Communication of BRCA1 and BRCA2 results to at-risk relatives: a cancer risk assessment program's experience

Uptake of screening and risk-reducing recommendations among women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome due to pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants evaluated at a large urban comprehensive cancer center

PURPOSE

Carriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 have an elevated lifetime cancer risk warranting high-risk screening and risk-reducing procedures for early detection and prevention. We report on prevention practices among women with pathogenic BRCA variants in order to document follow through with NCCN recommendations and to identify barriers to guideline-recommended care.

METHODS

Our cohort included women who had genetic testing through a cancer genetic clinic and completed a 54-item questionnaire to measure socio-demographics, medical history, rates of cancer screening and risk-reducing surgery, disclosure of test results, and cancer worry. Outcomes included rates of completion of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM), and NCCN risk-reducing and age-dependent screening guidelines (version 3.2019). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate potential predictors of these outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 129 evaluable women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants, 95 (74%) underwent RRSO and 77 (60%) had RRM, respectively, and 107 (83%) were considered adherent to NCCN guidelines. Women with a history of breast or ovarian cancer were more likely to have RRM (OR = 4.38; 95% CI 1.80-11.51; p = 0.002). Increasing age was associated with an increased likelihood of RRSO (OR = 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.09; p = 0.019) and decreased likelihood for RRM (OR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.92-0.99; p = 0.013). Women who had RRM were 3 times more likely to undergo RRSO (OR = 2.81; 95% CI 1.10-7.44; p = 0.025). Women who had genetic testing after June 2013 were less likely to have RRM than those tested before June 2013 (OR = 0.42; 95% CI 0.18-0.95; p = 0.040. None of the other measured factors were associated with rates of RRSO, RRM or follow through with NCCN recommendations. There was near universal (127/129) reported disclosure of genetic test results to family members, resulting in the discovery of a median of 1 relative with a pathogenic variant (range = 0-8).

CONCLUSION

An evaluation of follow up practice in a cohort of women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 revealed high rates of reported completion of screening and surgical risk-reducing recommendations. Educational efforts should continue to reinforce the importance of follow-through with guideline recommended care among this high-risk group.

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.

Do people with hereditary cancer syndromes inform their at-risk relatives? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate rates of familial disclosure of hereditary cancer syndrome information.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO no.: CRD42020134276). Key electronic databases were searched to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer syndrome cascade relative disclosure. Eligible studies were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Among 11,711 included relatives, 70% (95% CI 60 - 78%) were informed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant; of 2,875 relatives informed of their risk who were evaluated for uptake of cascade testing, 43% (95% CI 27 - 61%) completed testing. Rates of disclosure were higher among female vs male relatives (79% [95% CI 73% - 84%] vs 67% [95% CI 57% - 75%]) and first-degree vs second-degree relatives (83% [95% CI 77% - 88%] vs 58% [95% CI 45 - 69%]).

Conclusion

Nearly one-third of at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. Even among those informed, fewer than half subsequently complete genetic testing, representing a critical missed opportunity for precision cancer prevention.

Innovation

Five studies evaluating interventions to improve disclosure rates were generally ineffective. Urgent work is needed to elucidate barriers to relative disclosure by probands to develop targeted interventions that can optimize proband-mediated cascade genetic testing rates.

Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer

Objective

Evaluate an intervention to increase family communication (FC) of positive hereditary cancer test results using the Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions (FDECI).

Methods

We developed 'programme theory' during the FDECI development phase by aligning intervention components with behavior change techniques (BCTs) and theoretical factors expected to improve FC. During the feasibility phase, we obtained feedback from 12 stakeholder interviews.

Results

Intervention components aligned with a total of 14 unique BCTs for which prior evidence links the BCT to theoretical factors that influence behavior change. Constructive stakeholder feedback included: more information desired, rewording to support autonomy by highlighting options, and improvements to navigation, visuals, and audio. Positive comments included: comprehensiveness of materials, modeling of conversations, and usefulness of the materials for helping a person prepare to share positive test results.

Conclusion

The first FDECI phases were helpful for improving the intervention and planning our ongoing effectiveness and future implementation phases.

Innovation

Our application of the FDECI is novel, including plans to test our 'programme theory' using coincidence analysis (CNA) to determine who accesses which intervention materials, how utilizing certain materials impact the aligned theoretical factors, and whether these in turn make a difference in the behavioral outcome.

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.

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.

Outcomes of support groups for carriers of BRCA 1/2 pathogenic variants and their relatives: a systematic review

People tested positive for BRCA1/2 face an increased risk of cancer; to help them cope with the genetic information received, support to BRCA1/2 families should be continued after testing. Nonetheless how such support should be provided has not been established yet. As a potentially valuable option is represented by support groups, the aim of this systematic review was to assess studies exploring the outcomes of support groups for BRCA1/2 carriers. This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42021238416). Peer-reviewed papers published between January 1995 and February 2021 were searched for, using four databases. Among 1586 records identified, 34 papers were reviewed in full-text and eleven were included in the qualitative synthesis of the results. Three themes emerged as major focuses of support groups: risk management decisions, family dynamics and risk communication, and psychosocial functioning. Our findings show that support groups proved helpful in supporting women's decision-making on risk-reducing options. Moreover, during those interventions, BRCA1/2 carriers had the opportunity to share thoughts and feelings, and felt that mutual support through interacting with other mutation carriers help them release the emotional pressure. However, no significant impact was reported in improving family communication. Overall, a high level of satisfaction and perceived helpfulness was reported for support group. The findings suggest that support groups represent a valuable tool for improving BRCA1/2 families care.

Family Adjustment to Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: A Systematic Review

Hereditary cancer syndromes are inherited pathogenic genetic variants that significantly increase the risk of developing cancer. When individuals become aware of their increased probability of having cancer, the whole family is affected by this new reality and needs to adjust. However, adjustment to hereditary cancer syndromes has been mainly studied at an individual level, and research about familial adjustment remains dispersed and disorganized. To overcome this gap, this review aims to understand how families adjust to genetic testing and risk management, and to what extent the family’s adjustment influences the psychological response and risk management behaviors of mutation carriers. We conducted searches on the PubMed/Med Line, PsycInfo, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar databases and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT-v2018) to assess the methodological quality of each selected study. Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria. Most results highlighted the interdependent nature of adjustment of pathogenic variant carriers and their families. The way carriers adjust to the syndrome is highly dependent on family functioning and related to how family members react to the new genetic information, particularly partners and siblings. Couples who share their worries and communicate openly about cancer risk present a better long-term adjustment than couples who use protective buffering (not talking about it to avoid disturbing the partner) or emotional distancing. Parents need help dealing with disclosing genetic information to their children. These findings reinforce the importance of adopting a family-centered approach in the context of genetic counseling and the necessity of involving family members in research.

Patient-reported anticipated barriers and benefits to sharing cancer genetic risk information with family members

While prior studies have largely focused on family communication of diagnostic single-gene test results or specific types of cancer testing results, far less work has investigated family communication of cancer-related genetic results that include multi-gene panels, a broad array of cancer types/stages, and participants without family history of cancer. The study we report here examined individuals' anticipated barriers and benefits to sharing genetic information with family members. An 80+ gene panel was performed on participants recruited from Mayo Clinic, diagnosed with different cancer types, who did not have a family history suggestive of an inherited risk. Participants completed a 49-item survey before receiving genetic test results. Family variant testing was provided to family members at no cost, allowing factors influencing intent to share to be examined in the absence of financial burdens. In all, 1721 of 2984 individuals who received genetic testing completed the survey (57.7% completion rate). Participants' intent to share with parents, siblings, and children was inversely related to the number of anticipated barriers to sharing and directly related to the number of anticipated benefits to sharing. Of those participants who did not intend to share with parents, siblings, and adult children, 64.8%, 30.3%, and 67.6% reported that there were no barriers, while 17.1%, 24.5%, and 40.2.% reported there were no benefits. Findings indicate that barriers to sharing genetic information with family members vary across family member types, and an inability to identify at least one benefit of sharing with family members is a predictor of intent not to share.

Communication about positive BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results and uptake of testing in relatives in a diverse Asian setting

The vast majority of studies assessing communication of BRCA1/2 results with relatives and family uptake of BRCA1/2 testing have been conducted in Western societies, and a dearth of studies have been conducted in Asia among relatives of diverse carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 germline variants. This study aimed to present rates of BRCA1/2 result disclosure by probands and probands' motivators and barriers of family communication and predictive testing uptake among eligible relatives. It also examined patterns of disclosure and testing uptake among different types of relatives. Eighty-seven carriers with either breast or ovarian cancer, who had previously been found to be carriers of a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2, were interviewed over the phone using a semi-structured interview guide. Fifty-six percent of patients were Chinese, 21% were Indian, and 23% were Malay. It was found that 62.0% of eligible first- and second-degree relatives were informed by the proband about the testing result and that 11.5% of eligible first- and second-degree relatives had genetic testing. First-degree relatives were more likely to have been informed and tested compared to second-degree relatives, as were sisters compared to brothers. The low rates of family communication and testing uptake documented in this study suggest that interventions should focus on encouraging probands to inform male and second-degree relatives and targeting such relatives to increase informed decisions and accessibility to testing. Promotion strategies should be culturally sensitive to optimize outcomes.

The Need for Machine-Processable Agreements in Health Data Management

Data processing agreements in health data management are laid out by organisations in monolithic “Terms and Conditions” documents written in natural legal language. These top-down policies usually protect the interest of the service providers, rather than the data owners. They are coarse-grained and do not allow for more than a few opt-in or opt-out options for individuals to express their consent on personal data processing, and these options often do not transfer to software as they were intended to. In this paper, we study the problem of health data sharing and we advocate the need for individuals to describe their personal contract of data usage in a formal, machine-processable language. We develop an application for sharing patient genomic information and test results, and use interactions with patients and clinicians in order to identify the particular peculiarities a privacy/policy/consent language should offer in this complicated domain. We present how Semantic Web technologies can have a central role in this approach by providing the formal tools and features required in such a language. We present our ongoing approach to construct an ontology-based framework and a policy language that allows patients and clinicians to express fine-grained consent, preferences or suggestions on sharing medical information. Our language offers unique features such as multi-party ownership of data or data sharing dependencies. We evaluate the landscape of policy languages from different areas, and show how they are lacking major requirements needed in health data management. In addition to enabling patients, our approach helps organisations increase technological capabilities, abide by legal requirements, and save resources.

The big reveal: Family disclosure patterns of BRCA genetic test results among young Black women with invasive breast cancer

Despite higher incidence and mortality of breast cancer among younger Black women, genetic testing outcomes remain severely understudied among Blacks. Past research on disclosure of genetic testing results to family members has disproportionately focused on White, educated, high socioeconomic status women. This study addresses this gap in knowledge by assessing (a) to whom Black women disclose genetic test results and (b) if patterns of disclosure vary based on test result (e.g., BRCA1/2 positive, negative, variant of uncertain significance [VUS]). Black women (N = 149) with invasive breast cancer diagnosed age ≤50 years from 2009 to 2012 received free genetic testing through a prospective, population-based study. At 12 months post-testing, women reported with whom they shared their genetic test results. The exact test by binomial distribution was used to examine whether disclosure to female relatives was significantly greater than disclosure to male relatives, and logistic regression analyses tested for differences in disclosure to any female relative, any male relative, parents, siblings, children, and spouses by genetic test result. Most (77%) women disclosed their results to at least one family member. Disclosure to female relatives was significantly greater than disclosure to males (p < .001). Compared to those who tested negative or had a VUS, BRCA1/2-positive women were significantly less likely to disclose results to their daughters (OR_{BRCA positive}  = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.07-0.94, p = .041) by 12 months post-genetic testing. Genetic test result did not predict any other type of disclosure (all ps > 0.12). Results suggest that in Black families, one benefit of genetic testing-to inform patients and their family about cancer risk information-is not being realized. To increase breast cancer preventive care among high-risk Black women, the oncology care team should prepare Black BRCA1/2-positive women to share genetic test results with family members and, in particular, their daughters.

Experience Gained from the Development and Execution of a Multidisciplinary Multi-syndrome Hereditary Colon Cancer Family Conference

Genetic healthcare professionals provide genetic cancer risk assessment and follow-up care for patients facing hereditary cancers. To meet the needs of those affected by hereditary colorectal cancer, City of Hope and the Hereditary Colon Cancer Foundation collaborated to develop a "Family Day" conference. We describe the development of our conference based upon the Hereditary Colon Cancer Foundation's "Family Day" program model, with refinements completed using the Participatory Action Research theoretical framework, which incorporated input from conference participants and researchers. Thirty-one participants attended the conference, representing patients with, or families, friends, and caregivers of those with, multiple colorectal cancer predisposition syndromes, including Lynch, familial adenomatous polyposis, and juvenile polyposis. Participants who completed the feedback surveys (n = 22) were highly satisfied with the presentation content, ranking the keynote lecture on family communication the highest of the conference events. Participants also provided feedback regarding how to improve future conferences. In conclusion, we share our experience and provide guidance for developing a successful hereditary colon cancer predisposition patient and family conference.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

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.

Patient experiences with pharmacogenetic testing in a primary care setting

AIM

To investigate patient experiences with pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing.

METHODS

Patients were offered PGx testing through a study on pharmacist-assisted delivery of PGx testing and invited to complete pre- and post-testing surveys about their experience.

RESULTS

Of 63 patients tested, 17 completed the baseline survey (27%). Interest in testing was mostly impacted by desire to inform selection of best treatment (n = 13). Seven of 12 patients that completed the follow-up survey indicated that their provider discussed the test result with them. Five patients understood their test result very or somewhat well. All would be likely to have PGx testing again.

CONCLUSION

Patients perceived PGx testing to be useful, though more effort may be needed to improve patient-provider communication of test results.

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.

Discussion of photoprotection, screening, and risk behaviors with children and grandchildren after melanoma genetic testing

The purpose of the current study was to examine changes in frequency of discussion about melanoma preventive behaviors among adults who received melanoma genetic test reporting and counseling and their children and grandchildren, correspondence of frequency of discussion with intentions, and content of discussions. Participants received CDKN2A/p16 testing and counseling (N = 24, 46 % p16-positive). Discussions about preventive behaviors were assessed before testing and 1 and 6 months post-testing. Intentions to discuss preventive behaviors and perceived preparedness to discuss risk were assessed post-testing. Open-ended questions assessed content of reported discussions. Discussion of preventive behaviors declined following test reporting, with more rapid decline reported by noncarriers. There was a large gap between the percentage of participants who intended to discuss preventive behaviors and who then reported discussions 1 and 6 months after counseling. Participants felt prepared to discuss melanoma risk but also suggested resources to facilitate discussions. Genetic test reporting and counseling alone did not sustain discussions about preventive behaviors for a hereditary cancer with children and grandchildren. The gap between intentions to have discussions and reported discussions has implications for augmentation of counseling to support at-risk families' discussions about preventive behaviors.

Interest of individuals from BRCA families to participate in research studies focused on male BRCA carriers

Although men and women are equally likely to carry a mutation in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) genes, the clinical significance of mutations in men remains incompletely defined. We sought evaluate interest of individuals from BRCA families to participate in a research study focused on men from BRCA families. Through an anonymous survey posted on the website of the BRCA patient advocacy organization, facing our risk of cancer empowered (FORCE), data was collected over a 21 month period (August 2010-June 2012) from members of BRCA families. The survey was completed by 405 individuals with known BRCA mutations, including 150 males and 232 females. The median age of survey respondents was 49 years (50 years for males and 48 years for females). Overall, 84% of survey respondents indicated prior BRCA mutation testing (95.2% females, 67.3% males). For the overall group of survey respondents, 84% (86% females, 84% males) indicated they would tell their male relatives about a research study focused on high risk men from BRCA families, and 53% (39% females, 74% males) thought that their male relatives would be interested in participating in such a study. Despite limited studies focused on men from BRCA mutation positive families, our survey suggests that both male and female family members are highly interested in focused on male BRCA mutation carriers. The importance of further studying this topic is underscored by emerging literature that suggest cancer surveillance and treatment decisions may improve outcomes in men with BRCA mutations.

Information-seeking and sharing behavior following genomic testing for diabetes risk

As the practice of medicine has become more patient-driven, patients are increasingly seeking health information within and outside of their doctor's office. Patients looking for information and support are often turning to the Internet as well as family and friends. As part of a study to understand the impact of delivery method of genomic testing for type 2 diabetes risk on comprehension and health-related behaviors, we assessed participants' information-seeking and sharing behaviors after receiving their results in-person with a genetic counselor or online through the testing company's website. We found that 32.6 % of participants sought information after receiving the genomic test results for T2DM; 80.8 % of those that did seek information turned to the Internet. Eighty-eight percent of participants reported that they shared their T2DM risk results, primarily with their spouse/partner (65 %) and other family members (57 %) and children (19 %); 14 % reported sharing results with their health provider. Sharing was significantly increased in those who received results in-person from the genetic counselor (p = 0.0001). Understanding patients' interests and needs for additional information after genomic testing and with whom they share details of their health is important as more information and clinical services are available and accessed outside the clinician's office. Genetic counselors' expertise and experience in creating educational materials and promoting sharing of genetic information can facilitate patient engagement and education.

Communication and technology in genetic counseling for familial cancer

When a cancer predisposing germline mutation is detected in an index case, the presence of the underlying syndrome is confirmed and the potential for predictive testing of at-risk relatives is established. However, the reporting of a positive family history does not routinely lead to communication of information about risk to close, much less distant relatives. This review summarizes information technology utilized to address penetration or 'reach' of knowledge of risk within extended families, including the use of telephone and video counseling to reach distant patients, and anticipate novel internet-based processes for communication between investigators and relatives.

Disclosure pattern and follow-up after the molecular diagnosis of BRCA/CHEK2 mutations

Five to 10% of all breast cancer cases are due to mutations of high penetrance susceptibility genes, especially BRCA1 and BRCA2. In families with known BRCA mutations, disclosure of genetic test results could induce relatives to undergo genetic testing themselves and adopt cancer risk management strategies, if necessary. This study examines disclosure patterns of individuals tested for mutations in the BRCA1, BRCA2 and CHEK2 genes to first-degree relatives with emphasis on a possible gender difference. It also assesses which management strategy is preferred by mutation-positive women in Belgium and the influence of psychological characteristics on communication and choice of management strategy. Ninety-nine adults from BRCA/CHEK2 families, selected from the Centre of Medical Genetics of Antwerp, were included in the study. They were provided with medical and psychological questionnaires, the latter being the Self-Assessment Questionnaire, which is the Dutch version of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Dutch version of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS-NL). The survey focused on disclosure, coping and management strategies with special attention on possible gender differences. The influence of socio-demographic and medical data on disclosure and cancer risk management as well as the influence of psychological features were examined by means of various statistical analyses. Ninety-nine patients were included, of whom 25 (25 %) were male. Eighty-seven percent of the participants informed all of their adult first-degree relatives about their mutation status without any gender discrimination. Seventy-eight percent of highly-educated participants informed all of their adult first-degree relatives, compared to 98 % of less formally-educated participants (p = 0.006). The majority of mutation-positive women preferred prophylactic surgery to surveillance. Psychological differences appeared to have little influence on disclosure patterns and management strategies. The gender difference seems to be less pronounced than previously assumed. A striking observation, however, is the fact that significantly more participants who were less formally-educated informed all of their adult first-degree relatives, compared to participants who were highly-educated. In our study population, most female mutation carriers opted for prophylactic surgery. Since the study population is small, further studies are needed to enhance the generalizability of these results.

Specific psychosocial issues of individuals undergoing genetic counseling for cancer - a literature review

Approximately 25% of individuals undergoing genetic counseling for cancer experiences clinically relevant levels of distress, anxiety and/or depression. However, these general psychological outcomes that are used in many studies do not provide detailed information on the specific psychosocial problems experienced by counselees. The aim of this review was to investigate the specific psychosocial issues encountered by individuals undergoing genetic counseling for cancer, and to identify overarching themes across these issues. A literature search was performed, using four electronic databases (PubMed, PsychInfo, CINAHL and Embase). Papers published between January 2000 and January 2013 were selected using combinations, and related indexing terms of the keywords: 'genetic counseling', 'psychology' and 'cancer'. In total, 25 articles met our inclusion criteria. We identified the specific issues addressed by these papers, and used meta-ethnography to identify the following six overarching themes: coping with cancer risk, practical issues, family issues, children-related issues, living with cancer, and emotions. A large overlap in the specific issues and themes was found between these studies, suggesting that research on specific psychosocial problems within genetic counseling has reached a point of saturation. As a next step, efforts should be made to detect and monitor these problems of counselees at an early stage within the genetic counseling process.

Genetic risk assessments in individuals at high risk for inherited breast cancer in the breast oncology care setting

BACKGROUND

It has become increasingly common to consider BRCA mutation status when determining optimal cancer risk management and treatment options in order to improve patient outcomes. Knowledge about the risk for hereditary cancer at or as close as possible to the time of diagnosis allows patients access to the most risk reduction options available.

METHODS

This paper illustrates the role of genetic risk assessment for hereditary breast cancer, using hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome as a model due to germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2. Specifically, the value of genetic counseling and testing for HBOC across the cancer prevention and control continuum is outlined as it pertains to breast cancer.

RESULTS

In recognition of the importance of risk assessment for hereditary breast cancer, leading health professional organizations have developed specific guidelines and recommendations to providers for identification of women at increased risk for carrying a BRCA mutation.

CONCLUSIONS

Institutional efforts specific to genetic counseling and testing have resulted in the implementation of a model driven by physician recommendation as a referral system for high-risk breast cancer patients. Establishing an infrastructure to support research, education, and outreach initiatives focused on BRCA genetic counseling and testing will provide information that can improve the delivery of cancer genetics services.

A family genetic risk communication framework: guiding tool development in genetics health services

Family communication of genetic risk information is a complex process. Currently, there are no evidence-based interventions to help genetics professionals facilitate the process of disclosure within families. This study was designed to create a framework to assist in the development of tools to support patients in communicating genetic risk information to family members. A systematic review identified the factors relevant in communicating genetic risk information in families. A guiding theory for the proposed framework was selected and populated with the factors identified from the review. The review identified 112 factors of relevance. The theory of planned behaviour was selected to guide framework development, organising the framework in terms of the patient's attitudes about disclosure, perceived pressure to disclose and perceived control over disclosure. Attitudes about disclosure are influenced by a desire to protect oneself or family members, and the patient's perceptions of relevance of the information for family members, responsibility to disclose, family members' rights to information and the usefulness of communicating. Perceived pressure to disclose information is shaped by genetic professionals, family members and society. Perceived control over disclosure is affected by family relationships/dynamics, personal communication skills, the ability of the patient and family to understand the information and coping skills of the patient and family member. The family genetic risk communication framework presents a concise synthesis of the evidence on family communication of genetic information; it may be useful in creating and evaluating tools to help genetic counsellors and patients with communication issues.

Exploring resources for intrafamilial communication of cancer genetic risk: we still need to talk

While the importance of intrafamilial communication of hereditary cancer risk has been acknowledged, the factors that promote and act as barriers to patients disclosing their information to their families are complex and emerging. This raises the question: How are patients guided in practice to contemplate intrafamilial communication? Focusing on breast cancer, we conducted an exploratory study examining current resources supporting patients and health-care professionals, and isolated the messages surrounding intrafamilial communication of cancer risk. We find the duty for health-care professionals to counsel patients regarding intrafamilial communication is acknowledged to varying degrees by multiple actors in the cancer care delivery landscape, including health-care professional associations, health service organizations, and patient groups. A range of medical, psychosocial, and other factors underlying intrafamilial communication are acknowledged in messages to patients. Patients, however, are often referred to a single group of health-care professionals to discuss their diverse and complex needs. At the same time, messages aimed at patients appear to place the emphasis on barriers that could exist for patients contemplating intrafamilial communication, while highlighting the benefits families derive from such communication. Taken together, this points to a lack of coherence within materials directed to patients and suggests the need to do coordinated research among stakeholders to address two related issues: (1) determining who are the actors best positioned to send messages surrounding intrafamilial communication to patients and (2) addressing the content of messages conveyed in patient materials.

Enhancing family communication about genetics: ethical and professional dilemmas

When a new genetic condition is diagnosed within a family, genetic counselors often describe a sense of responsibility towards other at risk family members to be appropriately informed about their status. Successful communication of genetic information in families is contingent on many factors. While a small number of probands directly state their intention not to inform their relatives, many who do intend to communicate this information appear to be unsuccessful for a wide range of reasons and may benefit from follow up support from a genetic counselor. Drawing on the reciprocal-engagement model (REM) of genetic counseling practice we explore how enhancing family communication about genetics raises a number of ethical and professional challenges for counselors-and describe how we resolved these. A subsequent manuscript will describe the counseling framework we have developed to enhance family communication about genetics.

Do Breast Cancer Patients Tested in the Oncology Care Setting Share BRCA Mutation Results with Family Members and Health Care Providers?

BRCA genetic test results provide important information to manage cancer risk for patients and their families. Little is known on the communication of genetic test results by mutation status with family members and physicians in the oncology care setting. As part of a longitudinal study evaluating the impact of genetic counseling and testing among recently diagnosed breast cancer patients, we collected patients' self-reported patterns of disclosure. Descriptive statistics characterized the sample and determined the prevalence of disclosure of BRCA test results to family members and physicians. Of 100 patients who completed the baseline and the 6-month followup survey, 77 reported pursuing testing. The majority shared test results with female first-degree relatives; fewer did with males. Participants were more likely to share results with oncologists compared to surgeons, primary care physicians, or other specialty physicians. These findings suggest that while breast cancer patients may communicate results to at-risk female family members and their medical oncologist, they may need education and support to facilitate communication to other first-degree relatives and providers.

A Pilot study of the Sharing Risk Information Tool (ShaRIT) for Families with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome

Background

Individuals who carry deleterious BRCA mutations face significantly elevated risks of breast, ovarian, and other cancers. These individuals are also responsible for informing relatives of their increased risk for carrying the family BRCA mutation. Few interventions have been developed to facilitate this family communication process.

Methods

We developed the Sharing Risk Information Tool (ShaRIT), a personalized educational intervention, to support BRCA carriers as they discuss BRCA positive results and their implications with relatives. We conducted a pilot study of 19 BRCA carriers identified through the University of California San Francisco Cancer Risk Program. Our study had two aims: 1) to assess the feasibility and acceptability of ShaRIT, and 2) describe characteristics associated with increased family communication and BRCA testing. Participants in our study were divided into two groups: those who had not received ShaRIT as part of their genetic counseling protocol (control group, n = 10) and those who received ShaRIT (n = 9).

Results

All 9 women who received ShaRIT reported that it was a useful resource. Characteristics associated with increased sharing and testing included: female gender, degree of relationship, and frequency of communication. Increased pedigree knowledge showed a trend toward higher rates of sharing.

Conclusions

Both participants and genetic counselors considered ShaRIT a well-received, comprehensive tool for disseminating individual risk information and clinical care guidelines to Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome families. Because of this, ShaRIT has been incorporated as standard of care at our institution. In the future we hope to evaluate the effects of ShaRIT on family communication and family testing in larger populations of BRCA positive families.

Generation after generation: exploring the psychological impact of providing genetic services through a cascading approach

PURPOSE

The provision of genetic services often occurs in a cascading fashion within families experiencing inherited diseases. This study examines whether previous family experiences with genetic services influences levels of psychological well-being of family members receiving services later.

METHODS

Two hundred ninety-seven persons from 38 families with Lynch syndrome completed questionnaires before receiving genetic services. Baseline levels of test-related distress, depressive symptoms, and cancer worries were assessed in relationship to the (1) amount of time elapsed since services were provided to the index case and (2) generation of the family member relative to the index case.

RESULTS

Family members in the same generation as the index case experienced significant increases in test-related distress (P = 0.003) and cancer worry (P = 0.001) with increasing time between receipt of genetic test results by the index case and provision of services to family members. Change in the number of depressive symptoms was not significant (P = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

The provision of genetic services through a cascading approach significantly increases distress and worry among family members within the same generation as the index case who receive services at increasingly distant time intervals. Additional research is needed to explore social influences after the introduction of genetic services.

Unpacking the blockers: understanding perceptions and social constraints of health communication in hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC) susceptibility families

Family communication is essential for accurate cancer risk assessment and counseling; family blockers play a role in this communication process. This qualitative analysis of social exchanges is an extension of earlier work characterizing those who are perceived by study participants as health information gatherers, disseminators, and blockers within families with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) susceptibility. Eighty-nine women, ages 23-56 years, enrolled in a Breast Imaging Study (BIS) and participated in a sub-study utilizing a social assessment tool known as the Colored Ecological Genetic Relational Map (CEGRM). Purposive sampling ensured that participants varied according to numbers of participating family members e.g., ranging from 1 to 6. Eighty-nine women from 42 families (1-8 relatives/family) participated. They collectively designated 65 blockers, both male and female. Situational factors, beliefs, attitudes and cultural traditions, privacy and protectiveness comprised perceived reasons for blocking intra-family health communications. Longitudinal data collected over 4 years showed families where blocking behavior was universally recognized and stable over time, as well as other families where blocking was less consistent. Self-blocking was observed among a significant minority of participating women. Blocking of health communications among family members with HBOC was variable, complex, and multifaceted. The reasons for blocking were heterogeneous; duration of the blocking appeared to depend on the reasons for blocking. Blocking often seemed to involve bi-directional feedback loops, in keeping with Lepore's Social Constraints and Modulation Theory. Privacy and protectiveness predominated as explanations for long-term blocking.

Incidence and predictors of positive and negative effects of BRCA1/2 genetic testing on familial relationships: a 3-year follow-up study

PURPOSE

Little is known about the long-term impact of BRCA1/2 testing on the relationships between family members. We assessed the incidence of positive and negative family relationship effects of BRCA1/2 testing in the 3 years after result disclosure and identified predictors of these effects.

METHODS

A total of 485 women and 67 men who had undergone BRCA1/2 testing were asked 3 years later whether having been tested had improved and/or disrupted relationships with their relatives. The associations with sociodemographic, medical, and psychosocial characteristics were assessed.

RESULTS

Globally, 85.1% did not report any positive or negative effects of genetic testing on family relationships. Positive and negative effects were reported by 13.2% and 3.7% of participants, respectively. Reporting positive relationship effects was associated with older age, intolerance for uncertainty, cancer-specific distress, and more social support. Low education, positive attitude toward prophylactic mastectomy, and low social support increased the likelihood of negative effects.

CONCLUSION

Our findings do not support the belief that family relationships are frequently disrupted by BRCA1/2 testing. Understanding that most family relationships are unchanged long term by genetic testing may help genetic service providers encourage those considering testing to overcome hesitancy related to potential difficulties of communicating results to relatives.

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.

An exploration of the communication preferences regarding genetic testing in individuals from families with identified breast/ovarian cancer mutations

The responsibility for informing at-risk relatives of the availability of genetic testing for breast/ovarian cancer gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2) mutations currently falls on the probands. This study explored the support needs of individuals from families with identified BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations when communicating about genetic risk and genetic testing with at-risk family members. Thirty-nine semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals from families with identified BRCA mutations. Interview responses were cross-tabulated by sample characteristics using the qualitative research analysis software NVivo8. The development of educational materials, which individuals could use when communicating the risks of carrying a BRCA gene mutation with their relatives, was identified as a specific need. Many participants expressed a preference for a staged approach, where relatives are notified of their increased risk and the availability of genetic testing risk either face-to-face or via a letter, with additional educational sources, including brief written information or access to a website, made available for those wishing to access more in-depth information. This research identified a need for the development of educational/informational resources to support individuals with identified breast/ovarian cancer mutations to communicate with their at-risk relatives about genetic risk and genetic testing availability.

Communicating genetic risk information within families: a review

This review of family communication of genetic risk information addresses questions of what the functions and influences on communication are; what, who and how family members are told about genetic risk information; what the impact for counsellee, relative and relationships are; whether there are differences by gender and condition; and what theories and methodologies are used. A systematic search strategy identified peer-reviewed journal articles published 1985-2009 using a mixture of methodologies. A Narrative Synthesis was used to extract and summarise data relevant to the research questions. This review identified 33 articles which found a consistent pattern of findings that communication about genetic risk within families is influenced by individual beliefs about the desirability of communicating genetic risk and by closeness of relationships within the family. None of the studies directly investigated the impact of communication on counsellees or their families, differences according to gender of counsellee or by condition nor alternative methods of communication with relatives. The findings mainly apply to late onset conditions such as Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. The most frequently used theory was Family Systems Theory and methods were generally qualitative. This review points to multifactorial influences on who is communicated with in families and what they are told about genetic risk information. Further research is required to investigate the impact of genetic risk information on family systems and differences between genders and conditions.

Using a family systems approach to investigate cancer risk communication within melanoma families

OBJECTIVE

The family provides an important communication nexus for information and support exchange about family cancer history, and adoption of family-wide cancer risk reduction strategies. The goals of this study were to (1) use the family systems theory to identify characteristics of this sample of families at increased risk of developing melanoma and (2) to relate familial characteristics to the frequency and style of familial risk communication.

METHODS

Participants were first-degree relatives (n=313) of melanoma patients, recruited into a family web-based intervention study. We used multivariable logistic regression models to analyze the association between family functioning and family communication.

RESULTS

Most participants were female (60%), with an average age of 51 years. Fifty percent of participants reported that they spoke to their relatives about melanoma risk and people were more likely to speak to their female family members. Familial adaptation, cohesion, coping, and health beliefs were strongly associated with an open style of risk communication within families. None were associated with a blocked style of risk communication. Only cohesion and adaptation were associated with the amount of risk communication that occurred within families.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, individuals who came from families that were more highly cohesive, adaptable, and shared strong beliefs about melanoma risk were more likely to communicate openly about melanoma. The fact that this association was not consistent across blocked communication and communication frequency highlights the multifaceted nature of this process. Future research should focus on the interplay between different facets of communication.

Women receiving news of a family BRCA1/2 mutation: messages of fear and empowerment

PURPOSE

Communication of genetic test results to healthy at-risk family members is complicated considering family dynamics and the complexity of cancer genetics. The purpose of this study was to understand the experience of family communication of BRCA1/2 results from the perspective of young and middle-aged women receiving the news. THEORETICAL RATIONALE: Individuals are self-interpretive beings influenced by family culture, history, and communication patterns. Humans express meaning through language and stories.

METHODS

Heideggerian hermeneutics guided in-depth interviews and team interpretation of data. Using purposive and network sampling, 19 women 18 to 50 years of age who received news of a family BRCA1/2 mutation from a biologic relative were recruited from support groups and two health facilities in upstate New York.

FINDINGS

Five themes emerged: (a) situating the story, (b) receiving the message from family, (c) responding to receipt of the message, (d) impacting family communication, and (e) advice for communicating risk. Two constitutive patterns were identified: (a) communicating risk as a message of fear and empowerment and (b) integrating the message by taking one step at a time.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have an important role in provision of anticipatory guidance for communication of genetic test results, including the potential behavioral and emotional responses to family risk communication. Future research is indicated to understand the role of HCPs in family risk communication.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Presentation of comprehensive and balanced information and the use of patient-centered communication is essential. HCPs need to view women as whole rather than as a person at risk. Continued support is needed for women who subsequently test positive or negative for the family BRCA1/2 mutation from HCPs and others, often outside the family network.

The development of a methodology for examining the process of family communication of genetic test results

It is important to study communication processes in families where members are undergoing testing for genetic conditions because the information received from such testing is crucial not just to the individual concerned but also to other members of the biological family. This topic has received little research attention, in part because of the complexities of methodology required. In this paper we present the development of a method specifically designed for the examination of the content and process of communication of genetic information in families. The method aims to maximize ecological validity as far as is possible. We describe how participants and other family members are recruited and how data were collected. We outline three main data analytic strategies: a graphic to show how genetic information changes as it flows from clinic and through the family, an intensive qualitative analysis of the meaning and impact of the genetic information to different family members, and an informative genogram which plots key family dynamics. This method will be illustrated in relation to a study of ten family-groups where one individual has been found to carry a genetic mutation predisposing them to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Communication of BRCA results and family testing in 1,103 high-risk women

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk has implications for individuals and families. This study of women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer examines communication of BRCA results and subsequent genetic testing in the family.

METHODS

We surveyed 1,103 female BRCA testers at two hospitals, querying for communication of results and testing in relatives.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven percent of participants communicated BRCA results with at least one relative. Communication was negatively associated with older age [odds ratio (OR), 0.66 per decade; 95% confidence interval, (95% CI), 0.4-0.9], Asian race (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.5), and testing at the public hospital versus the cancer center (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.5). Communication was positively associated with increased knowledge of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer screening and risk reduction recommendations (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4) and increased satisfaction with the decision to BRCA test (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.0). Seventy-five percent of BRCA-positive participants reported that at least one relative pursued genetic testing. Family testing was negatively associated with Asian race (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.02-0.8) and positively associated with increased socioeconomic status (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7) and increased satisfaction with decision (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.1).

CONCLUSION

Despite high overall rates of communicating BRCA results, underserved and some minority women seem less likely to inform relatives of their BRCA status or have relatives test for a known family mutation. Satisfaction with the decision to BRCA test is positively associated with both outcomes.

IMPACT

This study identified several novel predictors of family communication and family genetic testing in a large population of high-risk women. This work can inform clinicians interested in improving family communication regarding cancer predisposition testing.