Psychological distress related to BRCA testing in ovarian cancer patients

Patients' Perceptions and Attitudes to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Narrative Review

Breast cancer remains the most prevalent cancer among women worldwide, necessitating advancements in diagnostic methods. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into mammography has shown promise in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. However, understanding patient perspectives, particularly considering the psychological impact of breast cancer diagnoses, is crucial. This narrative review synthesizes literature from 2000 to 2023 to examine breast cancer patients' attitudes towards AI in breast imaging, focusing on trust, acceptance, and demographic influences on these views. Methodologically, we employed a systematic literature search across databases such as PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Scopus, selecting studies that provided insights into patients' perceptions of AI in diagnostics. Our review included a sample of seven key studies after rigorous screening, reflecting varied patient trust and acceptance levels towards AI. Overall, we found a clear preference among patients for AI to augment rather than replace the diagnostic process, emphasizing the necessity of radiologists' expertise in conjunction with AI to enhance decision-making accuracy. This paper highlights the importance of aligning AI implementation in clinical settings with patient needs and expectations, emphasizing the need for human interaction in healthcare. Our findings advocate for a model where AI augments the diagnostic process, underlining the necessity for educational efforts to mitigate concerns and enhance patient trust in AI-enhanced diagnostics.

Mainstream genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer provides a solid basis for patients to make a well-informed decision about genetic testing

BACKGROUND

There is a growing need for genetic testing of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. Mainstream genetic testing provides an alternative care pathway in which non-genetic healthcare professionals offer pre-test counseling themselves. We aimed to explore the impact of mainstream genetic testing on patients' experiences, turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol.

METHODS

Patients receiving pre-test counseling at the gynecology departments between April 2018 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our intervention group. Patients receiving pre-test counseling at the genetics department between January 2017 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our control group. We evaluated patients' experiences with questionnaires, consisting of questions regarding knowledge, satisfaction and psychosocial outcomes. Patients in the intervention group were sent two questionnaires: one after pre-test counseling and one after receiving their DNA test result. Patients in our control group were sent one questionnaire after receiving their test result. In addition, we collected data regarding turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol.

RESULTS

Participation was 79% in our intervention group (105 out of 133 patients) and 60% in our control group (91 out of 152 patients). Knowledge regarding genetics, decisional conflict, depression, anxiety, and distress were comparable in the two groups. In the intervention group, the risk of breast cancer in patients carrying a pathogenic germline variant was discussed less often (49% versus 74% in control group, p ≤ 0.05), and the mean score of regret about the decision to have genetic testing was higher than in the control group (mean 12.9 in the intervention group versus 9.7 in the control group, p ≤ 0.05), although below the clinically relevant threshold of 25. A consent form for the DNA test and a checklist to assess family history were present for ≥ 95% of patients in the intervention group.

CONCLUSION

Mainstream genetic testing is an acceptable approach to meet the increase in genetic testing among women with epithelial ovarian cancer.

Reflex BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumour genetic testing for high-grade serous ovarian cancer: streamlined for clinicians but what do patients think?

BACKGROUND

Reflex (automatic) BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic testing of tumour tissue is being completed for all newly diagnosed high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) in the province of Ontario, Canada. The objective of this study was to measure the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing among individuals with a new diagnosis of HGSOC.

METHODS

Participants had a new diagnosis of HGSOC and received reflex BRCA1/2 tumour genetic testing as a component of their care. Eligible individuals were recruited from two oncology centres in Toronto, Canada. One week after disclosure of tumour genetic test results, consenting participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that measured cancer-related distress, dispositional optimism, knowledge of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer, recall of tumour genetic test results, satisfaction, and the psychological impact of receiving tumour genetic test results. The Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire was used to measure the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing.

RESULTS

76 individuals completed the study survey; 13 said they did not receive their tumour test results. Of the remaining 63 participants, the average MICRA score was 26.8 (SD = 16.3). Higher total MICRA scores were seen among those with children (p = 0.02), who received treatment with primary surgery (p = 0.02), and had higher reported cancer-related distress (p < 0.001). Higher dispositional optimism (p < 0.001) and increasing age (p = 0.03) were associated with lower total MICRA scores. Most (83.5%) participants reported being satisfied/highly satisfied with having tumour testing completed; however, 40.8% could not accurately recall their tumor test results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to assess psychological outcomes following reflex BRCA1/2 tumour genetic testing in women newly diagnosed with HGSOC. Increased dispositional optimism provided a protective effect, while increased cancer-related distress increased the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing. Educational resources are needed to help increase patient understanding and recall of tumour results, particularly when tumour genetic testing includes analysis of genes that may have implications for hereditary cancer risk. Additional research is required to better understand the patient experience of reflex tumour genetic testing.

Novel Interactive Tool for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment (Bright Pink Assess Your Risk): Development and Usability Study

Background

The lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer is significantly higher among women with genetic susceptibility or a strong family history. However, current risk assessment tools and clinical practices may identify only 10% of asymptomatic carriers of susceptibility genes. Bright Pink developed the Assess Your Risk (AYR) tool to estimate breast and ovarian cancer risk through a user-friendly, informative web-based quiz for risk assessment at the population level.

Objective

This study aims to present the AYR tool, describe AYR users, and present evidence that AYR works as expected by comparing classification using the AYR tool with gold standard genetic testing guidelines.

Methods

The AYR is a recently developed population-level risk assessment tool that includes 26 questions based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and factors from other commonly used risk assessment tools. We included all women who completed the AYR between November 2018 and January 2019, with the exception of self-reported cancer or no knowledge of family history. We compared AYR classifications with those that were independently created using NCCN criteria using measures of validity and the McNemar test.

Results

There were 143,657 AYR completions, and most participants were either at increased or average risk for breast cancer or ovarian cancer (137,315/143,657, 95.59%). Using our estimates of increased and average risk as the gold standard, based on the NCCN guidelines, we estimated the sensitivity and specificity for the AYR algorithm–generated risk categories as 100% and 89.9%, respectively (P<.001). The specificity improved when we considered the additional questions asked by the AYR to define increased risk, which were not examined by the NCCN criteria. By race, ethnicity, and age group; we found that the lowest observed specificity was for the Asian race (85.9%) and the 30 to 39 years age group (87.6%) for the AYR-generated categories compared with the NCCN criteria.

Conclusions

These results demonstrate that Bright Pink’s AYR is an accurate tool for use by the general population to identify women at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. We plan to validate the tool longitudinally in future studies, including the impact of race, ethnicity, and age on breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment.

Psychosocial outcomes following germline multigene panel testing in an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the psychological outcomes of germline multigene panel testing, particularly among diverse patients and those with moderate-risk pathogenic variants (PVs).

METHODS

Study participants (N = 1264) were counseled and tested with a 25- or 28-gene panel and completed a 3-month postresult survey including the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA).

RESULTS

The mean age was 52 years, 80% were female, and 70% had cancer; 45% were non-Hispanic White, 37% were Hispanic, 10% were Asian, 3% were Black, and 5% had another race/ethnicity. Approximately 28% had a high school education or less, and 23% were non-English-speaking. The genetic test results were as follows: 7% had a high-risk PV, 6% had a moderate-risk PV, 35% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 52% were negative. Most participants (92%) had a total MICRA score ≤ 38, which corresponded to a mean response of "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacting negatively to results. A multivariate analysis found that mean total MICRA scores were significantly higher (more uncertainty/distress) among high- and moderate-risk PV carriers (29.7 and 24.8, respectively) than those with a VUS or negative results (17.4 and 16.1, respectively). Having cancer or less education was associated with a significantly higher total MICRA score; race/ethnicity was not associated with the total MICRA score. High- and moderate-risk PV carriers did not differ significantly from one another in the total MICRA score, uncertainty, distress, or positive experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

In a diverse population undergoing genetic counseling and multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, the psychological response corresponded to test results and showed low distress and uncertainty. Further studies are needed to assess patient understanding and subsequent cancer screening among patients from diverse backgrounds.

LAY SUMMARY

Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer have become widespread despite concerns about adverse psychological reactions among carriers of moderate-risk pathogenic variants (mutations) and among carriers of variants of uncertain significance. This large study of an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients undergoing panel testing found that 92% "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacted negatively to results. Somewhat higher uncertainty and distress were identified among carriers of high- and moderate-risk pathogenic variants, and lower levels were identified among those with a variant of uncertain significance or a negative result. Although the psychological response corresponded to risk, reactions to testing were favorable, regardless of results.

A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Consent for Genetic Testing Using an Oncologist- or Genetic Counselor-Mediated Model of Care

Simple Summary

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk is usually arranged by a genetic counselor after talking about possible risks and benefits. To increase access to genetic testing, oncologists have started to order genetic testing. This survey study compared patient outcomes following genetic testing ordered by a genetic counselor or an oncologist. Genetic counselor-mediated genetic testing was associated with higher patient knowledge, as well as higher experience and understanding of genetic testing. Differences were noted in the type of psychological concerns reported, with individuals having genetic counselor-mediated testing being more likely to express concerns about having a hereditary cancer predisposition and those having oncologist-mediated testing more likely to express concerns regarding general emotions. Overall, oncologist-mediated genetic testing appears to provide a streamlined alternative to genetic testing; however, all individuals may benefit from post-test genetic counseling to address any knowledge gaps and provide additional psychological support.

Abstract

This study compares knowledge, experience and understanding of genetic testing, and psychological outcomes among breast and ovarian cancer patients undergoing multi-gene panel testing via genetic counselor-mediated (GMT) or oncologist-mediated (OMT) testing models. A pragmatic, prospective survey of breast and ovarian cancer patients pursuing genetic testing between January 2017 and August 2019 was conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada. A total of 120 (80 GMT; 40 OMT) individuals completed a survey administered one week following consent to genetic testing. Compared to OMT, the GMT cohort had higher median knowledge (8 vs. 9; p = 0.025) and experience/understanding scores (8.5 vs. 10; p < 0.001) at the time of genetic testing. Significant differences were noted in the potential psychological concerns experienced, with individuals in the GMT cohort more likely to screen positive in the hereditary predisposition domain of the Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer tool (55% vs. 27.5%; p = 0.005), and individuals in the OMT cohort more likely to screen positive in the general emotions domain (65.0% vs. 38.8%; p = 0.007). The results of this study suggest that OMT can be implemented to streamline genetic testing; however, post-test genetic counseling should remain available to all individuals undergoing genetic testing, to ensure any psychologic concerns are addressed and that individuals have a clear understanding of relevant implications and limitations of their test results.

Knowledge and psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing among individuals with ovarian cancer

In a sample of individuals with ovarian cancer, we aimed to (a) identify factors associated with the psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing, (b) identify factors associated with cancer genetics knowledge, and (c) summarize patient-reported recommendations to improve the genetic counseling and multigene panel testing process. Eligible participants in this secondary analysis of quantitative and qualitative survey data were English-speaking adults with ovarian cancer. Psychosocial impact was assessed using the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Knowledge of cancer genetics was assessed using the KnowGene scale. Significant predictors of MICRA and KnowGene scores were identified using multiple regression. Open-ended survey item responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Eighty-seven participants met eligibility criteria. A positive genetic test result was associated with greater adverse psychosocial impact (B = 1.13, p = 0.002). Older age (B = - 0.07, p = 0.044) and being a member of a minority racial or ethnic group (B = - 3.075, p = 0.033) were associated with lower knowledge, while a personal history of at least one other type of cancer (B = 1.975, p = 0.015) was associated with higher knowledge. In open-ended item responses, participants wanted clinicians to assist with family communication, improve result disclosure, and enhance patient and family understanding of results. A subset of individuals with ovarian cancer who receive a positive genetic test result may be at risk for adverse psychosocial outcomes. Tailored cancer genetics education is necessary to promote the equitable uptake of targeted ovarian cancer treatment and risk-reducing therapies. Interventions to enhance patient-clinician communication in this setting are a research priority.

Outcomes of genetic test disclosure and genetic counseling in a large Parkinson's disease research study

Genetic testing for Parkinson's disease (PD) is growing as interventional clinical trials begin to enroll participants with PD who carry pathogenic variants in the LRRK2 or GBA genes. However, the impact of receiving genetic test results and the satisfaction with receiving genetic counseling among PD populations have not yet been studied. The purpose of this study was to evaluate (1) the psychological impact of genetic testing for PD and (2) satisfaction with genetic counseling. Surveyed participants (N = 875) were individuals with PD or at risk of developing PD, initially recruited for the Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative (PPMI) study and currently enrolled in the Widespread Recruitment Initiative (WRI) at Indiana University. Individuals were surveyed following genetic test disclosure and genetic counseling regarding results from targeted testing for pathogenic variants in the LRRK2 and GBA genes. Participants were surveyed via two tools: a modified version of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment Survey (M-MICRA), which measured the psychological impact of genetic testing and the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Survey (GCSS). Participants were divided into affected/unaffected and variant positive/negative groups for subset analyses. The majority of participants had favorable M-MICRA scores and were satisfied with the disclosure of the genetic test results and genetic counseling for PD. However, participants with PD and those with pathogenic variants had less favorable M-MICRA scores and lower satisfaction scores compared to those without disease or pathogenic variants. This information is valuable to providers performing genetic testing of and genetic counseling to people and families affected with PD. Individuals with PD and individuals with pathogenic variants may benefit from additional interventions.

Psychometric Properties of the MICRA Questionnaire in Portuguese Individuals Carrying SDHx Mutations

This study aims to present the translation and cultural adaptation, as well as the psychometric characteristics of the Portuguese version of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire in individuals with SDHx mutations. The questionnaire was translated and culturally adapted in accordance with the process recommended by the World Health Organization. As per suggestion of the authors of the original instrument, a joint, universal European and Brazilian Portuguese version of the MICRA was created. Ninety-six (asymptomatic or affected) patients with SDHx mutations nationwide completed the adapted version of the MICRA in Portugal. Analyses consisted of confirmatory factor analysis, reliability estimation (alphas), and correlations with two other distress and quality of life instruments. The Portuguese adaptation of the MICRA was understandable to patients from various socioeconomic backgrounds. All items and factor structure of the original version were retained, yielding a good model fit. The MICRA's three subscales and total score showed good internal consistency, and the correlations found between the Portuguese version of the MICRA and the other instruments assessing similar constructs further supported its validity. The adapted version of the MICRA showed good psychometric properties with a representative population of SDHx mutation carriers. This instrument can now be used to study the multidimensional impact of taking a genetic test for these mutations. It can also be used in future studies with other Portuguese populations of patients submitted to genetic tests for cancer risk assessment.

Psychosocial problems in women attending French, German and Spanish genetics clinics before and after targeted or multigene testing results: an observational prospective study

OBJECTIVES AND SETTING

Advances in multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility has increased the complexity of counselling, requiring particular attention to counselees' psychosocial needs. Changes in psychosocial problems before and after genetic testing were prospectively compared between genetic test results in women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic susceptibility in French, German and Spanish clinics.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES

Among 752 counselees consecutively approached, 646 (86%) were assessed after the initial genetic consultation (T1), including 510 (68%) affected with breast cancer, of which 460 (61%) were assessed again after receiving the test result (T2), using questionnaires addressing genetic-specific psychosocial problems (Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer (PAHC)-six scales). Sociodemographic and clinical data were also collected.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine (17.2%), 19 (4.1%), 259 (56.3%), 44 (9.6%) and 59 (12.8%) women received a BRCA1/2, another high/moderate-risk pathogenic variant (PV), negative uninformative, true negative (TN) or variant of uncertain significance result (VUS), respectively. On multiple regression analyses, compared with women receiving another result, those with a VUS decreased more in psychosocial problems related to hereditary predisposition (eg, coping with the test result) (ß=-0.11, p<0.05) and familial/social issues (eg, risk communication) (ß=-0.13, p<0.05), almost independently from their problems before testing. Women with a PV presented no change in hereditary predisposition problems and, so as women with a TN result, a non-significant increase in familial/social issues. Other PAHC scales (ie, emotions, familial cancer, personal cancer and children-related issues) were not affected by genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic risk in European genetics clinics, psychosocial problems were mostly unaffected by genetic testing. Apart from women receiving a VUS result, those with another test result presented unchanged needs in counselling in particular about hereditary predisposition and familial/social issues.

Psychological aspects, risk and protective factors related to BRCA genetic testing: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

The primary aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of short-, intermediate- and long-term psychological effects, such as anxiety, depression and distress, on individuals undergoing genetic testing to determine BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation. The different instruments used for the measurement of each construct were reported. In addition, risk and protective factors associated with psychological outcomes of genetic tests were explored.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases were searched for studies published over the period 1998-2018. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method, 21 articles were selected for the current review.

RESULTS

Overall, the collected data revealed rather diverse results, although most studies reported higher levels of distress, anxiety and depression in carriers, as compared to non-carriers. The two genders were not equally represented, with men constituting only 6% of the sample. Risk factors and protective factors that may influence psychological outcomes and adjustment to genetic tests are highlighted and discussed in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased risk of developing cancer associated with positive genetic testing results may be experienced as traumatic by many patients, although not all individuals with positive genetic testing results will experience increased distress. Hence, future studies should consider specific risk factors in order to select those who are more likely to be in need of psychological support. Finally, it is necessary to increase the number of male samples to better understand the male experience related to genetic testing outcomes.

Genetic counseling of patients with ovarian carcinoma: acceptance, timing, and psychological wellbeing

The new Dutch guidelines on hereditary and familial ovarian carcinoma recommend genetic testing of all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). With this study, we aimed to obtain insight into (1) the acceptance and timing of the offer of genetic counseling in women with EOC, (2) reasons for accepting or declining genetic counseling, and (3) psychological differences between women who did and did not have genetic counseling. A multicenter questionnaire survey was performed in patients with EOC in four Dutch oncology centers. The questionnaire addressed whether, how, and when genetic counseling was offered, women’s arguments to accept or decline genetic counseling, and included the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). A total of 67 women completed the questionnaire, of which 43 had genetic counseling. Despite a wide variability in the timing of the offer of genetic counseling, 89% of the women were satisfied with the timing. No significant differences were found between the CWS and HADS scores for the timing of the offer of genetic counseling and whether or not women had genetic counseling. Taking the small sample size into account, the results tentatively suggest that genetic counseling may have limited impact on the psychosocial wellbeing of women with EOC. Therefore, we assume that implementation of the new guidelines offering genetic counseling to all patients with EOC will not cause considerable additional burden to these patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A narrative overview of the patients' outcomes after multigene cancer panel testing, and a thorough evaluation of its implications for genetic counselling

Massively parallel sequencing is being implemented in clinical practice through the use of multigene panel testing, whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing. In this manuscript we explore how the use of massively parallel sequencing, and in particular multigene cancer panel testing, is potentially changing the process of genetic counselling and how patients cope with pre-test genetic counselling and results. We found that the main challenges are around uncertainty, hopes and expectations and the amount and complexity of information that needs to be discussed. This may impact the process of genetic counselling, although genetic counsellors can still use their core skills and enhance some of them in order to evolve and meet patients' needs in the genomics era. Available data suggests that patients can cope with multigene cancer panels although more research is needed to fully understand the psychosocial implications of multigene cancer panels for patients, especially for those who have variants of unknown significance or moderate penetrance variants. Research is also needed to explore and develop communication models that maximize patients' understanding and empower them to make informed decisions.

Distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences associated with receiving information on personal genomic risk of melanoma

The aim of this research was to understand how genomics-based personal melanoma risk information impacts psychological and emotional health outcomes in the general population. In a pilot randomized controlled trial, participants (n = 103) completed the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire, 3 months after receiving personal melanoma genomic risk information. Mean scores for MICRA items and subscales were stratified by genomic risk group (low, average, high), gender, education, age, and family history of melanoma. P values were obtained from t-tests and analysis of variance tests. We found that overall, participants (mean age: 53 years, range: 21-69; 52% female) had a total MICRA mean score of 18.6 (standard deviation: 11.1, range: 1-70; possible range: 0-105). The high genomic risk group had higher mean scores for the total (24.2, F_2,100 = 6.7, P = 0.0019), distress (3.3, F_2,100 = 9.4, P = 0.0002) and uncertainty (8.5, F_2,100 = 6.5, P = 0.0021) subscales compared with average (17.6, 1.1, and 4.5, respectively) and low-risk groups (14.1, 0.5, and 2.5, respectively). Positive experiences scores were consistent across risk groups. In conclusion, MICRA scores for the total, distress and uncertainty subscales in our study were relatively low overall, but people who receive a high genomic risk result may benefit from increased support following testing.

Psychological impact of multigene cancer panel testing in patients with a clinical suspicion of hereditary cancer across Spain

OBJECTIVE

Patients' psychological reactions to multigene cancer panel testing might differ compared with the single-gene testing reactions because of the complexity and uncertainty associated with the different possible results. Understanding patients' preferences and psychological impact of multigene panel testing is important to adapt the genetic counselling model.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-seven unrelated patients with clinical suspicion of hereditary cancer undergoing a 25-gene panel test completed questionnaires after pretest genetic counselling and at 1 week, 3 months, and 12 months after results to elicit their preferences regarding results disclosure and to measure their cancer worry and testing-specific distress and uncertainty.

RESULTS

A pathogenic variant was identified in 38 patients (34 high penetrance and 4 moderate penetrance variants), and 54 patients had at least one variant of uncertain significance. Overall, cancer panel testing was not associated with an increase in cancer worry after results disclosure (P value = .87). Twelve months after results, carriers of a moderate penetrance variant had higher distress and uncertainty scores compared with carriers of high penetrance variants. Cancer worry prior to genetic testing predicted genetic testing specific distress after results, especially at long term (P value <.001). Most of the patients reported the wish to know all genetic results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that patients can psychologically cope with cancer panel testing, but distress and uncertainty observed in carriers of moderate penetrance cancer variants in this cohort warrant further research.

Patient-Centered Care in Breast Cancer Genetic Clinics

With advances in breast cancer (BC) gene panel testing, risk counseling has become increasingly complex, potentially leading to unmet psychosocial needs. We assessed psychosocial needs and correlates in women initiating testing for high genetic BC risk in clinics in France and Germany, and compared these results with data from a literature review. Among the 442 counselees consecutively approached, 212 (83%) in France and 180 (97%) in Germany, mostly BC patients (81% and 92%, respectively), returned the ‘Psychosocial Assessment in Hereditary Cancer’ questionnaire. Based on the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) BC risk estimation model, the mean BC lifetime risk estimates were 19% and 18% in France and Germany, respectively. In both countries, the most prevalent needs clustered around the “living with cancer” and “children-related issues” domains. In multivariate analyses, a higher number of psychosocial needs were significantly associated with younger age (b = −0.05), higher anxiety (b = 0.78), and having children (b = 1.51), but not with country, educational level, marital status, depression, or loss of a family member due to hereditary cancer. These results are in line with the literature review data. However, this review identified only seven studies that quantitatively addressed psychosocial needs in the BC genetic counseling setting. Current data lack understandings of how cancer risk counseling affects psychosocial needs, and improves patient-centered care in that setting.

Impact of Panel Gene Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer on Patients

Recent advances in next generation sequencing have enabled panel gene testing, or simultaneous testing for mutations in multiple genes for a clinical condition. With more extensive and widespread genetic testing, there will be increased detection of genes with moderate penetrance without established clinical guidelines and of variants of uncertain significance (VUS), or genetic variants unknown to either be disease-causing or benign. This study surveyed 232 patients who underwent genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to examine the impact of panel gene testing on psychological outcomes, patient understanding, and utilization of genetic information. The survey used standardized instruments including the Impact of Event Scale (IES), Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA), Satisfaction with Decision Instrument (SWD), Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (AT-20), genetics knowledge, and utilization of genetic test results. Study results suggested that unaffected individuals with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer who received positive results were most significantly impacted by intrusive thoughts, avoidance, and distress. However, scores were also modestly elevated among unaffected patients with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer who received VUS, highlighting the impact of ambiguous results that are frequent among patients undergoing genetic testing with large panels of genes. Potential risk factors for increased genetic testing-specific distress in this study included younger age, black or African American race, Hispanic origin, lower education level, and lower genetic knowledge and highlight the need for developing strategies to provide effective counseling and education to these communities, particularly when genetic testing utilizes gene panels that more commonly return VUS. More detailed pre-test education and counseling may help patients appreciate the probability of various types of test results and how results would be used clinically, and allow them to make more informed decisions about the type of genetic testing to select.

Effect of decision aid for breast cancer prevention on decisional conflict in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: a multisite, randomized, controlled trial

PURPOSE

Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at high risk for breast cancer and must make important decisions about breast cancer prevention and screening. In the current study, we report a multisite, randomized, controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a decision aid for breast cancer prevention in women with a BRCA mutation with no previous diagnosis of cancer.

METHODS

Within 1 month of receiving a positive BRCA result, women were randomized to receive either usual care (control group) or decision aid (intervention group). Participants were followed at 3, 6, and 12 months; were asked about preventive measures; and completed standardized questionnaires assessing decision making and psychosocial functioning.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty women were randomized. Mean cancer-related distress scores were significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group at 6 months (P = 0.01) and at 12 months postrandomization (P = 0.05). Decisional conflict scores declined over time for both groups and at no time were there statistical differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The decision aid for breast cancer prevention in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation is effective in significantly decreasing cancer-related distress within the year following receipt of positive genetic test results.Genet Med 19 3, 330-336.