Patient-reported anticipated barriers and benefits to sharing cancer genetic risk information with family members

Disclosure of genetic risk to family members: A qualitative study on healthcare professionals' perceived roles and responsibilities

This paper presents the perspectives of healthcare professionals regarding their roles and responsibilities in supporting patients with the disclosure of genetic risk to their families. The study involved eight focus groups and two individual interviews with 34 healthcare professionals working in medical genetics services across Portugal. The data were analyzed thematically, resulting in three primary themes: i) informing patients about the risk to relatives; ii) ensuring patient confidentiality; and iii) encouraging family communication. Participants believed it is their responsibility to inform patients about the genetic risk to their relatives, with patients bearing a moral responsibility to convey this information. They explained that the principles of medical confidentiality of the patient take precedence over any direct responsibility to patients' relatives. Treating personal and familial genetic information separately was perceived as challenging to implement and potentially problematic. While most participants reported encouraging patients to inform their relatives, the extent to which they facilitate this communication varies and is also constrained by lack of resources and concerns about complying with legal requirements. Some participants called for clearer national guidelines. These results contribute for ongoing discussions regarding the scope of practice and the roles and responsibilities of healthcare professionals in appropriately cascading pertinent information to at-risk relatives.

Patients' perceptions and practices of informing relatives: a qualitative study within a randomised trial on healthcare-assisted risk disclosure

In a multicentre randomised controlled trial (DIRECT), we evaluate whether an intervention of providing direct letters from healthcare professionals to at-risk relatives (ARRs) affects the proportion of ARRs contacting a cancer genetics clinic, compared with patient-mediated disclosure alone (control). With the aim to explore how the patients included in the trial perceived and performed risk communication with their ARRs we analysed 17 semi-structured interviews with reflexive thematic analysis. All patients described that they disclosed risk information to all close relatives themselves. No integrity-related issues were reported by patients offered the intervention, and all of them accepted direct letters to all their ARRs. Patients' approaches to informing distant relatives were unpredictable and varied from contacting all distant ARRs, sharing the burden with the family, utilising the offer of sending direct letters, vaguely relying on others to inform, or postponing disclosure. Most patients limited their responsibility to the disclosure, although others wanted relatives to get genetic counselling or felt a need to provide additional information to the ARRs before ending their mission. We also identified confusion about the implication of test results, who needed risk information, and who was responsible for informing ARRs. These misunderstandings possibly also affected risk disclosure. This study revealed that despite accepting the direct letters to be sent to all relatives, the patients also contributed to risk disclosure in other ways. It was only in some situations to distant relatives that the healthcare-assisted letter was the only means of communication to the ARRs.

Next generation of free? Points to consider when navigating sponsored genetic testing

Genetics has been integrated into patient care across many subspecialties. However, genetic and genomic testing (GT) remain expensive with disparities in access both within Canada and internationally. It is, therefore, not surprising that sponsored GT has emerged as one alternative. Sponsored GT, for the purpose of this document, refers to clinical-grade GT partially or fully subsidised by industry. In return, industry sponsors-usually pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies-may have access to patients' genetic data, practitioner information, DNA and/or other information. The availability of sponsored GT options in the Canadian healthcare landscape has appeared to simplify patient and practitioner access to GT, but the potential ethical and legal considerations, as well as the nuances of a publicly funded healthcare system, must also be considered. This document offers preliminary guidance for Canadian healthcare practitioners encountering sponsored GT in practice. Further research and dialogue is urgently needed to explore this issue to provide fulsome considerations that one must be aware of when availing such options.

Communication processes about predictive genetic testing within high-risk breast cancer families: a two-phase study design

The detection of a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene has medical and psychological consequences for both, affected mutation carriers and their relatives. A two-phase study with explanatory sequential mixed methods design examined the psychological impact of genetic testing and associated family communication processes. Analyzing a survey data of 79 carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, the majority had general psychological distress independent of cancer diagnosis in the patients' history. The point prevalence of depression was 16.9%. Contrary to their subjective perception, the respondents' knowledge about those mutations was moderate. Despite the high rate of information transfer to relatives at risk (100%), their reported uptake of genetic testing was low (45.6%). Communication about the mutation detection was more frequent with female than with male relatives. In-depth focus group interviews revealed significant barriers to accessing genetic counseling including anxiety, uncertainty about the benefits of testing and about the own cancer risk, particularly among males. This study suggests that an adequate knowledge of the genetic background and psychological support is required to reduce emotional distress, to support familial communication and to facilitate genetic testing.