into mainstream cancer care, challenging the existing paradigm of genetic medicine, adding additional layers of complexity to the risk assessment and management of cancer and presenting wider issues for patients, families, health professionals and clinical services.

Communication Between Breast Cancer Patients Who Received Inconclusive Genetic Test Results and Their Daughters and Sisters Years After Testing

Inconclusive genetic test results including screening recommendations for the breast cancer patients and their first-degree relatives are the most common outcomes of BRCA 1/2 testing. Patients themselves should communicate these results to their relatives. Our aim was to explore communication of breast cancer genetic counseling results with daughters and sisters over a long period of time. Breast cancer patients, who had received an inconclusive DNA test result 7-14 years earlier, completed a self-report questionnaire. Additionally, in-depth interviews were conducted and analysed thematically. Of the 93 respondents, 85 (91 %) considered themselves responsible for communicating genetic test results to relatives. In-depth interviews (n = 14) showed, that counselees wanted 'to hand over' their responsibilities to communicate the test results and screening recommendations to their sisters. Although most patients had informed their daughters and sisters about the genetic test results, usually little is spoken about genetic test results and screening recommendations once the duty of informing is completed. We recommend that, similar to the procedure for BRCA1/2-mutation carriers, a separate letter for first-degree relatives of patients with an inconclusive test result should be provided. In this way information about risks and screening recommendations can be verified by family members years after genetic testing has been completed.

Social determinants of family health history collection

Family health history (FHH) is the most basic form of genomic information. Although public health efforts have been made to promote FHH collection, empirical data on the extent to which community residents in rural areas actively collect FHH is limited. Therefore, we examined rates of FHH collection in a community-based sample of South Carolina residents. We conducted a structured telephone survey in a random sample of black and white South Carolina residents. Respondents were asked if they had ever actively collected FHH from relatives using an item developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overall, 42 % of respondents reported that they had actively collected their FHH. Blacks were significantly more likely than whites to have collected their FHH in bivariate analysis, but race did not have a significant association with FHH collection in the multivariate model (OR = 1.36, 95 % CI = 0.79, 2.35, p = 0.26). The likelihood of collecting FHH was increased among respondents whose last medical visit occurred in the past year compared to those whose last medical visit was more than 1 year ago (OR = 2.00, 95 % CI = 1.12, 3.56, p = 0.02). In addition, older respondents had a reduced likelihood of collecting their FHH (OR = 0.69, 95 % CI = 0.53, 0.90, p = .01). Lastly, women were about twice as likely as men to have collected their FHH (OR = 1.83, 95 % CI = 1.12, 2.99, p = 0.02). Greater efforts are needed to increase the collection of FHH information; these efforts may need to target men, the elderly, and individuals who have not had a recent medical visit.

A tale worth telling: the impact of the diagnosis experience on disclosure of genetic disorders

BACKGROUND

Research suggests children with genetic disorders exhibit greater coping skills when they are aware of their condition and its heritability. While the experiences parents have at diagnosis may influence their decision to disclose the diagnosis to their children, there is little research into this communication. The aim of the current study was to examine the relationship between the diagnosis experience and the disclosure experience for parents of children with developmental disorders of a known genetic aetiology: parents of children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) were compared with a group of parents with children affected with other genetic diagnoses, with a similar age of diagnosis (e.g. fragile X syndrome) and a group where diagnosis generally occurs early (i.e. Down syndrome).

METHOD

The sample comprised 559 parents and caregivers of children with genetic developmental disorders, and an online survey was utilised. Items from the questionnaire were combined to create variables for diagnosis experience, parental disclosure experience, child's disclosure experience, and parental coping and self-efficacy.

RESULTS

Across all groups parents reported that the diagnosis experience was negative and often accompanied by a lack of support and appropriate information. Sixty-eight per cent of those in the 22q11DS and 58.3% in the Similar Conditions groups had disclosed the diagnosis to their child, whereas only 32.7% of the Down syndrome group had. Eighty-six per cent of the Down syndrome group felt they had sufficient information to talk to their child compared with 44.1% of the Similar Conditions group and 32.6% of the 22q11DS group. Parents reported disclosing the diagnosis to their child because they did not want to create secrets; and that they considered the child's age when disclosing. In the 22q11DS and Similar Conditions groups, a poor diagnosis experience was significantly associated with negative parental disclosure experiences. In the Similar Conditions group, a poor diagnosis experience was also significantly associated with a more negative child disclosure experience.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected this study highlights how difficult most parents find the diagnosis experience. Importantly, the data indicate that the personal experiences the parents have can have a long-term impact on how well they cope with telling their child about the diagnosis. It is important for clinicians to consider the long-term ramifications of the diagnosis experience and give the parents opportunities; through, for instance, psychoeducation to prepare for telling their child about the diagnosis. Further research is warranted to explore what type of information would be useful for parents to receive.

Randomized Trial of Telegenetics vs. In-Person Cancer Genetic Counseling: Cost, Patient Satisfaction and Attendance

Telegenetics-genetic counseling via live videoconferencing-can improve access to cancer genetic counseling (CGC) in underserved areas, but studies on cancer telegenetics have not applied randomized methodology or assessed cost. We report cost, patient satisfaction and CGC attendance from a randomized trial comparing telegenetics with in-person CGC among individuals referred to CGC in four rural oncology clinics. Participants (n = 162) were randomized to receive CGC at their local oncology clinic in-person or via telegenetics. Cost analyses included telegenetics system; mileage; and personnel costs for genetic counselor, IT specialist, and clinic personnel. CGC attendance was tracked via study database. Patient satisfaction was assessed 1 week post-CGC via telephone survey using validated scales. Total costs were $106 per telegenetics patient and $244 per in-person patient. Patient satisfaction did not differ by group on either satisfaction scale. In-person patients were significantly more likely to attend CGC than telegenetics patients (89 vs. 79 %, p = 0.03), with bivariate analyses showing an association between lesser computer comfort and lower attendance rate (Chi-square = 5.49, p = 0.02). Our randomized trial of telegenetics vs. in-person counseling found that telegenetics cost less than in-person counseling, with high satisfaction among those who attended. This study provides support for future randomized trials comparing multiple service delivery models on longer-term psychosocial and behavioral outcomes.

Improving family history collection

Family history is important for assessing risk of cancer. This study aimed to improve cancer family history communication and collection by training and motivating lay individuals to construct pedigrees. The authors' ultimate goal is to improve identification of familial cancer. Participants (n = 200) completed preintervention, postintervention, and 1-week follow-up surveys to assess pedigree construction. The intervention reviewed basic construction and interpretation of a pedigree for familial cancer. As a result of intervention, individuals reported more positive attitudes about collecting family history, were more likely to intend to speak to family and physicians about cancer risk, better understood a sample pedigree, and constructed more detailed pedigrees of their family history. At follow-up, 25% of the sample had spoken with their families about cancer risk. For those individuals who had not spoken with family, higher postintervention pedigree knowledge was associated with greater intentions to speak with family in the future. The intervention improved the communication and collection of pedigrees and communication about cancer risk, which could be used to improve the identification of individuals with familial cancers and awareness of family cancer risk.

[Informing the family: emotions and attitudes of oncogenetic counselees for familial breast/ovarian and/or colon cancer risk]

BACKGROUND

Transmission of oncogenetic information (TOI) by probands to their families is of major importance to organize medical prevention in his family. Little is known about the difficulties that the proband faces when he tries to endorse his "duty to warn".

METHODS

To characterize the barriers to TOI, a survey was performed, previously to the bioethic law of 2011, on a representative sample of 337 counselees seen in the last 10 years at the Centre Jean-Perrin Oncogenetics Department. A questionnaire comprising 97 items was prepared by experts and validated by a group of patients and health professionals. Nineteen Lickert-scale questions specially concerned TOI.

RESULTS

Analysis found two dimensions, one of emotions and one concerning communication attitudes. Both dimensions were negatively correlated (r=-0.34, P<10(-7)): high emotional levels limited communication attitudes. The probands' history of cancer was the main factor impacting TOI. TOI was more difficult for cancer patients than for healthy counselees (P=0.025). Delay since consultation and type of cancer risk had no bearing on TOI.

CONCLUSION

Cancer and its treatments seem to deeply affect patient's relatives and limit his capacity to involve his family into the oncogenetic inquiry. Measures are suggested to help ex-patients improve TOI.

Family health information sharing among older adults: reaching more family members

Although family health history (FHH) information has tremendous potential in the prevention of common complex diseases such as heart disease and cancer, lack of knowledge about one's own FHH among the public hinders its utility. Older individuals often desire to contribute to the well-being of younger generations and also play critical roles in disseminating this information. This study evaluated psychosocial factors associated with the extent of FHH communication within families. Older adults (N = 110) were interviewed at three senior centers in an urban community. Multivariate Poisson regression analysis showed that respondents who received FHH from a parent reported 41 % more family members with whom they shared FHH (b = 0.34, p < 0.001) controlling for the family network size. Furthermore, one unit increase in the number of family members with whom respondents exchange reciprocal emotional support (b = 0.04, p < 0.01), perceived familiarity with own FHH (b = 0.14, p = 0.01), and self-efficacy to share FHH (b = 0.18, p = 0.02) were associated with 4, 15, and 20 % increases in the number of family members with whom respondents shared FHH, respectively. Future efforts may inform older adults about their important role in modeling FHH communication behavior to encourage information sharing in future generations while providing information about how to collect and disseminate FHH to increase their familiarity and ability to share FHH within the family.

The role of current affect, anticipated affect and spontaneous self-affirmation in decisions to receive self-threatening genetic risk information

One reason for not seeking personally threatening information may be negative current and anticipated affective responses. We examined whether current (e.g., worry) and anticipated negative affect predicted intentions to seek sequencing results in the context of an actual genomic sequencing trial (ClinSeq®; n = 545) and whether spontaneous self-affirmation mitigated any (negative) association between affect and intentions. Anticipated affective response negatively predicted intentions to obtain and share results pertaining to both medically actionable and non-actionable disease, whereas current affect was only a marginal predictor. The negative association between anticipated affect and intentions to obtain results pertaining to non-actionable disease was weaker in individuals who were higher in spontaneous self-affirmation. These results have implications for the understanding of current and anticipated affect, self-affirmation and consequential decision-making and contribute to a growing body of evidence on the role of affect in medical decisions.

Strategies for recruitment of relatives of BRCA mutation carriers to a genetic testing program in the Bahamas

The prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among unselected breast cancer patients in the Bahamas is 23%. It is beneficial to advise relatives of mutation carriers that they are candidates for genetic testing. Women who test positive are then eligible for preventive interventions, such as oophorectomy. It is not clear how often relatives of women with a mutation in the Bahamas wish to undergo genetic testing for the family mutation. Furthermore, it is not clear how best to communicate this sensitive information to relatives in order to maximize patient compliance. We offered genetic testing to 202 first-degree relatives of 58 mutation carriers. Of 159 women who were contacted by the proband or other family member, only 14 made an appointment for genetic testing (9%). In contrast, among 32 relatives who were contacted directly by the genetic counselor, 27 came for an appointment (84%). This study suggests that for recruitment of relatives in the Bahamas, direct contact by counselor is preferable to using the proband as an intermediary.

Preparing individuals to communicate genetic test results to their relatives: report of a randomized control trial

This study reports a randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of an intervention to prepare individuals to communicate BRCA1/BRCA2 results to family members. Women aged 18 years and older, who had genetic testing, and who had adult first-degree relatives, were randomly assigned to a communication skills-building intervention or a wellness control session. Primary outcomes were the percentage of probands sharing test results, and the level of distress associated with sharing. The ability of the theory of planned behavior variables to predict the outcomes was explored. Four hundred twenty-two women were enrolled in the study, 219 (intervention) and 203 (control). Data from 137 in the intervention group and 112 in the control group were analyzed. Two hundred forty-nine probands shared test results with 838 relatives (80.1 %). There were no significant differences between study groups in the primary outcomes. Combining data from both arms revealed that perceived control and specific social influence were associated with sharing. Probands were more likely to share genetic test results with their children, female relatives and relatives who they perceived had a favorable opinion about learning the results. The communication skills intervention did not impact sharing of test results. The proband's perception of her relative's opinion of genetic testing and her sense of control in relaying this information influenced sharing. Communication of test results is selective, with male relatives and parents less likely to be informed. Prevalent psychosocial factors play a role in the communication of genetic test results within families.

Accuracy of recall of information about a cancer-predisposing BRCA1/2 gene mutation among patients and relatives

This observational study aimed to (i) compare the accuracy of information recalled by patients and relatives following genetic counselling about a newly identified BRCA1/2 mutation, (ii) identify differences in accuracy of information about genetics and hereditary cancer and (iii) investigate whether accuracy among relatives improved when information was provided directly by genetics health professionals. Semistructured interviews following results from consultations with 10 breast/ovarian cancer patients and 22 relatives were audio-recorded and transcribed. Information provided by the genetics health professional was tracked through the families and coded for accuracy. Accuracy was analysed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test. Sources of information were tested using Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient. Fifty-three percent of the information recalled by patients was accurate. Accuracy of recall among relatives was significantly lower than that among patients (P=0.017). Both groups recalled a lower proportion of information about hereditary cancer than about genetics (P=0.005). Relatives who learnt the information from the patient alone recalled significantly less accurate information than those informed directly by genetics health professionals (P=0.001). Following genetic counselling about a BRCA1/2 mutation, accuracy of recall was low among patients and relatives, particularly about hereditary cancer. Multiple sources of information, including direct contact with genetics health professionals, may improve the accuracy of information among relatives.

Informing relatives about their hereditary or familial cancer risk: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling for hereditary breast or colon cancer has implications for both counselees and their relatives. Although counselees are encouraged by genetic counselors to disclose genetic cancer risk information, they do not always share this information with their at-risk relatives. Reasons for not informing relatives may be generally categorized as a lack of knowledge, motivation and/or self-efficacy. Presented here is the protocol of a randomized controlled trial that aims to establish the effectiveness of an intervention focused on supporting counselees in their disclosure of genetic cancer information to their relatives.

METHODS/DESIGN

A multicenter randomized controlled trial with parallel group design will be used to compare the effects of an additional telephone counseling session performed by psychosocial workers to enhance the disclosure of genetic cancer information to at-risk relatives (intervention group) with a control group of standard care. Consecutive index patients with relatives at risk for hereditary or familial breast and/or ovarian cancer or colon cancer, are randomly assigned (block size: 8; 1:1 allocation ratio) to the intervention (n = 132) or control group (n = 132, standard care). Primary outcomes are counselees' knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy regarding informing their relatives.

DISCUSSION

This intervention may prove important in supporting counselees to disclose hereditary and/or familial cancer risk information to at-risk relatives and may enable more at-risk relatives to make a well-informed decision regarding genetic services and/or screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) with trial ID number NTR3745.

Social and behavioral research in genomic sequencing: approaches from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium Outcomes and Measures Working Group

The routine use of genomic sequencing in clinical medicine has the potential to dramatically alter patient care and medical outcomes. To fully understand the psychosocial and behavioral impact of sequencing integration into clinical practice, it is imperative that we identify the factors that influence sequencing-related decision making and patient outcomes. In an effort to develop a collaborative and conceptually grounded approach to studying sequencing adoption, members of the National Human Genome Research Institute's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium formed the Outcomes and Measures Working Group. Here we highlight the priority areas of investigation and psychosocial and behavioral outcomes identified by the Working Group. We also review some of the anticipated challenges to measurement in social and behavioral research related to genomic sequencing; opportunities for instrument development; and the importance of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches. This work represents the early, shared efforts of multiple research teams as we strive to understand individuals' experiences with genomic sequencing. The resulting body of knowledge will guide recommendations for the optimal use of sequencing in clinical practice.

The impact of participation in genetic research for families with cleft lip with and without cleft palate: a qualitative study

Despite being the most common congenital facial anomaly, little is understood about the genetic contribution to isolated clefts of the lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P). 'OzCleft', a family-based genotype/phenotype study, is investigating this further. Participation for families involves various clinical investigations of the child with the cleft, and their unaffected sibling(s) and parents. Informal feedback from individuals involved in OzCleft suggested that participation in this research programme had benefits for families. Taking a qualitative approach, this study sought to investigate this hypothesis further. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with nine parents who had participated in OzCleft. All parents described participation as a positive experience for themselves and their families. Perceived benefits included a greater appreciation of the cleft treatment experience by unaffected family members. Being involved in a genetic study raised issues for parents regarding the cause of clefting in their child. While some parents found the possibility of a genetic component reassuring, it also raised questions about the potential implications for future generations. Parents were largely unsure about how to communicate this information to their children and the predictive value of this information. This study suggests a lack of genetic understanding and/or perceived value of genetic information by parents of children with CL/P that, in turn, highlights the need for increased support from genetic health professionals in this area.