Patterns of family communication and preferred resources for sharing information among families with a Lynch syndrome diagnosis

A Cross-sectional Study of Regret in Cancer Patients After Sharing Test Results for Pathogenic Germline Variants of Hereditary Cancers With Relatives

BACKGROUND

Research on whole genome/exome sequencing is increasing worldwide. However, challenges are emerging in relation to receiving germline pathogenic variant results and sharing them with relatives.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence of and reasoning related to regret among patients with cancer who shared single-gene testing results and whole exome sequencing with family members.

METHODS

This was a single-center, cross-sectional study. The Decision Regret Scale was administered, and descriptive questionnaires were used with 21 patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Eight patients were classified as having no regret, 9 patients were classified as having mild regret, and 4 patients were classified as having moderate to strong regret. Reasons patients felt that sharing was the right decision included the following: to allow relatives and children to take preventive measures, the need for both parties to be aware of and ready for the hereditary transmission of cancer, and the need to be able to discuss the situation with others. On the other hand, some patients did not think it was a good decision to share the information because of the associated anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Regret over sharing test results for pathogenic germline variants of hereditary cancers with relatives tended to be low. The main reason was that patients believed that they were able to benefit others by sharing.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Healthcare professionals need to understand the postsharing perceptions and experiences of patients and support them throughout the sharing process.

The Development and Evaluation of Novel Patient Educational Material for a Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) Result in Hereditary Cancer Genes

A Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) is a difference in the DNA sequence with uncertain consequences for gene function. A VUS in a hereditary cancer gene should not change medical care, yet some patients undergo medical procedures based on their VUS result, highlighting the unmet educational needs among patients and healthcare providers. To address this need, we developed, evaluated, and refined novel educational materials to explain that while VUS results do not change medical care, it remains important to share any personal or family history of cancer with family members given that their personal and family medical history can guide their cancer risk management. We began by reviewing the prior literature and transcripts from interviews with six individuals with a VUS result to identify content and design considerations to incorporate into educational materials. We then gathered feedback to improve materials via a focus group of multidisciplinary experts and multiple rounds of semi-structured interviews with individuals with a VUS result. Themes for how to improve content, visuals, and usefulness were used to refine the materials. In the final round of interviews with an additional 10 individuals with a VUS result, materials were described as relatable, useful, factual, and easy to navigate, and also increased their understanding of cancer gene VUS results.

Psychosocial barriers and facilitators for cascade genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a scoping review

Despite increased awareness and availability of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome for over 20 years, there is still significant underuse of cascade genetic testing among at-risk relatives. This scoping review synthesized evidence regarding psychosocial barriers and facilitators of family communication and/or uptake of cascade genetic testing in relatives from HBOC families. Search terms included 'hereditary breast and ovarian cancer' and 'cascade genetic testing' for studies published from 2012-2022. Through searching common databases, and manual search of references, 480 studies were identified after excluding duplications. Each article was reviewed by two researchers independently and 20 studies were included in the final analysis. CASP, RoBANS 2.0, RoB 2.0, and MMAT were used to assess the quality of included studies. A convergent data synthesis method was used to integrate evidence from quantitative and narrative data into categories and subcategories. Evidence points to 3 categories and 12 subcategories of psychosocial barriers and facilitators for cascade testing: (1) facilitators (belief in health protection and prevention; family closeness; decisional empowerment; family support, sense of responsibility; self-efficacy; supportive health professionals); (2) bidirectional concepts (information; perception of genetic/cancer consequences; negative emotions and attitude); and (3) barriers (negative reactions from family and negative family dynamics). Healthcare providers need to systematically evaluate these psychosocial factors, strengthen facilitators and alleviate barriers to promote informed decision-making for communication of genetic test results and uptake of genetic testing. Bidirectional factors merit special consideration and tailored approaches, as they can potentially have a positive or negative influence on family communication and uptake of genetic testing.

Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: a review of barriers and breakthroughs

Germline genetic sequencing is now at the forefront of cancer treatment and preventative medicine. Cascade genetic testing, or the testing of at-risk relatives, is extremely promising as it offers genetic testing and potentially life-saving risk-reduction strategies to a population exponentially enriched for the risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. However, many relatives do not complete cascade testing due to barriers that span individual, relationship, healthcare community, and societal/policy domains. We have reviewed the published research on cascade testing. Our aim is to evaluate barriers to cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and explore strategies to mitigate these barriers, with the goal of promoting increased uptake of cascade genetic testing.

Experiences of patients and family members with follow-up care, information needs and provider support after identification of Lynch Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Lynch Syndrome is among the most common hereditary cancer syndromes and requires ongoing cancer surveillance, repeated screenings and potential risk-reducing surgeries. Despite the importance of continued surveillance, there is limited understanding of patient experiences after initial testing and counseling, the barriers or facilitators they experience adhering to recommendations, and how they want to receive information over time.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted among 127 probands and family members who had received genetic testing for Lynch Syndrome. We conducted semi-structured interviews to determine proband and family member experiences after receiving genetic testing results including their surveillance and screening practices, information needs, and interactions with health care providers. Both closed-ended and open-ended data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Both probands (96.9%) and family members (76.8%) received recommendations for follow-up screening and all probands (100%) and most family members (98.2%) who tested positive had completed at least one screening. Facilitators to screening included receiving screening procedure reminders and the ease of making screening and surveillance appointments. Insurance coverage to pay for screenings was a frequent concern especially for those under 50 years of age. Participants commented that their primary care providers were often not knowledgeable about Lynch Syndrome and surveillance recommendations; this presented a hardship in navigating ongoing surveillance and updated information. Participants preferred information from a knowledgeable health care provider or a trusted internet source over social media or support groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Probands and family members receiving genetic testing for Lynch Syndrome generally adhered to initial screening and surveillance recommendations. However, factors such as insurance coverage and difficulty finding a knowledgeable healthcare provider presented barriers to receiving recommended follow-up care. There is an opportunity to improve care through better transitions in care, procedures to keep primary care providers informed of surveillance guidelines, and practices so that patients receive reminders and facilitated appointment setting for ongoing screening and surveillance at the time they are due.

Predictors of Women's Intentions to Communicate Updated Genetic Test Results to Immediate and Extended Family Members

INTRODUCTION

Many individuals who previously received negative genetic test results are eligible for updated testing. This study examined intention to communicate updated genetic test results to relatives in participants who previously received negative genetic test results.

METHODS

Women with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer who tested negative for BRCA1/2 before 2013 were enrolled between April 2018 and October 2019. Proportions were calculated to assess intention to communicate updated genetic test results to living immediate family, extended family, and all family. Potential predictors of intentions from the theory of planned behavior (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control) were assessed. The three outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models with a quasi-binomial probability distribution.

RESULTS

110 women completed the baseline assessment prior to updated testing. Participants intended to communicate genetic test results to 90% of immediate family, 51% of extended family, and 66% of all living relatives. Participants with higher subjective norms (aOR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.08-3.57) had higher intentions to communicate genetic test results to extended family, while participants with more positive attitudes (aOR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.01-1.60) had higher intentions to communicate to all family. Placing higher importance on genetic information was associated with higher intentions to communicate to immediate family (aOR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.06-1.83). Lower subjective numeracy was associated with higher intentions to communicate to extended family (aOR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.32-0.76).

CONCLUSION

Attitudes and subjective norms were predictors of intention to communicate updated genetic information to at-risk biological relatives, and predictors may vary by degree of relationship.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50).

CONCLUSION

Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Oncology Informatics for Lynch Syndrome Research and Care: A Literature Review

PURPOSE

This study aims to review and evaluate available informatics platforms for research and management purposes of Lynch syndrome (LS) to identify gaps and needs for future development.

METHODS

LS informatics tools were identified through literature search in four publication databases (1 and Scopus). First, the LS and functional elements of every informatics tools for LS were introduced. Then, current existing LS informatics tools were reviewed and explained.

RESULTS

A detailed review of implemented studies shows that many types of informatics platforms are available for LS management (ie, prediction model, clinical decision support system, database website, and other tools for research and management purposes of LS). Moreover, several dimensions of existing LS informatics tools were discussed and features and positive findings were reported.

CONCLUSION

Reviewing the literature reveals that several LS informatics tools were focused on gene-specific estimate, cancer risk prediction, identifying/screening patients, supporting personalized care of individuals with LS, and storing mismatch repair mutations information. Nevertheless, these platforms do not fully cover the care and research purposes. For instance, future developments of LS tools require more attention to dynamic knowledgebase, extra-colonic lynch–related cancers on the basis of precision medicine, variants of unknown significance, and support from diagnosis to surveillance for patient follow-up. Insights and recommendations provided in this study could help researchers and developers to meet the existing challenges in future developments.

Living in the shadow of Lynch Syndrome: British women's accounts

In this paper we explore accounts of eight British women living with Lynch Syndrome: a hereditary syndrome that increases the risk of developing bowel and gynecological cancers. We collected data via semi-structured interviews and analyzed them using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Two themes, 'It's Up to Us': The Lynch Patient Experience; and 'The Biggest Challenge': The Lynch Parent Experience, illustrate the experiential burden and emotional labor of living with Lynch Syndrome. We theorize our analysis through Corbin and Strauss's concept of 'Health Work', and Hochschild's concept of 'Emotion Work'. Recommendations for clinical care and familial support are discussed.

IMProving care After inherited Cancer Testing (IMPACT) study: protocol of a randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of two interventions designed to improve cancer risk management and family communication of genetic test results

BACKGROUND

Implementing genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition into routine clinical care offers a tremendous opportunity for cancer prevention and early detection. However, genetic testing itself does not improve outcomes; rather, outcomes depend on implemented follow-up care. The IMPACT study is a hybrid type I randomized effectiveness-implementation trial to simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of two interventions for individuals with inherited cancer predisposition focused on: 1) increasing family communication (FC) of genetic test results; and 2) improving engagement with guideline-based cancer risk management (CRM).

METHODS

This prospective study will recruit a racially, geographically, and socioeconomically diverse population of individuals with a documented pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in an inherited cancer gene. Eligible participants will be asked to complete an initial trial survey and randomly assigned to one of three arms: A) GeneSHARE, a website designed to increase FC of genetic test results; B) My Gene Counsel's Living Lab Report, a digital tool designed to improve understanding of genetic test results and next steps, including CRM guidelines; or C) a control arm in which participants continue receiving standard care. Follow-up surveys will be conducted at 1, 3, and 12 months following randomization. These surveys include single-item measures, scales, and indices related to: 1) FC and CRM behaviors and behavioral factors following the COM-B theoretical framework (i.e., capability, opportunity, and motivation); 2) implementation outcomes (i.e., acceptability, appropriateness, exposure, and reach); and 3) other contextual factors (i.e., sociodemographic and clinical factors, and uncertainty, distress, and positive aspects of genetic test results). The primary outcomes are an increase in FC of genetic test results (Arm A) and improved engagement with guideline-based CRM without overtreatment or undertreatment (Arm B) by the 12-month follow-up survey.

DISCUSSION

Our interventions are designed to shift the paradigm by which individuals with P/LP variants in inherited cancer genes are provided with information to enhance FC of genetic test results and engagement with guideline-based CRM. The information gathered through evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of these real-world approaches is needed to modify and scale up adaptive, stepped interventions that have the potential to maximize FC and CRM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04763915, date registered: February 21, 2021).

PROTOCOL VERSION

September 17th, 2021 Amendment Number 04.

Multiple approaches to enhancing cancer communication in the next decade: translating research into practice and policy

Communicating risk and other health information in a clear, understandable, and actionable manner is critical for the prevention and control of cancer, as well as the care of affected individuals and their family members. However, the swift pace of development in communication technologies has dramatically changed the health communication landscape. This digital era presents new opportunities and challenges for cancer communication research and its impact on practice and policy. In this article, we examine the science of health communication focused on cancer and highlight important areas of research for the coming decade. Specifically, we discuss three domains in which cancer communication may occur: (a) among patients and their healthcare providers; (b) within and among families and social networks; and (c) across communities, populations, and the public more broadly. We underscore findings from the prior decade of cancer communication research, provide illustrative examples of future directions for cancer communication science, and conclude with considerations for diverse populations. Health informatics studies will be necessary to fully understand the growing and complex communication settings related to cancer: such works have the potential to change the face of information exchanges about cancer and elevate our collective discourse about this area as newer clinical and public health priorities emerge. Researchers from a wide array of specialties are interested in examining and improving cancer communication. These interdisciplinary perspectives can rapidly advance and help translate findings of cancer communication in the field of behavioral medicine.

Sharing genetic test results of germline pathogenic variants of hereditary cancer with relatives: A single-center cross-sectional study

Objective

This study aimed to determine whether Japanese cancer patients share test results of germline pathogenic variants of hereditary cancer with their relatives.

Methods

This single-center cross-sectional study enrolled 21 Japanese patients who received results of germline pathogenic variants of hereditary cancer at least 6 months prior.

Results

All patients shared their test results with at least one relative, with the following sharing rates: 85.7% for first-degree relatives, 10% for second-degree relatives and 8.3% for third-degree relatives. Patients most commonly shared the information with their children aged >18 years (86.7%), followed by their siblings (73.6%), spouses (64.7%) and parents (54.5%). Three categories were extracted from qualitative analysis: ‘characteristics of my cancer’, ‘knowledge and caution about inheritability’ and ‘utilization of medical care.’

Conclusions

The rate of test result sharing with first-degree relatives was comparable with those in Europe and the USA. Patients with germline pathogenic variants also tended to share their test results more with their children and siblings than with their parents. Informing their relatives of the results was suggestive of the motivation to influence their relatives’ health outcome and contribute to the well-being of their children and siblings.

Development and evaluation of an online, patient-driven, family outreach intervention to facilitate sharing of genetic risk information in families with Lynch syndrome

BACKGROUND

Identifying at-risk relatives of individuals with genetic conditions facilitates 'cascade' genetic testing and cancer prevention. Although current standards of care give mutation-positive (index) patients the responsibility of sharing genetic risk information with relatives, the communication is suboptimal, limited largely to close relatives. We developed FamilyCONNECT, a provider-mediated, patient-navigated online tool to facilitate family outreach, and assessed its feasibility, usability and acceptability.

METHODS

(1) Development of the FamilyCONNECT prototype; (2) testing using online surveys of: (a) members of Lynch Syndrome (LS) International (LSI); (b) genetics service providers; and (3) hands-on testing with patients with LS.

RESULTS

(1) FamilyCONNECT's features include introductory email to elicit participation, informational website/video, identity authentication/account creation, informed consent, sharing of genetic test results, pedigree expansion and process to invite at-risk relatives. (2a) 33% of the 170 LSI participants completed the survey. FamilyCONNECT's features received favourable responses from at least 79% of respondents. Unfavourable responses were for length of the consent document and mistrust of opening emailed links. (2b) Thirty-five genetics professionals responded to the providers' survey. Key perceived barriers to FamilyCONNECT's usage were privacy/confidentiality (83%), a lack of institutional resources (76%), a defined process (66%) and time (69%). (3) Ten patients navigated data collection fields and provided feedback for improvements.

CONCLUSION

FamilyCONNECT tool's content and features were well received among patients with LS as well as providers. The tool could be a viable alternative to increase family outreach among patients with LS. Future efforts will focus on refining FamilyCONNECT and assessing its uptake and utilisation by patients with LS.

Family communication of genetic test results among women with inherited breast cancer genes

Identification of inherited breast cancer may guide care. These benefits can be amplified through communication of genetic test results with at-risk family members and subsequent family testing (FT). Females with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in BRCA1/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and/or ATM were surveyed about family communication (FC) of genetic test results and FT. Comparisons were made across genes. The 235 participants with P/LP variants (186 BRCA1/2, 28 PALB2, 15 CHEK2, and 6 ATM) had a median age of 54 and most were non-Hispanic whites (89%) with a prior breast cancer diagnosis (61%). When controlling for other variables, FC was higher among younger participants (p<.0001), those with high FC self-efficacy (p=.019), and those with P/LP variants in BRCA1/2 compared to PALB2 (p =.040) and ATM/CHEK2 (p =.032). Higher rates of FC and FT were also observed among female relatives and relatives of closer kinship. Overall 94% of participants would find one or more resources helpful with FC and 70% reported using FC resources when telling family members about their genetic test result. The three most commonly used resources included the following: (a) a family sharing letter (38%); (b) printed materials (30%); and (c) web-based information (23%). Among the 86% who spoke with a genetic counselor (GC), 93% were given at least one FC resource and the three most common resources GCs provided to participants overlapped with the resources participants would find helpful and those that were used. Our results suggest lower FC and FT rates among women with P/LP variants in genes other than BRCA1/2, the reasons for which should be evaluated in future studies. As more data to refine cancer risks and management are generated across these other inherited breast cancer genes, strategies to improve FC and FT are needed to amplify the benefits of genetic testing.