Unsolicited information letters to increase awareness of Lynch syndrome and familial colorectal cancer: reactions and attitudes

How hereditary cancer risk disclosure to relatives is handled in practice - Patient perspectives from a Swedish cancer genetics clinic

OBJECTIVES

Hereditary cancer risks can be effectively managed if at-risk relatives enroll in surveillance and preventive care. Family-mediated risk disclosure has internationally been shown to be incomplete, selective and leave over a third of eligible at-risk individuals without access to genetic counseling. We explored patients handling of cancer risk information in practice.

METHODS

We conducted twelve semi-structured interviews with patients who had completed their genetic counseling and been asked to disclose risk information to relatives. Questions were designed to investigate lived experiences of communicating hereditary risk and focused on disclosure strategies, intrafamilial interactions and emotional responses.

RESULTS

Qualitative content analysis yielded five categories. These span personal fears, shared responsibilities, feeling of empowerment, innovative solutions and unmet needs. Patients put high value on collaboration with their genetic healthcare professionals but also solicited better overview of the counseling process and more personalized, case-tailored information.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results add novel insights about the practical strategies employed by genetic counselees and their motivations behind disclosing hereditary risk information to relatives.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A patient-centered cancer genetics care would clarify roles and responsibilities around risk disclosure, inform counselees about the process upfront and tailor information to offer case-specific data with the family's inheritance pattern explained.

Clinician perspectives on policy approaches to genetic risk disclosure in families

Genomic sequencing has emerged as a powerful tool with significant implications for patients and their relatives, however, empirical evidence suggests that effective dissemination of risk information within families remains a challenge. Policy responses to address this issue vary across countries, with Belgium notably lacking specific regulations governing nondisclosure of genetic risk. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians from Belgian clinical genetics centers to gain insight into their perspectives on policy approaches to the disclosure of genetic risk within families. Using real-world examples of legislation and court rulings from France, Australia, and the UK, we explored clinician viewpoints on the roles and responsibilities of both patients and clinicians in the family communication process. Clinicians expressed confusion regarding what was legally permissible regarding contacting at-risk relatives. While there was a consensus among participants that patients have a responsibility to inform their at-risk relatives, participants were hesitant to support the legal enforcement of this duty. Clinicians mostly recognized some responsibility to at-risk relatives, but the extent of this responsibility was a subject of division. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive policy that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of clinicians and patients to inform at-risk relatives. Furthermore, the study underscores the practical challenges clinicians face in supporting patients through the complex process of family communication, suggesting a need for additional resources and the exploration of alternative approaches to communication.

The experience of receiving a letter from a cancer genetics clinic about risk for hereditary cancer

Direct contact may be an option for supporting disclosure in families with hereditary cancer risk. In this qualitative interview study, we explored how healthy at-risk relatives experience receiving a letter with information about hereditary cancer directly from healthcare rather than via a relative. The study is part of an ongoing multicentre randomised clinical trial in Sweden that evaluates the effectiveness of direct letters from cancer genetics clinics to at-risk relatives. After conducting semi-structured interviews with 14 relatives who had received a letter and contacted the clinic, we analysed the data using thematic analysis. The relatives had different levels of prior knowledge about the hereditary cancer assessment. Many had been notified by family that a letter was coming but some had not. Overall, these participants believed healthcare-mediated disclosure could complement family-mediated disclosure. They expressed that the letter and the message raised concerns and a need for counselling, and they wanted healthcare to be accessible and informed when making contact. The participants found the message easier to cope with when they had been notified by a family member beforehand, with a general attitude that notifying relatives was the appropriate step to take. They thought healthcare should help patients with the disclosure process but also guard the right of at-risk relatives to be informed. The findings support a direct approach from healthcare as a possible complement to an established model of family-mediated risk disclosure, but implementation must be made within existing frameworks of good practice for genetic counselling.

National Experiences from 30 Years of Provider-Mediated Cascade Testing in Lynch Syndrome Families-The Danish Model

Cascade genetic testing and surveillance reduce morbidity and mortality in Lynch syndrome. However, barriers to conveying information about genetic disorders within families result in low uptake of genetic testing. Provider-mediated interventions may increase uptake but raise legal and ethical concerns. We describe 30 years of national experience with cascade genetic testing combining family- and provider-mediated contact in Lynch syndrome families in the Danish Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (HNPCC) Register. We aimed to estimate the added value of information letters to family members in Lynch syndrome families (provider-mediated contact) compared to family members not receiving such letters and thus relying on family-mediated contact. National clinical practice for cascade genetic testing, encompassing infrastructure, legislation, acceptance, and management of the information letters, is also discussed. Cascade genetic testing resulted in 7.3 additional tests per family. Uptake of genetic testing was 54.4% after family-mediated and 64.9% after provider-mediated contact, corresponding to an odds ratio of 1.8 (p < 0.001). The uptake of genetic testing was highest in the first year after diagnosis of Lynch syndrome in the family, with 72.5% tested after provider-mediated contact. In conclusion, the Danish model combining family- and provider-mediated contact can increase the effect of cascade genetic testing.

Direct letters to relatives at risk of hereditary cancer-study protocol for a multi-center randomized controlled trial of healthcare-assisted versus family-mediated risk disclosure at Swedish cancer genetics clinics (DIRECT-study)

BACKGROUND

The results of germline genetic testing for hereditary cancer are of importance not only to the patients under investigation but also to their genetic at-risk relatives. Standard care is to encourage the proband (first family member under investigation) to pass on this risk information to the relatives. Previous research suggests that with family-mediated disclosure, only about a third of at-risk relatives contact health care to receive genetic counselling. In some studies, complementing family-mediated risk disclosure with healthcare-assisted risk disclosure almost doubles the uptake of genetic counselling in at-risk relatives. In this study, we evaluate healthcare-assisted direct letters to relatives at risk of hereditary cancer syndromes in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Probands are recruited from Swedish outpatient cancer genetics clinics to this two-arm randomized controlled trial. The study recruits probands with either a pathogenic variant in a cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2) or probands with familial breast and colorectal cancer based on clinical and pedigree criteria. In both arms, probands receive standard care, i.e., are encouraged and supported to pass on information to relatives. In the intervention arm, the proband is also offered to have direct letters sent to the at-risk relatives. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of at-risk relatives contacting a Swedish cancer genetics clinic within 12 months of the proband receiving the test results.

DISCUSSION

This paper describes the protocol of a randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating a healthcare-assisted approach to risk disclosure by offering the probands to send direct letters to their at-risk relatives. The results of this study should be informative in the future development of risk disclosure practices in cancer genetics clinics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier NCT04197856 (pre-trial registration on December 13, 2019). Also registered at the website "RCC Cancerstudier i Sverige" as study #86719.

Acceptability and Usability of the Family Gene Toolkit for Swiss and Korean Families Harboring BRCA1/BRAC2 Pathogenic Variants: A Web-Based Platform for Cascade Genetic Testing

The study adapted the Family Gene Toolkit and developed a customized web application for Swiss and Korean families harboring BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants to support family communication of genetic testing results and promote cascade genetic testing among at-risk relatives. In the first step, narrative data from 68 women with BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants and clinician feedback informed a culturally sensitive adaptation of the content consistent with current risk management guidelines. In the second step, the Information Technology team developed the functions and the interface of the web application that will host the intervention. In the third step, a new sample of 18 women from families harboring BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants tested the acceptability and usability of the intervention using "think-aloud" interviews and a questionnaire. Participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the intervention. They provided positive feedback for the information regarding active coping, strategies to enhance family communication, interactive elements, and illustrative stories. They reported that the information was useful and the web application was easy to navigate. Findings suggest that the Family Gene Toolkit is well-designed and can increase rates of cascade testing among at-risk relatives. Its efficacy will be tested in a subsequent randomized trial.

Disclosure of genetic risk in the family: A survey of the Flemish general population

OBJECTIVES

Results from genomic sequencing often have implications not just for patients but also for their relatives. To date, there are no studies in Belgium exploring whether potential relatives would want to be informed of a genetic risk in the family and their preferences on different approaches to disclosure.

METHODS

We surveyed the attitudes of the Flemish general population (n = 407) towards receiving genetic information from their family members, including attitudes towards breaches in confidentiality, preferences for who communicates genetic risk and how the information is communicated, and policy approaches to nondisclosure.

RESULTS

Most participants wanted to be informed of their genetic risk and receive genetic testing to confirm their diagnosis. Most preferred to be informed of genetic risk by a close family member, but that when given the choice between a distant family member and a clinician, most participants preferred to be contacted by a clinician.

CONCLUSION

In Belgium there is currently no clear legal pathway for clinicians to directly initiate contact with at-risk relatives, but the responses from members of the Flemish population analyzed in this study indicate that this approach to disclosure of genetic risk deserves further consideration. Our findings indicate that the general population would support legislation allowing clinicians to inform relatives even in cases where the patient did not want to inform them. As this is not currently allowed in Belgium, policy alternatives should be considered.

Genetic testing in adult survivors of retinoblastoma in Denmark: A study of the experience and impact of genetic testing many years after initial diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Survivors with heritable retinoblastoma (RB) face a high risk for second primary cancer and RB in their children. Knowledge of heredity can support second cancer surveillance, convey reproductive options or early diagnosis of RB in their offspring. Currently, all newly diagnosed Danish patients with RB are offered genetic testing, as opposed to a minority of survivors diagnosed before available DNA testing.

OBJECTIVE

To examine RB survivors' response to unsolicited contact, uptake of genetic testing, and RB1 variant detection rate, and to qualitatively evaluate the experience and overall impact of genetic testing for heritable RB.

METHODS

Genetically untested adult RB survivors were invited to receive genetic counseling, undergo genetic testing for heritable RB and complete an eye examination. The number of responses, uptake of genetic testing and genetic results are descriptively reported. Additionally, responding survivors participated in a qualitative interview study of the perceived impact of genetic testing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Among invited RB survivors, 58% responded. Of these, 88% opted for genetic counseling and genetic testing. A diagnosis of heritable RB was established in 23% of RB survivors. Interestingly, all of these survivors were unilaterally affected. Analysis of data from the interviews revealed three recurring themes regarding the impact of genetic counseling and testing several years after initial diagnosis: 'Risk of what?', 'Knowledge is important' and 'Impact of the result'. The possible risk ofsecond cancer and RB in their children was new knowledge for several participants; however, in general, the participants appreciated receiving genetic information and certainty about heredity. Accordingly, the impact of genetic counseling and testing was perceived in a positive way.

CONCLUSION

Overall, RB survivors valued the opportunity to receive genetic counseling and undergo genetic testing many years after diagnosis. Responding RB survivors appreciated the invitation to test, felt well-informed and described little decisional conflict regarding their decision-making, valuing the genetic information and certainty. Heritable RB was confirmed in 23% of the previously untested RB survivors. These individuals emphasized the value of knowing and being proactive regarding both reproduction and cancer risk.

The Impact of Proband Indication for Genetic Testing on the Uptake of Cascade Testing Among Relatives

Although multiple factors can influence the uptake of cascade genetic testing, the impact of proband indication has not been studied. We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study comparing cascade genetic testing rates among relatives of probands who received either diagnostic germline testing or non-indication-based proactive screening via next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based multigene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) and/or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The proportion of probands with a medically actionable (positive) finding were calculated based on genes associated with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 conditions, HCS genes, and FH genes. Among probands with a positive finding, cascade testing rates and influencing factors were assessed. A total of 270,715 probands were eligible for inclusion in the study (diagnostic n = 254,281,93.9%; proactive n = 16,434, 6.1%). A positive result in a gene associated with a CDC Tier 1 condition was identified in 10,520 diagnostic probands (4.1%) and 337 proactive probands (2.1%), leading to cascade testing among families of 3,305 diagnostic probands (31.4%) and 36 proactive probands (10.7%) (p < 0.0001). A positive result in an HCS gene was returned to 23,272 diagnostic probands (9.4%) and 970 proactive probands (6.1%), leading to cascade testing among families of 6,611 diagnostic probands (28.4%) and 89 proactive probands (9.2%) (p < 0.0001). Cascade testing due to a positive result in an HCS gene was more commonly pursued when the diagnostic proband was White, had a finding in a gene associated with a CDC Tier 1 condition, or had a personal history of cancer, or when the proactive proband was female. A positive result in an FH gene was returned to 1,647 diagnostic probands (25.3%) and 67 proactive probands (0.62%), leading to cascade testing among families of 360 diagnostic probands (21.9%) and 4 proactive probands (6.0%) (p < 0.01). Consistently higher rates of cascade testing among families of diagnostic probands may be due to a perceived urgency because of personal or family history of disease. Due to the proven clinical benefit of cascade testing, further research on obstacles to systematic implementation and uptake of testing for relatives of any proband with a medically actionable variant is warranted.

Cascade testing for inherited arrhythmia conditions: Experiences and attitudes of family communication approaches for a Canadian cohort

Inherited arrhythmia conditions (IAC) can lead to sudden cardiac death at any age, and relatives of an affected person have up to a 50% chance of inheriting the condition and are at risk for developing features. Cascade testing is a stepwise approach for identifying relatives at risk for IACs through clinical screening and genetic testing. Early detection can reduce morbidity and mortality for affected individuals and determine potential risk mitigation strategies for relatives. However, cardiovascular genetic studies have reported an incomplete uptake of cascade testing in at-risk relatives. We explored patient perspectives on cascade testing for IACs and alternative approaches to family communication. Twelve semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with probands of the British Columbia Inherited Arrhythmia Program confirmed to carry a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with an IAC. Thematic analysis of transcripts through an iterative coding process revealed five main themes: (a) a stepwise approach is followed in disclosing risk to relatives, (b) relatives' autonomy in cascade testing is supported, (c) lived experience with the condition influences disclosure and uptake of cascade testing, (d) collaborative approach to informing relatives reduces negative impact of disclosure, and (e) direct contact from a healthcare provider is viewed as acceptable. The findings highlight this patient cohort's experiences and opinions with approaches to disclosure and demonstrate their understanding and acceptance of their relatives' approaches to cascade testing. In addition, while the notion of direct contact was generally accepted, a collaborative approach to contacting relatives between the proband and provider may be most effective.

A Focus Group Study of Perceptions of Genetic Risk Disclosure in Members of the Public in Sweden: "I'll Phone the Five Closest Ones, but What Happens to the Other Ten?"

This study explores perceptions and preferences on receiving genetic risk information about hereditary cancer risk in members of the Swedish public. We conducted qualitative content analysis of five focus group discussions with participants (n = 18) aged between 24 and 71 years, recruited from various social contexts. Two prominent phenomena surfaced around the interplay between the three stakeholders involved in risk disclosure: the individual, healthcare, and the relative at risk. First, there is a genuine will to share risk information that can benefit others, even if this is difficult and causes discomfort. Second, when the duty to inform becomes overwhelming, compromises are made, such as limiting one’s own responsibility of disclosure or projecting the main responsibility onto another party. In conclusion, our results reveal a discrepancy between public expectations and the actual services offered by clinical genetics. These expectations paired with desire for a more personalized process and shared decision-making highlight a missing link in today’s risk communication and suggest a need for developed clinical routines with stronger healthcare–patient collaboration. Future research needs to investigate the views of genetic professionals on how to address these expectations to co-create a transparent risk disclosure process which can realize the full potential of personalized prevention.

Development of a Secure Website to Facilitate Information Sharing in Families at High Risk of Bowel Cancer-The Familyweb Study

Simple Summary

Families with an inherited high risk of bowel cancer may struggle to share information about their diagnosis. This means that relatives are not always aware of their increased risk of cancer or able to access screening for the early detection of cancer. Through this study, we aimed to help such families by creating a website where patients could share confidential information with their relatives securely online. Following a survey and telephone interviews with affected individuals, the content of the website was developed to suit the needs of families. Website function was tested with patients to check feasibility and acceptability. Most participants wanted more information to support their adaptation to the diagnosis and help inform their relatives. This study demonstrates how health professionals can improve access to genetic testing and cancer screening in families at high risk of cancer, thus reducing morbidity and mortality.

Abstract

Individuals with pathogenic variants in genes predisposing to bowel cancer are encouraged to share this information within their families. Close relatives at 50% risk can have access to bowel cancer surveillance. However, many relatives remain unaware of their vulnerability or have insufficient information. We investigated the feasibility and acceptability of using a secure website to support information sharing within families at high risk of bowel cancer. Patients (n = 286) answered an anonymous cross-sectional survey, with 14 participating in telephone interviews. They reported that the diagnosis had a profound effect on them and their family relationships, and consequently desired more support from health professionals. Website content was created in response to the preferences of survey and interview participants. Reactions to the website from 12 volunteers were captured through remote usability testing to guide further refinement of the website. Participants welcomed the opportunity to store and share personal information via the website and wanted more information and help informing their relatives about the diagnosis. Important website topics were: healthy lifestyle; genetic testing; and how to talk to children about the diagnosis. A website providing online access to confidential documents was both feasible and acceptable and could translate into increased uptake of cancer surveillance, resulting in lower morbidity and mortality in these families.

Room for improvement: One third of Lynch syndrome patients presenting for genetic testing in a highly specialised centre in Stockholm already have cancer

Background

Lynch syndrome is caused by germline mutations in the mismatch repair genes and is characterised by a familial accumulation of colorectal and other cancers. Earlier identification of Lynch syndrome patients enables surveillance and might reduce the risk of cancer. It is important to explore whether today’s clinical care discovers patients with Lynch syndrome suitable for surveillance in time. This study aimed to describe what led to a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome in the cohort referred to the Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden for gastrointestinal surveillance.

Methods

This was a descriptive study. Data from 1975 to 2018 were collected and compiled as a database. Age at diagnosis was calculated from the date when a pathogenic MMR gene mutation was confirmed, from the period June 1994–September 2018. Data were collected from patient protocols prospectively during patient consultations and medical records retrospectively. Criteria for inclusion were registration at the outpatient clinic and a confirmed mismatch repair gene mutation.

Results

A total of 305 patients were eligible for inclusion. Three major reasons for diagnosis were identified: 1. Predictive testing of a previously known mutation in the family (62%, mean age 37), 2. A family history of Lynch associated tumours (9%, mean age 37), 3. A diagnosis of cancer (29%, mean age 51). The proportion diagnosed due to cancer has not changed over time.

Conclusion

A high proportion of patients (29%) were identified with Lynch syndrome after they had been diagnosed with an associated cancer, which suggests that there is significant room for improvement in the diagnosis of patients with Lynch syndrome before cancer develops.

Communicating unexpected pharmacogenomic results to biobank contributors: A focus group study

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study were to explore 1) the impact of returning unexpected pharmacogenomic (PGx) results to biobank contributors, and 2) participant views about improving communication.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative focus group study with biobank participants (N = 54) who were notified by mail of an individual research result indicating increased risk for adverse events associated with the common cancer drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). We employed a framework approach for analysis.

RESULTS

Our results revealed three themes illustrating participants' questions and uncertainty, especially regarding how to share results with health providers and family members, and remember them over time. Participants valued results for themselves and others, and for the future of medicine. Risk perception was framed by health identity. "Toxicity narratives," or familiarity with another's adverse reaction to chemotherapy, increased the sense of importance participants reported.

CONCLUSION

These focus group results highlight research participant remaining questions and high valuation of PGx results, even when unexpected.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We identify PGx research participants' needs for clear clinical translation messaging that attends to health identity, pragmatics of sharing information with family members, and patient perceptions of barriers to transferring research results to a clinical context.

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 impact of a cascade testing video on recipients' knowledge, cognitive message processing, and affective reactions: A formative evaluation

Cascade genetic testing is essential to clarify cancer risk in families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) due to pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 or BRCA2. To date, data suggest that family communication of genetic testing results, with or without the aid of clinical resources such as a provider-written family letter, is impacted by multiple barriers. These barriers eventually lead to sub-optimal uptake of cascade genetic testing. We designed a 2-min animated video that a proband can share with relatives to notify them that the proband has tested positive for a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2. We studied the video via hypothetical scenario in an unselected population to simulate the process by which a relative receives unsolicited genetics information about their family member. We assessed the impact of the video on three specific domains: knowledge, cognitive message processing, and affective reactions. A total of 399 participants recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk completed the study, and 373 were analyzed. The video significantly improved content knowledge/recall (p < .0001) from pre- to post-video viewing, indicating effective message communication. Items used to measure cognitive processing showed preliminary tendencies toward systematic message processing, which could be desired in familial communication aimed at initiating a specific action-in this case, cascade genetic testing. A majority of participants (66%) reported positive affective reaction as they indicated that they would feel gratitude if they received the video message from a relative, and did not evidence a negative affective reaction to receiving the information. Our data suggest that a video message can effectively communicate information about cascade genetic testing to potential relatives with as little as two minutes of content. Our data suggest that video messaging to assist family communication is a reasonable approach that increases understanding and is unlikely to cause harm.

Public support for healthcare-mediated disclosure of hereditary cancer risk information: Results from a population-based survey in Sweden

Background

Targeted surveillance of at-risk individuals in families with increased risk of hereditary cancer is an effective prevention strategy if relatives are identified, informed and enrolled in screening programs. Despite the potential benefits, many eligible at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their cancer risk. This study describes the general public's opinion on disclosure of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) risk information, as well as preferences on the source and the mode of information.

Methods

A random sample of the general public was assessed through a Swedish citizen web-panel. Respondents were presented with scenarios of being an at-risk relative in a family that had an estimated increased hereditary risk of CRC; either 10% (moderate) or 70% (high) lifetime risk. A colonoscopy was presented as a preventive measure. Results were analysed to identify significant differences between groups using the Pearson's chi-square (χ²) test.

Results

Of 1800 invited participants, 977 completed the survey (54%). In the moderate and high-risk scenarios, 89.2 and 90.6% respectively, would like to receive information about a potential hereditary risk of CRC (χ2, p = .755). The desire to be informed was higher among women (91.5%) than men (87.0%, χ2, p = .044). No significant differences were found when comparing different age groups, educational levels, place of residence and having children or not. The preferred source of risk information was a healthcare professional in both moderate and high-risk scenarios (80.1 and 75.5%). However, 18.1 and 20.1% respectively would prefer to be informed by a family member. Assuming that healthcare professionals disclosed the information, the favoured mode of information was letter and phone (38.4 and 33.2%).

Conclusions

In this study a majority of respondents wanted to be informed about a potential hereditary risk of CRC and preferred healthcare professionals to communicate this information. The two presented levels of CRC lifetime risk did not significantly affect the interest in being informed. Our data offer insights into the needs and preferences of the Swedish population, providing a rationale for developing complementary healthcare-assisted communication pathways to realise the full potential of targeted prevention of hereditary CRC.

How to inform at-risk relatives? Attitudes of 1379 Dutch patients, relatives, and members of the general population

The uptake of predictive DNA testing in families with a hereditary disease is <50%. Current practice often relies on the proband to inform relatives about the possibility of predictive DNA testing, but not all relatives are informed adequately. To enable informed decision-making concerning predictive DNA testing, the approach used to inform at-risk relatives needs to be optimized. This study investigated the preferences of patients, relatives, and the general population from the Netherlands on how to inform relatives at risk of autosomal dominant diseases. Online surveys were sent to people with autosomal dominant neuro-, onco-, or cardiogenetic diseases and their relatives via patient organizations (n = 379), and to members of the general population via a commercial panel (n = 1,000). Attitudes of the patient and population samples generally corresponded. A majority believed that initially only first-degree relatives should be informed, following the principles of a cascade screening approach. Most participants also thought that probands and healthcare professionals (HCPs) should be involved in informing relatives, and a large proportion believed that HCPs should contact relatives directly in cases where patients are unwilling to inform, both for untreatable and treatable conditions. Participants from the patient sample were of the opinion that HCPs should actively offer support. Our findings show that both patients and HCPs should be involved in informing at-risk relatives of autosomal dominant diseases and suggest that relatives' 'right to know' was considered a dominant issue by the majority of participants. Further research is needed on how to increase proactive support in informing of at-risk relatives.

Examining intrafamilial communication of colorectal cancer risk status to family members and kin responses to colonoscopy: a qualitative study

Background

First-degree relatives (FDRs) of probands with colorectal cancer (CRC) may be at increased risk of CRC and require colonoscopy. Proband disclosure about this risk and need for colonoscopy is essential for FDRs to take appropriate action. Low colonoscopy rates are reported among FDRs and little is known about the proband disclosure process. A better understanding of the barriers surrounding colonoscopy and disclosure is needed.

Methods

CRC probands (n = 16) and FDRs (n = 9), recruited from a Canadian CRC Consortium, completed interviews to determine barriers to disclosure and colonoscopy, respectively. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and participants’ motivation to disclose to FDRs or undertake colonoscopy was categorized into Stages of Change (i.e., Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, or Maintenance) using the transtheoretical model.

Results

25% of probands had not disclosed to any first-degree kin and were categorized in the Precontemplation or Contemplation Stage of Change. Barriers to disclosure included lack of information, negative expectations about familial reaction, assuming FDRs were aware of risk or already being screened, dysfunctional family dynamics, and cultural barriers. 75% of FDRs were categorized in the Precontemplation or Contemplation Stage of Change. Barriers included negative perceptions about colonoscopy, health-care provider related factors, practical concerns, and lack of information about CRC, risk, and colonoscopy.

Conclusions

In the absence of barriers such as cost and accessibility, this Canadian sample still reported several challenges to disclosure and colonoscopy adherence. Future research should explore interventions such as motivational interviewing to improve proband disclosure and to increase FDR adherence to colonoscopy.