A Relational Approach to Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Validation of the "Perceptions Regarding pRE-Symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease Screening" (PRE-ADS) Questionnaire in the German Population: Attitudes, Motivations, and Barriers to Pre-Symptomatic Dementia Screening

BACKGROUND

Attitudes, motivations, and barriers to pre-symptomatic screening for Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the general population are unclear, and validated measurement tools are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Translation and validation of the German version of the "Perceptions regarding pRE-symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease Screening" (PRE-ADS) questionnaire.

METHODS

A convenience sample (N = 256) was recruited via an online platform. Validation of the PRE-ADS-D consisted of assessments of reliability, structural validity using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and construct validity using known-group tests. A subscale "Acceptability of Screening", with 5 PRE-ADS-D items, was extracted to measure acceptance of screening in clinical practice. The STROBE checklist was used for reporting.

RESULTS

EFA revealed a three-factor model for the PRE-ADS-D. Acceptable to good internal consistency was found for the 25-item scale (α= 0.78), as well as for the three factors "Concerns about Screening" (α= 0.85), "Intention to be Screened" (α= 0.87), and "Preventive Health Behaviors" (α= 0.81). Construct validity was confirmed for both the 25-item PRE-ADS-D and the "Acceptability of Screening" scale (α= 0.91). Overall, 51.2% of the participants showed a preference for screening. Non-parametric tests were conducted to further explore group differences of the sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The PRE-ADS-D is a reliable and valid tool to measure attitudes, motives, and barriers regarding pre-symptomatic dementia screening in the German-speaking general population. Additionally, the subscale "Acceptability of Screening" demonstrated good construct validity and reliability, suggesting its promising potential as a practical tool in clinical practice.

Attitudes toward pre-symptomatic screening for Alzheimer's dementia in five European countries: a comparison of family members of people with Alzheimer's dementia versus non-family members

Introduction: Pre-symptomatic screening is getting more attention in healthcare as it detects the risk for developing neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease (AD), which is very useful for treatment or prevention. AD screening could play an important role in individuals with at least one affected first-degree relative, but also without family history. As the demand for screening is rising worldwide, it is important to consider possible cross-cultural differences in attitudes toward pre-symptomatic screening in order to tailor healthcare services to the needs of each country. Objective: This study aims to investigate the attitudes of family members and non-family members of people with dementia toward pre-symptomatic screening and explore possible differences in attitudes across five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, Turkey) using translated versions of the "Perceptions regarding pRE-symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease Screening" questionnaire (PRE-ADS). Methods: The multicultural sample (N = 650) was recruited from samples that were previously used in validation studies of the translated PRE-ADS versions. The subscale "Acceptability of Screening", consisting of five PRE-ADS items to specifically explore willingness to undergo screening, was created. Ιnternal consistency was measured, and structural validity was determined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Group comparisons were performed to investigate differences in attitudes toward pre-symptomatic AD screening regarding family history and country of origin using the PRE-ADS and the "Acceptability of Screening" mean scores. Results: Construct validity was acceptable for the PRE-ADS. Both the PRE-ADS (α = 0.76) and its subscale "Acceptability of Screening" (α = 0.90) had good internal consistency. Overall, 56.9% of the total sample expressed a positive intention toward pre-symptomatic AD screening. T-tests showed significantly higher mean scores of participants with an affected family member. An international comparison revealed differences in the "Acceptability of Screening" mean score across the five European countries. No cross-cultural differences were found for the PRE-ADS mean score after adjusting for confounding variables. Conclusion: The PRE-ADS and its subscale are reliable tools for assessing pre-symptomatic AD screening attitudes. Variations in the acceptability of screening seem to be linked to family history and cultural influences. Further research with larger samples is needed to explore underlying relationships.

Personalising genetic counselling (POETIC) trial: Protocol for a hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation randomised clinical trial of a patient screening tool to improve patient empowerment after cancer genetic counselling

BACKGROUND

Genetic counselling aims to identify, and address, patient needs while facilitating informed decision-making about genetic testing and promoting empowerment and adaptation to genetic information. Increasing demand for cancer genetic testing and genetic counsellor workforce capacity limitations may impact the quality of genetic counselling provided. The use of a validated genetic-specific screening tool, the Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument (GPRI), may facilitate patient-centred genetic counselling. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness and implementation of using the GPRI in improving patient outcomes after genetic counselling and testing for an inherited cancer predisposition.

METHODS

The PersOnalising gEneTIc Counselling (POETIC) trial is a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial using a randomised control trial to assess the effectiveness of the GPRI in improving patient empowerment (primary outcome), while also assessing implementation from the perspective of clinicians and the healthcare service. Patients referred for a cancer risk assessment to the conjoint clinical genetics service of two metropolitan hospitals in Victoria, Australia, who meet the eligibility criteria and consent to POETIC will be randomised to the usual care or intervention group. Those in the intervention group will complete the GPRI prior to their appointment with the screening results available for the clinicians' use during the appointment. Appointment audio recordings, clinician-reported information about the appointment, patient-reported outcome measures, and clinical data will be used to examine the effectiveness of using the GPRI. Appointment audio recordings, health economic information, and structured interviews will be used to examine the implementation of the GPRI.

DISCUSSION

The POETIC trial takes a pragmatic approach by deploying the GPRI as an intervention in the routine clinical practice of a cancer-specific clinical genetics service that is staffed by a multidisciplinary team of genetics and oncology clinicians. Therefore, the effectiveness and implementation evidence generated from this real-world health service setting aims to optimise the relevance of the outcomes of this trial to the practice of genetic counselling while enhancing the operationalisation of the screening tool in routine practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry registration number 12621001582842p. Date of registration: 19th November 2021.

Your Family Connects: A Theory-Based Intervention to Encourage Communication about Possible Inherited Cancer Risk among Ovarian Cancer Survivors and Close Relatives

INTRODUCTION

Encouraging family communication about possible genetic risk has become among the most important avenues for achieving the full potential of genomic discovery for primary and secondary prevention. Yet, effective family-wide risk communication (i.e., conveying genetic risk status and its meaning for other family members) remains a critical gap in the field. We aim to describe the iterative process of developing a scalable population-based communication outreach intervention, Your Family Connects, to reach ovarian cancer survivors and close relatives to communicate the potential for inherited risk and to consider genetic counseling.

METHODS

Relational-level theories (e.g., interdependence theory) suggest that interventions to promote family cancer risk communication will be most effective if they consider the qualities of specific relationships and activate motives to preserve the relationship. Informed by these theories, we collaborated with 14 citizen scientists (survivors of ovarian cancer or relatives) and collected 261 surveys and 39 structured interviews over 12 weeks of citizen science activities in 2020.

RESULTS

The citizen science findings and consideration of relational-level theories informed the content and implementation of Your Family Connects (www.yourfamilyconnects.org). CS results showed survivors favor personal contact with close relatives, but relatives were open to alternative contact methods, such as through health professionals. Recognizing the need for varied approaches based on relationship dynamics, we implemented a relative contact menu to enable survivors identify at-risk relatives and provide multiple contact options (i.e., survivor contact, health professional contact, and delayed contact). In line with relational autonomy principles, we included pros and cons for each option, assisting survivors in choosing suitable contact methods for each relative.

DISCUSSION

Our developed intervention represents a novel application of relational-level theories and partnership with citizen scientists to expand genetic services reach to increase the likelihood for fair distribution of cancer genomic advances. The Your Family Connects intervention as part of a randomized trial in collaboration with the Georgia Cancer Registry compared with standard outreach.

Residential Locale Is Associated with Disparities in Genetic Testing-Related Outcomes Among BRCA1/2-Positive Women

BACKGROUND

While research on hereditary genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations continues to emerge, there remain unanswered questions regarding access to testing and cancer-related care. Our study determined the associations between race/ethnicity, residential locale, and genetic testing provider and related outcomes among US women with BRCA1/2 genetic mutations.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-three BRCA1/2-positive women from vulnerable health backgrounds were recruited via private national Facebook BRCA1/2-oriented support groups and completed an online survey. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression for the associations between race/ethnicity, residential locale, and genetic testing-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Women ranged in age (18-75, M = 39.5, SD = 10.7), and most were non-Hispanic white (66.3%) and lived in a suburban locale (54.9%). Women living in suburban areas were significantly less likely (aOR, .369, 95% CI, .177-.771) to receive behavioral referrals after genetic testing compared to those living in an urban locale. Women living in rural areas and suburban areas were 4.72 times more likely (95% CI, 1.48-15.1, p = .009) and 2.61 times more likely (95% CI, 1.05-6.48, p = .038), respectively, to receive genetic testing from a primary care provider versus private genetic testing office/hospital compared to women in urban locales. Associations between race/ethnicity and genetic testing outcomes were not statistically significant. Residential locale did not predict the odds of undergoing surgery for risk reduction or surveillance for early detection.

CONCLUSION

Our study identifies disparities in genetic testing resources among women living in suburban and rural areas. These findings can be used to inform future care, research, and community resources that may impact services relating to genetic testing within these locales.

The principle of nondirectiveness in genetic counseling. Different meanings and various postulates of normative nature

The article aims at organizing multifaceted discourse on the concept of nondirectiveness in the practice of genetic counseling. The analysis of areas where nondirectiveness was invoked and discussed reveals the problematic confusion of different meanings of the term that often leads to false conclusions about the relations between the professional standards and the practice of genetic counseling. The article offers clear and comprehensive description of different approaches to nondirectiveness and various ideas associated with the term. Normative consequences of various meanings attributed to nondirectiveness are explored. The article concludes by presenting important but unsolved problems regarding both theory (the meaning of nondirectiveness and its operational definition) and practice of genetic counseling (the scope and content of the norm of nondirective counseling).

Oncologists' perspectives of telephone genetic counseling to facilitate germline BRCA1/2 testing for their patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer

Poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors offer a survival advantage to women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer who have a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV). Yet, rates of genetic testing among this population have remained persistently low. A national, centralized telephone genetic counseling service was established in January 2016 in Australia to improve access to genetic services and facilitate BRCA1/2 testing for this population to inform treatment. Medical oncologists can refer their patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to this service for genetic testing. This study aimed to explore oncologists' experiences of using this telephone genetic counseling service for their patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. A qualitative approach using semi-structured telephone interviews was undertaken with Australian oncologists who had referred patients to the telephone genetic counseling service. Sixteen oncologists participated and described referring patients to the telephone genetic counseling service due to the timeliness of obtaining a genetic counseling appointment and BRCA1/2 test results. They also reported this service offered convenience for patients living in regional or rural areas who then did not have to travel for an appointment with a clinical genetics service. Many oncologists noted the importance of in-person genetic counseling for patients who received positive BRCA1/2 results. Areas for improvement identified by the oncologists related to communication issues between the service and the patient. Overall, findings suggest that oncologists perceived telephone genetic counseling as an acceptable and useful healthcare service for patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Moreover, they perceived telephone genetic counseling to be efficient, delivering convenient genetic counseling to patients.

Genetic counselors, patients', and carers' views on an Australian clinical genetics service information system

The Genetic Information System (GIS) is an Australian database of family genetic information. This health information technology system has been used by all 31 publicly operated clinical genetics services across New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) for over a decade. As these services are separated geographically, the linkage engendered by the GIS facilitates the services to operate as a virtual state-wide service. This study aimed to explore the views of genetic counselors, patients, and carers on the use and storage of family genetic information in the GIS. Data were collected using audio-recorded semi-structured telephone interviews with genetic counselors experienced with using the GIS and focus groups with past patients/carers of the services. Using thematic analysis, four themes were identified from genetic counselor participant interviews (n = 12): (a) Shared information is valuable; (b) inconsistent data entry provides a challenge; (c) perceived need for the GIS to be current and integrated with other health systems; and (d) future challenges and strategies for the GIS. Three themes were identified following three focus groups with consumer participants (n = 14): (a) access to family genetic information provides a 'clearer picture'; (b) support, but caution, concerning use of information for relatives' health care; and (c) stewardship of family information. Genetic counselors and consumers identified similar advantages and privacy concerns regarding the sharing of family genetic information and all participants wanted patients/carers to be better informed about the GIS early in the genetic counseling process. Consumers were reassured by genetics health professionals' stewardship of their information, but surprised the GIS was not available nationally or for private geneticists or certain non-genetic specialists. These findings may inform further development of the GIS and other clinical genetic databases and lead to increased patient/carer knowledge through education and resource development.

Disclosure of familial implications of pathogenic variants in breast-cancer genes to patients: Opportunity for prompting family communication

Familial communication of pathogenic genetic variants is necessary to maximize the clinical utility of genetic testing and its public health benefits. Insights to family communication considerations may be obtained from existing clinical documentation available in medical records. The goal of this study was to describe and characterize information about family communication of pathogenic variants and cascade genetic testing from genetic counseling summary notes. We completed structured content analysis of 656 summary notes describing pathogenic variants in breast cancer genes, for patients seen at a tertiary cancer center. Patients were 89.5% female, median age of 49 years, 32.6% non-White, and were counseled by 23 unique genetic counselors (GCs) with mean post-certification experience of 3.7 years. Cascade genetic testing was documented in 92.2% of all notes. Specific relatives (i.e., relationship to patient) who would benefit from genetic counseling and cascade testing were referenced in 33.1% of notes. Specific risk messaging was 2.5 times more likely to be present in notes of high- compared to moderate-risk genes (OR=2.53, 95% CI: 1.71-3.80), and when summary notes indicated the presence of a friend or relative (OR=2.29, 95% CI: 1.50-3.48). Summary notes frequently attempted to contextualize the patients' familial relationships by referencing positive family communication patterns (41.6%) or negative communication issues (2.4%) and included various strategies to address barriers to communication and assist relatives with cascade testing. Overall, GCs consistently documented family communication recommendations when pathogenic variants are identified on patients' genetic testing, albeit with heterogeneous use of specific communication prompts.

Physicians communicating with women at genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancer: Are we in the middle of the ford between contradictory messages and unshared decision making?

BRCA1/2 genetic testing offers tremendous opportunities for prevention, diagnosis and treatment of breast and ovarian cancer. Women acquire valuable information that can help them to make informed decisions about their health. However, knowing one's susceptibility to developing cancer may be burdensome for several women, as this risk needs to be managed over time through a continuous dialogue with multiple healthcare professionals. We explored how communication between physicians and unaffected women carrying BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variants was experienced by women in relation to their genetic risk. Data came from qualitative interviews conducted in Switzerland with 32 unaffected women carrying BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and aware of their genetic status for at least 3 years. We identified three different types of message as conveyed by physicians to women: (1) a normative message, (2) an over-empowering message, and (3) a minimizing message. On one hand, we found that women are exposed to contradictory messages, often simultaneously, in their interactions with healthcare professionals during their post-genetic testing journey. On the other hand, women's reports highlighted the absence of shared decision-making in such interactions. The combination of these two findings resulted in a strong sense of disorientation, frustration, and powerlessness among participants. Healthcare professionals interacting with high cancer risk women are urged to align in favor of a both concerted and shared decision-making approach when discussing options for managing genetic risk.

An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era

The field of genetic counseling has grown and diversified since the profession emerged in the early 1970s. In the same period, genomic testing has become more complex, profitable, and widespread. With these developments, the scope of ethical considerations relevant to genetic counseling has expanded. In light of this, we find it helpful to revisit how ethical and relational variables are used to inform genetic counseling practice. Our specific focus is on whether, and to what extent, it is ethically acceptable for genetic counselors to make normative recommendations to patients. This article builds on prior literature that has critiqued nondirectiveness, a concept that has influenced and constrained the modern profession of genetic counseling since its origin. In it, we review scholarly efforts to move beyond nondirectiveness, which we believe privilege patient autonomy at the expense of other important values. We then argue that genetic counselors should favor a more explicit commitment to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, as well as a broader understanding of autonomy and the relational variables that impact genetic counseling. Finally, to translate our arguments into practice, we present a framework of six considerations that genetic counselors should take into account when deciding whether it is ethically acceptable, or even desirable, to make recommendations to patients in certain areas of their work.

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.

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.

"It would be so much easier": health system-led genetic risk notification-feasibility and acceptability of cascade screening in an integrated system

Assess the feasibility and acceptability of health system-led genetic risk notification in a US integrated health system. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews with individuals age 40-64 years who had undergone genetic sequencing, but had not yet received their results, assessing attitudes to direct outreach to relatives. During each interview, we collected contact information for adult relatives identified as members of the same system and attempted to identify each relative in administrative data. We conducted 20 interviews. Most participants expressed support for Kaiser Permanente Washington involvement in familial risk notification. Direct outreach to relatives received the most unqualified support; outreach to the relatives' physician or interaction with the relatives' electronic medical record received more tempered support. Support was motivated by the desire to have risk communicated accurately and quickly. The most common caveat was a desire to alert relatives before the health system contacted them. Of 57 named relatives who were members of the same health system, we retrieved a single match for 40 (70.2%) based on name or birthdate. Health system involvement in familial risk notification received support in a sample of patients in a US integrated health system, and identification of relatives is feasible.

Experience of Asian males communicating cardiac genetic risk within the family

The genetic nature of an inherited cardiac condition (ICC) places first- and second-degree relatives at risk of cardiac complications and sudden death, even in the absence of symptoms. Communication of cardiac genetic risk information allows at-risk relatives to clarify, manage, and potentially prevent ICC-associated risks through cardiac screening. Literature regarding family communication of genetic risk information are predominantly based on Western populations, with limited insight into the Asian experience. This qualitative exploratory study provides a male perspective into the communication of ICC risks within families in Singapore. Eight male participants with clinically diagnosed cardiomyopathy, who had all received genetic counseling, were recruited. A phenomenological perspective was used to identify emergent themes from semi-structured interviews. In this study, most participants recalled their healthcare professional's emphasis on family communication. Notably, participants revealed that at-risk relatives were not accessing screening, and many described family members as currently asymptomatic and "healthy." These findings coincide with documented Asian beliefs regarding perceptions of health, which have important implications for the provision of genetic counseling support within Asian communities, especially in facilitating family communication such that at-risk relatives are informed about their ICC risks and available management options.