Uncertainty in the Process of Communicating Cancer-related Genetic Risk Information with Patients: A Scoping Review

Information needs persist after genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1/2 and Lynch Syndrome

PURPOSE

Research has shown that cancer genetic risk is often not well understood by patients undergoing genetic testing and counseling. We describe the barriers to understanding genetic risk and the needs of high-risk persons and cancer survivors who have undergone genetic testing.

METHODS

Using data from an internet survey of adults living in the USA who responded 'yes' to having ever had a genetic test to determine cancer risk (N = 696), we conducted bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate associations between demographic, clinical, and communication-related variables by our key outcome of having vs. not having enough information about genetics and cancer to speak with family. Percentages for yes and no responses to queries about unmet informational needs were calculated. Patient satisfaction with counseling and percentage disclosure of genetic risk status to family were also calculated.

RESULTS

We found that a lack of resources provided by provider to inform family members and a lack of materials provided along with genetic test results were strongly associated with not having enough information about genetics and cancer (OR 4.54 95% CI 2.40-8.59 and OR 2.19 95% CI 1.16-4.14 respectively). Among participants undergoing genetic counseling, almost half reported needing more information on what genetic risk means for them and their family and how genetic testing results might impact future screening.

CONCLUSION

High levels of satisfaction with genetic counseling may not give a full picture of the patient-provider interaction and may miss potential unmet needs of the patient. Accessible resources and ongoing opportunities for updating family history information could reinforce knowledge about genetic risk.

Joint ABS-UKCGG-CanGene-CanVar consensus regarding the use of CanRisk in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

The CanRisk tool, which operationalises the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) is used by Clinical Geneticists, Genetic Counsellors, Breast Oncologists, Surgeons and Family History Nurses for breast cancer risk assessments both nationally and internationally. There are currently no guidelines with respect to the day-to-day clinical application of CanRisk and differing inputs to the model can result in different recommendations for practice.

METHODS

To address this gap, the UK Cancer Genetics Group in collaboration with the Association of Breast Surgery and the CanGene-CanVar programme held a workshop on 16th of May 2023, with the aim of establishing best practice guidelines.

RESULTS

Using a pre-workshop survey followed by structured discussion and in-meeting polling, we achieved consensus for UK best practice in use of CanRisk in making recommendations for breast cancer surveillance, eligibility for genetic testing and the input of available information to undertake an individualised risk assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst consensus recommendations were achieved, the meeting highlighted some of the barriers limiting the use of CanRisk in clinical practice and identified areas that require further work and collaboration with relevant national bodies and policy makers to incorporate wider use of CanRisk into routine breast cancer risk assessments.

The Experience of Uncertainty in Individuals With High Risk for Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Individuals with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer or a known hereditary cancer syndrome that is associated with pancreatic cancer are considered at high risk for developing pancreatic cancer. Living with a high risk for often fatal cancer is accompanied by high levels of uncertainty. Uncertainty is also independently associated with negative health outcomes. By understanding issues, sources, and responses to uncertainty, targeted supportive care strategies can be provided.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to examine how uncertainty manifests in the experience of being at high risk to develop pancreatic cancer and to describe issues, sources of, and responses to uncertainty.

METHODS

In this secondary qualitative descriptive study, we analyzed 19 interviews with persons living with inherited pancreatic cancer risk. Analysis was guided by a conceptual framework of uncertainty and responses to uncertainty.

RESULTS

Participants described multiple personal, practical, and scientific issues of uncertainty, centering on what to expect for their future health. Participants also expressed positive and negative cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses to uncertainty, including engaging in surveillance. Uncertainty sources were both individual experiences as well as perceptions of healthcare provider uncertainty with managing pancreatic cancer risk.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic cancer risk includes issues of uncertainty related to personal mortality, defining and managing risk, and experiencing surveillance. Positive and negative responses to this uncertainty could be targeted through interventions.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

The oncology nurse should assess for sources of and responses to uncertainty in persons at risk for pancreatic cancer and offer psychosocial and educational support.

A qualitative study of unaffected ATM and CHEK2 carriers: How participants make meaning of 'moderate risk' genetic results in a population breast cancer screening trial

Relatively little is known about experiences of individuals with a pathogenic variant in a moderately penetrant breast cancer gene, particularly those without a personal history of cancer. The WISDOM trial is testing a model of risk-based breast cancer screening that integrates genomic (nine genes and polygenic risk) and other risk factors. In the context of an embedded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) study of WISDOM, we conducted qualitative interviews at two timepoints post-result disclosure with 22 ATM and CHEK2 carriers. Results disclosure and interview recordings were transcribed and analyzed using a grounded theory analysis framework. We found that participants minimized the significance of their results in comparison to BRCA; were surprised but not alarmed by the results in the absence of family history; did not fundamentally change their perception of their breast cancer risk despite the new genomic information; exhibited variable responses to WISDOM's screening and risk reduction recommendations; and shared test results with family but did not strongly encourage cascade testing. Participants viewed the results as having limited utility and responded accordingly. Our study offers important insights into how genetic test results for moderate-risk genes are received, understood, and acted upon in population screening context.

Developing an integrated multilevel model of uncertainty in health care: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

Introduction

Uncertainty is an inevitable part of healthcare and a source of confusion and challenge to decision-making. Several taxonomies of uncertainty have been developed, but mainly focus on decisions in clinical settings. Our goal was to develop a holistic model of uncertainty that can be applied to both clinical as well as public and global health scenarios.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and Google scholar in March 2021 for literature reviews, qualitative studies and case studies related to classifications or models of uncertainty in healthcare. Empirical articles were assessed for study limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. We synthesised the literature using a thematic analysis and developed a dynamic multilevel model of uncertainty. We sought patient input to assess relatability of the model and applied it to two case examples.

Results

We screened 4125 studies and included 15 empirical studies, 13 literature reviews and 5 case studies. We identified 77 codes and organised these into 26 descriptive and 11 analytical themes of uncertainty. The themes identified are global, public health, healthcare system, clinical, ethical, relational, personal, knowledge exchange, epistemic, aleatoric and parameter uncertainty. The themes were included in a model, which captures the macro, meso and microlevels and the inter-relatedness of uncertainty. We successfully piloted the model on one public health example and an environmental topic. The main limitations are that the research input into our model predominantly came from North America and Europe, and that we have not yet tested the model in a real-life setting.

Conclusion

We developed a model that can comprehensively capture uncertainty in public and global health scenarios. It builds on models that focus solely on clinical settings by including social and political contexts and emphasising the dynamic interplay between different areas of uncertainty.