Supporting disclosure of genetic information to family members: professional practice and timelines in cancer genetics

The Communication Chain of Genetic Risk: Analyses of Narrative Data Exploring Proband–Provider and Proband–Family Communication in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Low uptake of genetic services among members of families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) suggests limitations of proband-mediated communication of genetic risk. This study explored how genetic information proceeds from healthcare providers to probands and from probands to relatives, from the probands’ perspectives. Using a grounded-theory approach, we analyzed narrative data collected with individual interviews and focus groups from a sample of 48 women identified as carriers of HBOC-associated pathogenic variants from three linguistic regions of Switzerland. The findings describe the “communication chain”, confirming the difficulties of proband-mediated communication. Provider–proband communication is impacted by a three-level complexity in the way information about family communication is approached by providers, received by probands, and followed-up by the healthcare system. Probands’ decisions regarding disclosure of genetic risk are governed by dynamic and often contradictory logics of action, interconnected with individual and family characteristics, eventually compelling probands to engage in an arbitrating process. The findings highlight the relevance of probands’ involvement in the communication of genetic risk to relatives, suggesting the need to support them in navigating the complexity of family communication rather than replacing them in this process. Concrete actions at the clinical and health system levels are needed to improve proband-mediated communication.

Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease

Advances in genetic diagnostics lead to more patients being diagnosed with hereditary conditions. These findings are often relevant to patients' relatives. For example, the success of targeted cancer prevention is dependent on effective disclosure to relatives at risk. Without clear information, individuals cannot take advantage of predictive testing and preventive measures. Against this background, we argue that healthcare professionals have a duty to make actionable genetic information available to their patients' at-risk relatives. We do not try to settle the difficult question of how this duty should be balanced against other duties, such as the duty of confidentiality and a possible duty not to know one's genetic predisposition. Instead, we argue for the importance of recognising a general responsibility towards at-risk relatives, to be discharged as well as possible within the limits set by conflicting duties and practical considerations. According to a traditional and still dominant perspective, it is the patient's duty to inform his or her relatives, while healthcare professionals are only obliged to support their patients in discharging this duty. We argue that this perspective is a mistake and an anomaly. Healthcare professionals do not have a duty to ensure that their patients promote the health of third parties. It is often effective and desirable to engage patients in disseminating information to their relatives. However, healthcare professionals should not thereby deflect their own moral responsibility.

The ethical implications of genetic testing in neurodegenerative diseases: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Availability of genetic testing in neurodegenerative disorders has developed rapidly. This growing ability is providing specific genetic information to individuals and, in turn, their families, raising ethical concerns. However, family members' perspective is a seldom-studied phenomenon.

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to describe the ethical aspect of genetic testing in neurodegenerative diseases from the perspective of at-risk family members.

METHOD

A systematic review of data was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The data search was conducted using the CINAHL, PubMed and Scopus databases to identify original peer-reviewed studies published between January 2009 and April 2019. A total of 24 articles were selected. The data were analysed using inductive content analysis.

FINDINGS

On the basis of the analysis, four central ethical implications were identified: (i) decision-making in genetic testing as a dilemma: balance between autonomy and responsibility, (ii) the individual's right to make a voluntary and informed decision for genetic testing, (iii) conflicting emotions after knowing one's genetic status and (iv) privacy and confidentiality of genetic information: the fear of genetic discrimination and stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review increase understanding about the central ethical implications of genetic testing in neurodegenerative diseases from the perspective of family members, and identify and underline outstanding needs for further research.

Family genetic result communication in rare and undiagnosed disease communities: Understanding the practice

Genetic results have implications not only for the individual, but also for their family members. Research on family communication of genetic results has primarily focused on families affected by adult-onset, dominant conditions as well as more common genetic conditions such as familial hypercholesterolemia, cardiomyopathies, and genetic hearing loss. This study therefore aimed to characterize genetic result communication in families with rare and undiagnosed conditions and identify factors that influence communication. One hundred and forty-two individuals who received a diagnosis from the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN), a study focused on providing diagnoses to individuals with undiagnosed conditions, were eligible to complete a survey assessing genetic results communication. Survey items assessed if communication was discussed with healthcare providers, with whom participants communicated genetic testing, why they chose to communicate with these family members, and what information they communicated. All respondents (5 adult UDN participants, 38 parents/guardians of UDN participants, and 2 identifying as both) shared genetic results with at least one family member. Individuals who identified as both were considered exclusively adult participants for the purpose of these analyses. Adult participants and parents/guardians of participants reported high levels of understanding (96%), utility (96%), and comfort communicating genetic results (89%). Additionally, parents/guardians were more likely to disclose genetic results due to a general desire to share (60% of parents/guardians vs. 14% adult participants), while adult participants reported that they shared results to communicate risk to family members (86% of adult participants vs. 24% of parents/guardians). Many respondents did not recall discussing with a healthcare provider how (64%) or what (42%) to communicate about results. The results of this study provide insight into the practice of result communication by individuals with rare and previously undiagnosed conditions, which can ideally inform development of more effective counseling strategies and guidelines to aid family communication.

From Probands to Relatives: Communication of Genetic Risk for Hereditary Breast-Ovarian Cancer and Its Influence on Subsequent Testing

BACKGROUND

The genetic risk communication from proband to relatives varies from family to family, and patients often need support with the communication of genetic test results and making decisions to manage hereditary cancer risks.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to characterize the communication of BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic risk from proband to first-degree relatives (FDRs) using a social network framework.

METHODS

We characterized network and nonnetwork factors to explore their association with which FDRs were told about the genetic risk and whether or not relatives underwent genetic testing. Ninety-two female probands with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer who have confirmed BRCA1/2 mutations participated in the study. Communication of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk was assessed between 92 probands and their 417 FDRs.

RESULTS

Of 92 probands, 94.5% (n = 87) communicated their genetic test result to at least one of their FDRs. Of FDRs older than 18 years, 19.9% (n = 72) have genetic testing. Emotional closeness, educational level of the proband, and relative's age were significantly associated with communicating test results with FDRs.

CONCLUSION

Communication of genetic risk with the FDRs after having a BRCA1/2 gene-mutation-positive test result was high in this group of cancer patients. However, the rate of genetic testing among FDRs was low.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Probands' educational level and age of relatives for cascade genetic screening should be considered during counseling. Interventions to support women with BRCA1/2 mutations during the communication process and their family members' engagement in testing and risk-reducing strategies are needed.

The uptake of predictive DNA testing in 40 families with a pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 variant. An evaluation of the proband-mediated procedure

When hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) due to a BRCA1/BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant is diagnosed, the proband will be asked to inform other at-risk family members. In the Netherlands, a guideline was introduced in 2012 which provided detailed recommendations regarding this proband-mediated procedure. We now evaluated the uptake of predictive BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in 40 consecutive HBOC families diagnosed in our centre in 2014. We performed a retrospective observational study of all 40 families in which a pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 germline variant was identified during 2014. We scored the uptake of predictive and confirmatory testing by the end of 2018 and explored factors associated with the level of uptake. Two families were excluded. In the remaining 38 families, among 239 family members ≥18 years at 50% risk of being a mutation carrier or at 25% risk if the family member at 50% risk was deceased, 102 (43%) were tested. Among 108 females 25-75 years of age at 50% risk, 59 (55%) underwent predictive or confirmatory testing, and among 43 males at 50% risk with daughters ≥18 years, 22 (51%) were tested. Factors which complicated cascade screening included family members living abroad, probands not wanting to share information and limited pedigree information. In conclusion, the standard proband-mediated procedure of informing relatives seems to be far from optimal. We suggest a tailored approach for each family, including the option of a direct approach to at-risk family members by the geneticist. In addition, we suggest detailed monitoring and follow-up of families.

When to break the news and whose responsibility is it? A cross-sectional qualitative study of health professionals' views regarding disclosure of BRCA genetic cancer risk

OBJECTIVES

Disclosure of a hereditary condition in the family poses notable challenges for patients who often seek the assistance of genetic health professionals (GHPs). This study aimed to investigate GHPs' opinions about the ideal time for disclosure to offspring and their responsibility to at-risk relatives.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional qualitative study.

SETTING

Genetic familial cancer clinics related to mostly secondary and tertiary care hospitals and centres in urban, regional and rural areas across all states of Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

GHPs (N=73) including clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, medical specialists, nurses, surgeons and mental health specialists (eg, psychiatrists, psychologists) who had worked with BRCA1 and BRCA2 families for an average of 9 years.

RESULTS

Focus groups and interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. GHPs perceived that life stage, maturity, parents' knowledge and capacity to disseminate information influenced parent-offspring disclosure. In general, GHPs recommended early informal conversations with offspring about a family illness. GHPs considered that facilitation of disclosure to relatives using counselling strategies was their responsibility, yet there were limitations to their role (eg, legal and resource constraints). Variability exists in the extent to which genetic clinics overcome challenges to disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

GHPs' views on the ideal time for the disclosure of genetic risk are generally dependent on the patient's age and relative's ability to disclose information. A responsibility towards the patient and their at-risk relative was widely accepted as a role of a GHP but views vary depending on legislative and specialty differences. Greater uniformity is needed in genetic procedural guidelines and the role of each discipline (eg, geneticists, genetic counsellors, oncologists, nurses and mental health specialists) in genetic clinics to manage disclosure challenges.

Communication of genetic information to at-risk relatives during the multidisciplinary monitoring of vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome in a French referral clinic

Vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (vEDS) is a rare inherited disorder leading to arterial, digestive, and uterine complications due to pathogenic COL3A1 variants. Identification of causal variants allows family screening, provided that relatives have previously been informed, according to a 2013 French Decree. The aims of our study were to assess the communication of genetic information to at-risk relatives, the impact of diagnosis disclosure and to highlight a possible link between the experience of vEDS patients and ability to communicate about genetic information. A total of n = 51 vEDS adult probands answered a questionnaire during a clinical visit. Communication to relatives was considered effective if the proband gave information to some or all first-degree relatives and considered easily achieved if it was disclosed to all relatives less than a month after the diagnosis and without difficulty. Personal and family vEDS experiences of probands were also assessed. Effective communication of information to relatives was remarkably high (98%). Siblings were the most frequently informed relatives (82%). Women informed their at-risk relatives of genetic family screening faster (p = .006) and easier (p = .004) than men. There was no difference in the disclosure of information to relatives before and after 2013 in our multidisciplinary clinic. Regarding the lived experience of vEDS patients, they felt anxious (78%) at diagnosis disclosure but also considered this diagnosis as an opportunity to start a medical follow-up (82%) putting an end to diagnosis delay. Our findings highlight for the first time that the ability to easily inform at-risk first-degree relatives is related to the relief felt during vEDS-positive diagnosis disclosure (p = .04). In order to improve the communication of genetic information to relatives, we believe that psychological support should systematically be part of the multidisciplinary monitoring, just as medical follow-up and genetic counseling.

Familial disclosure by genetic healthcare professionals: a useful but sparingly used legal provision in France

Familial disclosure of genetic information is an important, long-standing ethical issue that still gives rise to much debate. In France, recent legislation has created an innovative and unprecedented procedure that allows healthcare professionals (HCPs), under certain conditions, to disclose relevant information to relatives of a person carrying a deleterious genetic mutation. This article will analyse how HCPs in two medical genetics clinics have reacted to these new legal provisions and show how their reticence to inform the patients' relatives on their behalf leads them to use this option sparingly.

Challenges and strategies proposed by genetic health professionals to assist with family communication

Hereditary genetic conditions have implications for the whole family and therefore genetic health professionals (GHPs) interact with multiple family members, sometimes individually and sometimes in aggregate. Family communication is important to ensure dissemination of genetic information to potentially affected relatives and to facilitate supportive family interactions around genetic testing and risk management decisions. Yet, little is known about how GHPs perceive and manage these interactions. A total of 73 GHPs working across Australian cancer genetic clinics participated in semi-structured focus groups or interviews to elucidate what aspects of family communication they found most challenging, the strategies they used, and whether current academic training provides sufficient guidance to address familial concerns. Patients' lack of understanding about the importance of communicating genetic information to at-risk relatives was the most common challenge reported. GHPs reported that the patients' concern for their families' emotional responses as well as wider family system challenges (e.g. estrangement) affected family communication. Common strategies during consultations included structuring appointments logistically to account for family dynamics and post-consultation use of family letters and follow-up appointments. GHPs generally felt equipped with the skills and training provided to address patient concerns, but also desired upskilling in techniques relating to systemic family issues and behavioural change. Reflective practice strategies were requested by geneticists and nurses to foster therapeutic skill usage. Additional family therapy training while on the job may be beneficial in order to meet current challenges faced in clinical practice and can be provided as further professional development.

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.

European Breast Cancer Council manifesto 2018: Genetic risk prediction testing in breast cancer

European Breast Cancer Council manifesto and supporting article on genetic risk prediction testing in breast cancer, presented at the 11th European Breast Cancer Conference in Barcelona, Spain.

[Prevention of genetic diseases : the return of the family practitioner ?]

BACKGROUND

Information to kin is one of the major ethical problems of the new genetics. In France, the revised bioethics law in 2011 created the possibility for patients to authorize professionals, under certain conditions, to directly contact their relatives at risk. Beyond this, other actors, such as GPs, could however play a role in this process.

METHODS

Our article is based on an ethnographic-type sociological study by observations and semi-structured interviews with patients (n=59) and genetic professionals (n=16) that took place from 2014 to 2016 in three genetic hospital wards in France and Canada. It focuses particularly on genetic predispositions to breast and ovarian cancers as well as genetic hemochromatosis.

RESULTS

Because of its position as a primary care specialist, the general practitioner can play a decisive role in the process of informing relatives about genetic disorders. Upstream of the genetic test, the generalist, thanks to his knowledge of the family context of his patients, can play a referral role towards a specialized consultation. Downstream, it can also ensure a more effective follow-up of the information procedures undertaken by its patients thanks to the medical follow-up that it carries out.

CONCLUSION

The data collected during our study highlight the unprecedented place that could be that of the general practitioner in the field of prevention in genetics. At the articulation between primary care and highly specialized care, it is the figure of the "family" doctor who seems to be called here to be renewed by genetics.

Genetic diseases and information to relatives: practical and ethical issues for professionals after introduction of a legal framework in France

Health professionals have a role to play in assisting patients to communicate genetic information to their relatives. In France, a specific unique legal framework has been implemented concerning this issue. We questioned professionals about their practice and how it has evolved in this new frame. The French law has opted to lay responsibility for disclosure on the person concerned by a positive test result, without totally excluding some responsibility on the part of the professionals involved, in the information to be disclosed and in the transmission of the information if a patient refuses to do it themselves (indirect disclosure). We designed and validated an online survey to be sent out to healthcare professionals to explore their practice and how they went about implementing the legal provisions. We also sought to determine how healthcare professionals dealt with a patient's refusal to disclose information to their relatives, and whether the legal framework was helpful. We carried out a statistical analysis of the responses to questionnaires to interpret the results by professional category, field of medicine and genetic disorder. The results show that professionals agreed on the relevance of disclosure to relatives. However, they show a range of practices and varying representations of the genetic issue in the framework of disclosure to relatives according to their medical field, their role in the health system and their own interpretations. They indicated a lack of resources, raised some ethical issues and put forward some arguments against contacting relatives themselves.

Is there a "right time" for bad news? Kairos in familial communication on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk

Time has long been considered as an important dimension of the process of disclosure of information about genetic risk to kin. The question of the "right time to tell" has been frequently noticed but seldom placed at the centre of the analyses of social scientists. Based on an ethnographical fieldwork in a French cancer genetics clinic, this article aims to show that many dimensions of the practical issues of disclosure to family can be fruitfully addressed through the temporal lens of kairos. Relying on the case of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk, it firstly highlights the existence of a mismatch between the "chronological" time of prevention proposed by professionals and the "kairological" time of disclosure lived by informants. Secondly, it emphasizes the problematic nature of the pragmatic approach of time associated with kairos. On the one hand one can draw some benefits from seeking the right time to inform relatives, but on the other hand waiting on uncertain opportunities to disclose such information can make communication even more difficult.