Delivering information about cancer genetics via letter to patients at low and moderate risk of familial cancer: a pilot study in Wales

"Who Doesn't Like Receiving Good News?" Perspectives of Individuals Who Received Genomic Screening Results by Mail

As genomic sequencing expands to screen larger numbers of individuals, offering genetic counseling to everyone may not be possible. One approach to managing this limitation is for a genetic counselor to communicate clinically actionable results in person or by telephone, but report other results by mail. We employed this approach in a large genomic implementation study. In this paper, we describe participants' experiences receiving genomic screening results by mail. We conducted 50 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who received neutral genomic screening results by mail. Most participants were satisfied receiving neutral results by mail. Participants generally had a good understanding of results; however, a few participants had misunderstandings about their genomic screening results, including mistaken beliefs about their disease risk and the comprehensiveness of the test. No one reported plans to alter health behaviors, defer medical evaluations, or take other actions that might be considered medically problematic. Reporting neutral results by mail is unlikely to cause recipients distress or generate misunderstandings that may result in reduced vigilance in following recommended preventive health strategies. Nonetheless, some individuals may benefit from additional genetic counseling support to help situate their results in the context of personal concerns and illness experiences.

Recontacting Patients with Updated Genetic Testing Recommendations for Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma and Pheochromocytoma or Paraganglioma

BACKGROUND

No guidelines exist regarding physicians' duty to inform former patients about novel genetic tests that may be medically beneficial. Research on the feasibility and efficacy of disseminating information and patient opinions on this topic is limited.

METHODS

Adult patients treated at our institution from 1950 to 2010 for medullary thyroid cancer, pheochromocytoma, or paraganglioma were included if their history suggested being at-risk for a hereditary syndrome but genetic risk assessment would be incomplete by current standards. A questionnaire assessing behaviors and attitudes was mailed 6 weeks after an information letter describing new genetic tests, benefits, and risks was mailed.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven of 312 (31.1%) eligible patients with an identified mailing address returned the questionnaire. After receiving the letter, 29.2% patients discussed genetic testing with their doctor, 39.3% considered pursuing genetic testing, and 8.5% underwent testing. Nearly all respondents (97%) indicated that physicians should inform patients about new developments that may improve their or their family's health, and 71% thought patients shared this responsibility. Most patients understood the letter (84%) and were pleased it was sent (84%), although 11% found it upsetting.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients believe it is important for physicians to inform them of potentially beneficial developments in genetic testing. However, physician-initiated letters to introduce new information appear inadequate alone in motivating patients to seek additional genetic counseling and testing. Further research is needed regarding optimal methods to notify former patients about new genetic tests and corresponding clinical and ethical implications.

Cancer genetic risk assessment for individuals at risk of familial breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The recognition of an inherited component to breast cancer has led to an increase in demand for information, reassurance, and genetic testing, which has resulted in the creation of genetic clinics for familial cancer. The first step for patients referred to a cancer genetic clinic is a risk assessment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of cancer genetic risk-assessment services on patients at risk of familial breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

The specialised register maintained by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group was searched on 16th February 2005. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycLIT, CENTRAL, DARE, ASSIA, Web of Science, SIGLE and LILACS. The original searches covered the period 1985 to February 2005. We also handsearched relevant journals. For this review update the search was repeated through to April 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered trials looking at interventions for cancer genetic risk-assessment services for familial breast cancer for inclusion. Trials assessed outcomes such as understanding of risk, satisfaction and psychological well-being. We excluded studies if they concerned cancers other than breast cancer or if participants were not at risk of inherited breast cancer. We also excluded trials concerning the provision of general cancer genetic information or education as this review was concerned with the delivery of genetic risk assessment. Participants could be individuals of any age or gender, with or without a known BRCA mutation, but without a previous history of breast cancer or any other serious illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Additional information was sought from investigators as necessary. Due to the heterogeneity of both the interventions and outcomes, we reported data descriptively.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review update, we included five new trials, bringing the total number of included studies to eight. The included trials (pertaining to 10 papers), provided data on 1973 participants and assessed the impact of cancer genetic risk assessment on outcomes including perceived risk of inherited cancer, and psychological distress. This review suggests that cancer genetic risk-assessment services help to reduce distress, improve the accuracy of the perceived risk of breast cancer, and increase knowledge about breast cancer and genetics. The health professional delivering the risk assessment does not appear to have a significant impact on these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found favourable outcomes for patients after risk assessment for familial breast cancer. However, there were too few papers to make any significant conclusions about how best to deliver cancer genetic risk-assessment services. Further research is needed assessing the best means of delivering cancer risk assessment, by different health professionals, in different ways and in alternative locations.

Breast cancer genetic counselling referrals: how comparable are the findings between the UK and the Netherlands?

Counselees from different countries may differ in demographic and medical characteristics and this could affect their pre-counselling cognitions and psychosocial variables. Research outcomes may therefore not be easily transferable between countries. To examine this, a cross-national comparison of UK (West Midlands: WM) and Dutch (Middle Netherlands: MN) counselees in breast cancer genetic counselling was conducted. Two hundred thirty-eight WM and 156 MN proband counselees were compared on demographics, breast cancer history and referral pathways. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to check whether national differences in knowledge of breast cancer and heredity, risk perception, worry and information needs persisted when corrected for the background characteristics. About half of the Dutch compared to 8% of UK counselees were affected by breast cancer. More UK than Dutch counselees were at high risk from hereditary breast cancer. UK counselees had higher risk perceptions and more knowledge about breast cancer prevalence, but these differences lost significance when corrected for counselees' risk levels and other background characteristics. Counselees from the UK might report higher levels of worry than Dutch counselees and this could not be explained by their background characteristics. Comparisons of findings between the UK and the Netherlands show that the UK seems to have a higher percentage of high-risk referrals and these counselees seem to have higher risk perceptions. Irrespective of their actual risk level, UK counselees might be more worried. Comparing findings between the different countries raises questions about how transferable research findings are from one culture to another.

Interventions to improve risk communication in clinical genetics: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Effective risk communication may enable clients to participate effectively in decision-making about their health and health care. A systematic review of existing literature on risk communication in genetics, and its effects on key outcomes for clients, was undertaken.

METHOD

Systematic searching of six electronic databases and data extraction from included studies; narrative synthesis of results.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included, principally from cancer genetics. Sixteen communication interventions have been evaluated, generally showing improvements in cognitive outcomes for users, such as knowledge, understanding and risk perception, and without adverse effects on anxiety, cancer-related worry and depression. However, often it was the supportive or emotional elements of counselling that provided benefits to users, rather than the informational or educational elements. Similar results were found in 12 further studies of decision aids which also appear to achieve shorter consultations that can focus more on the supportive elements of counselling.

CONCLUSION

For both communication models and decision aids, the supportive or emotional elements of counselling provided more benefits to users than the informational or educational elements.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Debate is required on how to strike a balance between the medical model, its agenda and perceived requirements to disclose or discuss a range of issues and the sometimes competing goals of addressing users' concerns, needs for support, issues of loss and relationship problems.

The use of the life course paradigm and life course charts to explore referral for family history of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Life course research methodologies are used extensively in historical and social science research. In 1998 the life course paradigm was introduced to provide a way of tracing the interplay of person and setting. The method has had a very limited use in nursing research, but in this study it was utilized as a way of capturing dynamic change by placing the individual within a context of four domains; location in time and place, linked lives, human agency and timing of lives.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the paradigm, review its use in healthcare research and provide a specific example of its use in healthcare.

DESIGN

This paper discusses a novel method of creating life course charts for a qualitative study exploring the differing experiences of women referred from primary care to specialist services due to a family history of breast cancer.

SETTING

A nurse-led breast cancer family history clinic in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-two women.

METHODS

Life charts were used in conjunction with a grounded theory approach to analyse data collected from semi-structured interviews.

FINDINGS

Twenty-two life charts were created and the ability to layer the charts of multiple women to visualise similarities and differences aided the analysis. The life charts were a useful tool in the development of theoretical understandings and the psychosocial process of realisation of risk emerged as central to the initiation of referral. This was often apparent when approaching the age of an affected relative (anticipated onset) or when current circumstances emulate past experience (generational transference).

CONCLUSIONS

This approach to charting complex psychological, social and contextual factors throughout the life course was methodologically beneficial and could have a wider utility in nursing and healthcare research. As a research tool it enhanced a holistic approach to patient care issues and was helpful as an aid to understanding health behaviours linked to familial risk.

Online patient education and risk assessment: project OPERA from Cancerbackup. Putting inherited breast cancer risk information into context using argumentation theory

OBJECTIVE

Many people are concerned about their family history of breast cancer, and are anxious about the possibility of developing breast cancer themselves. The majority of these people are likely not to be at significantly increased risk of developing inherited breast cancer. All women are at risk of developing sporadic breast cancer, and this risk increases with age. This project aims to aid people's understanding of these issues using an interactive online computer programme.

METHODS

The UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence has published guidance for the National Health Service on the management of familial breast cancer. That guidance lays down clear criteria for categorising risk level and the appropriate management options. We have developed a user-friendly computer programme named OPERA (online patient education and risk assessment) which captures the individuality of the user's situation in a comprehensive way, and then produces personalised information packages, building on the theoretical framework of argumentation developed by Toulmin [Toulmin S. The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1958]. We will test this programme in a series of pilot studies commencing in 2007.

RESULTS

This paper describes the progress of this project to date and focuses on the design of the programme.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to construct a user friendly programme which delivers a personalised information package to individuals who are concerned about their risk of developing breast cancer.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This user friendly programme needs to be tested within a series of carefully thought out pilot studies before it is ready for general release and use by the public.

Successful use of peer educators for sharing genetic information

This study examined the impact of a genetics education module provided by Reach to Recovery peer volunteers. Participants included 113 women with confirmed breast cancer diagnoses. Eighty-eight of these women (78%) completed a baseline survey, participated in a peer-led intervention, and completed a follow-up survey. Approximately half of the women received an education module that included a genetic component, while the other half did not. Results indicated that women who received the genetics module had greater increases in genetics knowledge than the group that did not receive the module. However, follow-up interest in genetic testing was not significantly different between the two groups. Results indicate that a peer-led genetics module can increase knowledge about genetics. However, it does not appear to have a differential effect on genetic testing interest.

Cancer genetic risk assessment for individuals at risk of familial breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The recognition of an inherited component to breast cancer has led to an increase in demand for information, reassurance, and genetic testing, resulting in the creation of genetics clinics for familial cancer. The first step for patients referred to a cancer genetic clinic is a risk assessment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of cancer genetic risk assessment services on patients at risk of familial breast cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The specialised register maintained by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group was searched. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycLIT, CENTRAL, DARE, ASSIA, Web of Science, SIGLE and LILACS. The searches covered the period 1985 to February 2005. We also hand-searched relevant journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials looking at interventions for cancer genetic risk assessment delivery for familial breast cancer were considered for inclusion. Trials assessed outcomes such as understanding of risk, satisfaction and psychological well-being. Studies were excluded if they concerned cancers other than breast cancer or if participants were not at risk of breast cancer. Trials concerning the provision of information or education were also excluded as it was intended to review these separately. Participants could be individuals of any age or gender, with or without a known BRCA mutation, but without a previous history of breast cancer or any other serious illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Additional information was sought from investigators as necessary. Due to the heterogeneity of both the interventions and outcomes, data were analysed descriptively.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-eight papers were identified as relevant to the review, 54 of these were subsequently excluded. The three included trials (pertaining to five papers), provide data on 1251 participants and assessed the impact of cancer genetic risk assessment on outcomes including perceived risk, and psychological distress. This review suggests that cancer genetic risk assessment services help to reduce distress, improve the accuracy of the perceived risk of, and increase knowledge about, breast cancer and genetics. The health professional delivering the risk assessment does not appear to have a significant impact on these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found favourable outcomes for patients' risk assessment for familial breast cancer. However, there were too few papers to make any significant conclusions about how best to deliver cancer genetic risk assessment services. Further research is needed assessing the best means of delivering cancer risk assessment, by different health professionals, in different ways and in alternative locations.

Genetic services for men: the preferences of men with a family history of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Men have a lower uptake of genetic services than women; however, the specific needs and preferences of men at risk of genetic conditions other than hereditary breast ovarian cancer are not known. We ascertain the information preferences of men with a family history of prostate cancer.

METHODS

Unaffected men and their partners were administered a written questionnaire.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 280 men (response rate: 59.2%) and 174 partners (response rate: 74%). Most men (59.6%) reported having insufficient information about their risk and wanted further information about personal risk (93.2%) and risk management (93.6%). Strikingly, 56.3% preferred to receive information related only to positive outcomes. Urologists were the preferred source of information, but there was considerable interest in a multidisciplinary service approach significantly associated with the number of affected relatives (odds ratio = 1.94, P < .002). Partners' level of concern was not associated with interest in multidisciplinary services, satisfaction with information, or support received.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivering services to men at risk will require a multifaceted approach by primary care providers and specialists. Challenges include meeting men's expectations in the face of uncertain medical knowledge, engaging those at high risk in multidisciplinary services, and delivering tailored information to those at lower risk.

Knowledge and expectations of women undergoing cancer genetic risk assessment: a qualitative analysis of free-text questionnaire comments

Individuals undergoing cancer genetic risk assessment have been found to have a poor understanding of the process, which may affect how well they cope with learning their risk. This paper reports free-text data from questionnaires completed by women undergoing a randomised controlled trial of a psychological intervention. Of the 268 women undergoing genetic assessment for familial breast/ovarian cancer risk who were invited to take part in the trial, 157 women returned research questionnaires. Of these, 97 women provided free-text comments upon referral to a cancer genetics clinic, 62 provided comments whilst waiting for risk information (average, moderate or high), and 36 women provided comments following notification of risk. This paper reports a thematic analysis of the free-text data. Themes reflected individuals' poor knowledge and uncertainty about genetic risk assessment. How well individuals responded to learning their risk depended upon whether expectations had been met. Regardless of risk, individuals undergoing cancer genetic risk assessment are likely to benefit from increased information about its process and timescales, and access to increased psychological support. Free-text comments can provide valuable data about individuals' expectations and knowledge of genetics services.

Attitudes of genetic clinicians in Wales to the future development of cancer genetics services

RATIONALE

Cancer genetics is one of the fastest-growing areas of clinical genetics and it is imperative to identify how services should be organized and delivered in the future.

METHODS

A qualitative study utilizing focus group methodology which explored the attitudes of clinicians working in the Medical Genetics Service for Wales to a number of possible models for future service delivery.

RESULTS

There was no consensus for any particular model. Greater involvement of primary care practitioners is anticipated, but this requires investment in information, education and professional development initiatives. Self-referrals were not encouraged, though the promotion of genetic literacy amongst the general population was supported, particularly in conjunction with pharmacists.

CONCLUSION

As demand for cancer genetics services continues to increase, some consensus about the future delivery of such services is necessary. Consultation with other stakeholder groups, especially primary care practitioners and patients, should also contribute to service planning.

Decision aids for familial breast cancer: exploring women's views using focus groups

BACKGROUND

There is increasing need for accessible information about familial breast cancer for those facing complex decisions around genetic testing, screening and treatment. Information currently includes leaflets and computerized decision aids, offering interactive interfaces to clarify complex choices.

OBJECTIVE

Exploration of users' views and reactions to three decision aids for genetic testing for breast cancer using focus groups.

SETTING

A regional cancer genetics service in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Women over 18 years of age who had been referred to Cancer Genetics Service for Wales (CGSW) and had received a risk assessment for familial breast cancer.

METHODS

Qualitative study involving one pilot and six extended focus groups with 39 women at high, moderate and population risk. Two CD-ROMs and one paper-based aid evaluated for: clarity of presentation, ease of handling, emotive response, increased knowledge and greater informed choice.

RESULTS

Women reported variable preferences for different types of decision aids and mixed emotions, indicating the sensitivity of raising issues in decision support tools, lack of consensus over the most appropriate aid and no systematic differences between risk groups. Women remarked that aids increased their knowledge, particularly about breast cancer genes and risk and wanted a decision aid designed within the context of the NHS, in both paper-based and CD-ROM formats from an authoritative source. Mixed views about presentation styles suggest decision aids would be most effective with a user-selected range of formats.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aid development should be informed by users and should meet the needs of those concerned about their risk of breast cancer in the UK. Without such aids, patients will continue to search for information from a variety of sources of varying quality.

Identifying future models for delivering genetic services: a nominal group study in primary care

Background

To enable primary care medical practitioners to generate a range of possible service delivery models for genetic counselling services and critically assess their suitability.

Methods

Modified nominal group technique using in primary care professional development workshops.

Results

37 general practitioners in Wales, United Kingdom too part in the nominal group process. The practitioners who attended did not believe current systems were sufficient to meet anticipated demand for genetic services. A wide range of different service models was proposed, although no single option emerged as a clear preference. No argument was put forward for genetic assessment and counselling being central to family practice, neither was there a voice for the view that the family doctor should become skilled at advising patients about predictive genetic testing and be able to counsel patients about the wider implications of genetic testing for patients and their family members, even for areas such as common cancers. Nevertheless, all the preferred models put a high priority on providing the service in the community, and often co-located in primary care, by clinicians who had developed expertise.

Conclusion

There is a need for a wider debate about how healthcare systems address individual concerns about genetic concerns and risk, especially given the increasing commercial marketing of genetic tests.