Rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer: Patients' and health professionals' attitudes, experiences, and evaluation of effects on treatment decision making

Patients’ experiences with pre-test genetic counseling provided by breast cancer healthcare professionals: Results from a large prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Pre-test genetic counseling of patients with breast cancer is increasingly being offered by non-genetic healthcare professionals. We aimed to evaluate the experiences of patients with breast cancer receiving pre-test genetic counseling from a non-genetic healthcare professional (i.e., surgeon or nurse).

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received pre-test counseling from their surgeon or nurse (mainstream group), and patients who received pre-test counseling from a clinical geneticist (usual care group) were invited to participate in our multicenter study. Between September 2019 and December 2021, patients received a questionnaire after pre-test counseling (T0) and four weeks after receiving their test results (T1) to evaluate psychosocial outcomes, knowledge, discussed topics and satisfaction.

RESULTS

We included 191 patients in our mainstream and 183 patients in our usual care group and received, respectively 159 and 145 follow-up questionnaires. Levels of distress and decisional regret were comparable in both groups. Decisional conflict was higher in our mainstream group (p = 0.01), but only 7% had clinically relevant decisional conflict (vs 2% in usual care group). The possible implications of a genetic test on (secondary) breast or ovarian cancer risks were less frequently discussed in our mainstream group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.000, respectively). In both groups knowledge about genetics was comparable, satisfaction was high and the majority of patients in both groups preferred to give both verbal and written consent for genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Mainstreamed genetic care provides sufficient information for the majority of breast cancer patients to decide about genetic testing with minimal distress.

Integration of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for All New Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends genetic testing (GT) for all women with breast cancer (BC), but implementation and uptake of GT has not been well-described.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for newly diagnosed BC patients or patients with a newly identified recurrence of BC seen in a multidisciplinary clinic (MDBC) who were offered genetic counseling (GC) and GT.

RESULTS

The 138 women attending the MDBC had a median age of 54 years and comprised non-Hispanic whites (46%), Asians (28%), Hispanics (17%), blacks (4%), and other (5%). Of the 105 (76%) patients without prior GT, 100 (95%) accepted GC, with 93 (93%) of these 100 patients undergoing GT. The patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for GT were more likely to undergo GT. Testing was performed with a 67- to 84-gene panel, together with an 8- to 9-gene STAT panel if needed. Among 120 patients with reports available, including 33 patients previously tested, 15 (12%) were positive (1 BLM, 1 BRCA1, 3 BRCA2, 1 BRIP1, 1 CFTR, 1 CHEK2, 1 MUTYH, 1 PALB2, 1 PRSS1, 1 RAD50, 1 RET, and 2 TP53), 44 (37%) were negative, and 61 (51%) had an uncertain variant. The median time to STAT results (n = 50) was 8 days. The STAT results were available before surgery for 47 (98%) of the 48 STAT patients undergoing surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

New BC patients attending the MDBC demonstrated high rates of acceptance of GC and GT. The combination of GC and GT can offer timely information critical to patient risk assessment and treatment planning.

Psychosocial impact of proactive rapid genetic counseling following breast cancer diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

As germline genetic referral becomes increasingly routine as part of the care of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, it is important to understand the psychosocial impact of genetic counseling at the time of diagnosis. We examined the psychosocial and quality of life (QOL) impact of providing proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) in the immediate aftermath of a breast cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

We randomized 330 patients in a 2:1 ratio to proactive rapid genetic counseling (RGCT; N = 222) versus usual care (UC; N = 108). Participants completed a baseline telephone survey before randomization and definitive surgery and a follow-up survey at 1-month post-randomization. We evaluated the impact of RGCT versus UC on breast cancer genetic knowledge, distress, QOL, and decisional conflict. Given that 43% of UC participants and 86% of RGCT participants completed genetic counseling prior to the 1-month assessment, we also evaluated the impact of genetic counseling participation over and above group assignment.

RESULTS

The RGCT intervention led to increased breast cancer genetic knowledge relative to UC but did not differentially impact other study outcomes. Across groups patients who participated in genetic counseling had significantly increased knowledge and improved QOL compared to those who did not participate in genetic counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

While prior research has documented the impact of genetic counseling and testing on surgical decisions, these results confirm that participation in genetic counseling at the time of diagnosis can yield improvements in knowledge and QOL in the short-term.

“It was an important part of my treatment”: a qualitative study of Norwegian breast Cancer patients’ experiences with mainstreamed genetic testing

Background

In South-Eastern Norway, genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is offered to breast cancer patients by their treating surgeon or oncologist. Genetic counselling from a geneticist or a genetic counsellor is offered only to those who test positive for a pathogenic variant or have a family history of cancer. This practice is termed “mainstreamed genetic testing”. The aim of this study was to learn about patients’ experience of this healthcare service.

Methods

Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 22 breast cancer patients who had been diagnosed during the first half of 2016 or 2017 at one regional and one university hospital and who had been offered testing by their treating physician. A six-phase thematic approach was used to analyse the data.

Results

The participants had varied experiences of how and when testing was offered. Three main themes emerged from the analysis: 1. informational and communicational needs and challenges during a chaotic time, 2. the value of genetic testing and 3. the importance of standardised routines for mainstreamed genetic testing.

Conclusions

Despite the shock of their diagnosis and the varying experiences they had in respect of how and when testing was offered, all of the participants emphasised that genetic testing had been an important part of their diagnosis and treatment. Our results indicate that there is a need for continuous collaboration between geneticists, surgeons, oncologists and laboratory specialists in order to establish simple and robust routines so as to ensure that all eligible breast cancer patients are offered testing at a point when the test result can have an impact on treatment.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Effect of a health literacy training program for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses on disparities in referral to breast cancer genetic testing

Background

There is an underuse of genetic testing in breast cancer patients with a lower level of education, limited health literacy or a migrant background. We aimed to study the effect of a health literacy training program for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses on disparities in referral to genetic testing.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter study in a quasi-experimental pre-post (intervention) design. The intervention consisted of an online module and a group training for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses in three regions in the Netherlands. Six months pre- and 12 months post intervention, clinical geneticists completed a checklist with socio-demographic characteristics including the level of health literacy of each referred patient. We conducted univariate and logistic regression analysis to evaluate the effect of the training program on disparities in referral to genetic testing.

Results

In total, 3179 checklists were completed, of which 1695 were from hospital referrals. No significant differences were found in educational level, level of health literacy and migrant background of patients referred for genetic testing by healthcare professionals working in trained hospitals before (n = 795) and after (n = 409) the intervention. The mean age of patients referred by healthcare professionals from trained hospitals was significantly lower after the intervention (52.0 vs. 49.8, P = 0.003).

Conclusion

The results of our study suggest that the health literacy training program did not decrease disparities in referral to genetic testing. Future research in a more controlled design is needed to better understand how socio-demographic factors influence referral to breast cancer genetic testing and what other factors might contribute.

•

Study on the effect of a health literacy training on access to breast cancer genetic testing.

•

Background characteristics of breast cancer patients pre- and post-intervention are compared.

•

Mean age of patients referred by trained hospitals was significantly lower after intervention.

•

The health literacy training did not decrease disparities in referral to genetic testing.

A Retrospective Analysis of the Relationship Between the Result of BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing and Surgical Method Selection in Japan

BACKGROUND

We studied the extent of BRCA1/2 genetic testing to help select the surgical approach for patients with breast cancer in Japan remains unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study subjects were female patients with primary unilateral invasive breast cancer considered as candidates for breast-conserving surgery who underwent preoperative BRCA1/2 genetic testing. A retrospective analysis was performed on the results of BRCA1/2 genetic testing and surgical method selection using national registration data from the Japanese Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome Consortium.

RESULTS

Our study included 318 female patients. Among these patients, 23.7% of patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and 61.8% of patients without these variants underwent breast-conserving surgery (P < .01). Among the patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, those who chose breast-conserving surgery tended not to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (P < .05). Among the patients with BRCA1/2 mutations who underwent mastectomy for the affected side, 31.8% received contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Patients diagnosed with breast cancer under the age of 50 years were more likely to have contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy than patients over the age 50 years (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations tend to choose mastectomy. However, it is speculated that the final surgical method selection is made in consideration of not only the test results but also with careful consideration of the patient, taking into account other factors including individual values for risk-reducing surgeries and the age of breast cancer onset.

Understanding breast cancer survivors' information-seeking behaviours and overall experiences: a comparison of themes derived from social media posts and focus groups

OBJECTIVE

Using two different analysis techniques, this study explored differences and similarities in information-seeking discourse and overall breast cancer experiences between posters to a Reddit board and breast cancer survivor focus groups.

DESIGN

This study incorporates two qualitative methods for determining themes in breast cancer survivors' information-seeking behaviours and overall cancer experiences. First, posts from a breast cancer-specific Reddit community were extracted and analysed using the meaning extraction method (MEM) to determine core themes. Then, investigators performed a thematic analysis of two focus groups of breast cancer survivors (N = 18). Finally, themes derived from each analysis method were compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures include themes extracted from Reddit posts and themes generated from breast cancer survivor focus groups.

RESULTS

Findings between qualitative methodologies represent similar yet nuanced themes in survivors' discourse. The MEM resulted in seven themes: diagnosis, treatment process, social support, existentialism, risk, information-seeking and surgery. Focus groups revealed the same initial four MEM themes plus the following: disclosure, coping and fears.

CONCLUSIONS

The MEM is a cost-effective research mechanism for informing common themes of experiences of cancer patients and survivors and may offer initial data to guide psychosocial oncology research design and recruitment.

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.

Cancer-related distress in unselected women with newly diagnosed breast or ovarian cancer undergoing BRCA1/2 testing without pretest genetic counseling

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing is increasing in patients newly diagnosed with cancer. This study investigated the levels, course and predictors of cancer-related distress, defined as intrusion and avoidance, in women undergoing BRCA1/2 testing without pretest genetic counseling shortly after a diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Unselected for family history or age, 259 women with breast cancer and 50 women with ovarian cancer, underwent BRCA1/2 testing shortly after diagnosis. Cancer-related distress was measured with the Impact of Event Scale before and after genetic testing. In order to identify predictors of distress, the subscale scores were regressed on baseline predictor variables including sociodemographic and medical variables, perceived social support, and decisional conflict regarding genetic testing.

RESULTS

The mean levels of intrusion and avoidance were in the moderate range both before and after genetic testing with a statistically significant decline during follow-up. Younger age, shorter time since diagnosis, lower levels of social support, and a diagnosis of ovarian cancer predicted higher levels of both intrusion and avoidance. In addition, higher levels of decisional conflict and living with a partner predicted higher levels of intrusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Women having genetic testing shortly after a diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer had a moderate mean level of cancer-related distress, which decreased with time. Health personnel offering genetic testing to newly diagnosed women with breast or ovarian cancer should be aware of the potential predictors for increased cancer-related distress identified in this study: younger age, less perceived social support, higher levels of decisional conflict regarding genetic testing, and living with a partner.

Communication about genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients: a scoping review

Genetic testing of patients with cancer is increasingly offered to guide management, resulting in a growing need for oncology health professionals to communicate genetics information and facilitate informed decision-making in a short time frame. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesise what is known about health professionals’ communication about genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer with cancer patients. Four databases were systematically searched using a recognised scoping review method. Areas and types of research were mapped and a narrative synthesis of the findings was undertaken. Twenty-nine papers from 25 studies were included. Studies were identified about (i) information needs, (ii) process and content of genetic counselling, (iii) cognitive and emotional impact, including risk perception and recall, understanding and interpretation of genetic test results, and anxiety and distress, (iv) patients’ experiences, (v) communication shortly after diagnosis and (vi) alternatives to face-to-face genetic counselling. Patients’ need for cancer-focused, personalised information is not always met by genetic counselling. Genetic counselling tends to focus on biomedical information at the expense of psychological support. For most patients, knowledge is increased and anxiety is not raised by pre-test communication. However, some patients experience anxiety and distress when results are disclosed, particularly those tested shortly after diagnosis who are unprepared or unsupported. For many patients, pre-test communication by methods other than face-to-face genetic counselling is acceptable. Research is needed to identify patients who may benefit from genetic counselling and support and to investigate communication about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer by oncology health professionals.

Randomized trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling versus usual care for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Breast cancer patients who carry BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutations may consider bilateral mastectomy. Having bilateral mastectomy at the time of diagnosis not only reduces risk of a contralateral breast cancer, but can eliminate the need for radiation therapy and yield improved reconstruction options. However, most patients do not receive genetic counseling or testing at the time of their diagnosis. In this trial, we tested proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in order to facilitate pre-surgical genetic counseling and testing.

METHODS

We recruited newly diagnosed breast cancer patients at increased risk for carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation. Of 379 eligible patients who completed a baseline survey, 330 agreed to randomization in a 2:1 ratio to RGCT (n = 220) versus UC (n = 108). Primary outcomes were genetic counseling and testing uptake and breast cancer surgical decisions.

RESULTS

RGCT led to higher overall (83.8% vs. 54.6%; p < 0.0001) and pre-surgical (57.8% vs. 38.7%; p = 0.001) genetic counseling uptake compared to UC. Despite higher rates of genetic counseling, RGCT did not differ from UC in overall (54.1% vs. 49.1%, p > 0.10) or pre-surgical (30.6% vs. 27.4%, p > 0.10) receipt of genetic test results nor did they differ in uptake of bilateral mastectomy (26.6% vs. 21.8%, p > 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Although RGCT yielded increased genetic counseling participation, this did not result in increased rates of pre-surgical genetic testing or impact surgical decisions. These data suggest that those patients most likely to opt for genetic testing at the time of diagnosis are being effectively identified by their surgeons.

Patients' Views of Treatment-Focused Genetic Testing (TFGT): Some Lessons for the Mainstreaming of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing

This paper explores patients' views and experiences of undergoing treatment-focused BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing (TFGT), either offered following triaging to clinical genetics (breast cancer) or as part of a mainstreamed care pathway in oncology (ovarian cancer). Drawing on 26 in-depth interviews with patients with breast or ovarian cancer who had undergone TFGT, this retrospective study examines patients' views of genetic testing at this point in their care pathway, focusing on issues, such as initial response to the offer of testing, motivations for undergoing testing, and views on care pathways. Patients were amenable to the incorporation of TFGT at an early stage in their cancer care irrespective of (any) prior anticipation of having a genetic test or family history. While patients were glad to have been offered TFGT as part of their care, some questioned the logic of the test's timing in relation to their cancer treatment. Crucially, patients appeared unable to disentangle the treatment role of TFGT from its preventative function for self and other family members, suggesting that some may undergo TFGT to obtain information for others rather than for self.