Identification of patients at high risk of psychological distress after BRCA1 genetic testing

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.

Factors associated with psychological distress during genetic counseling in high-risk women with breast cancer in Turkey

PURPOSE

This study aims to shed light on the rather neglected area of research of psychological distress in women facing genetic counselling in Turkey, where few institutions providing such counselling exist.

METHODS

105 breast cancer patients presenting for genetic testing completed a sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire as well as validated structured questionnaires including the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S/T) and the Health Motivation Sub-dimension of Champion's Health Belief Model Scale.

RESULTS

69.5% of the participants had lost a family member from cancer; 80% said the term "cancer" elicited negative thoughts (e.g., death, fear, and incurable disease). 62.9% and 37.1% attributed cancer to stress or sorrow, and genetic susceptibility, respectively. There was a negative association between health motivation and BDI scores (r:-0.433, p < 0.001). Married individuals had higher BDI and STAI-S scores (p = 0.001, p = 0.01 respectively), as well as lower STAI-T scores (p = 0.006). BDI, STAI-S and STAI-T scores were higher in those refusing genetic testing (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.003 respectively) and those with metastases (p = 0.03, p = 0.01, p = 0.03 respectively). Furthermore, individuals with low health motivation were more likely to exhibit high BDI scores (p < 0.001) and low STAI-T scores (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Common perceptions and beliefs about cancer and genetic testing during genetic counselling were found to have a negative impact on distress in high-risk women with breast cancer. The negative relationship between psychological distress and health motivation may reduce patients' compliance with genetic counselling recommendations. A comprehensive psychological evaluation should be considered as an important part of genetic counselling.

The Role of the Surgeon in the Germline Testing of the Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patient

For patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, information regarding hereditary predisposition can influence treatment decisions. From a surgical standpoint, patients with known germline mutations may alter decisions of local therapy to reduce the risk of second breast primaries. This information may also be considered in the choice of adjuvant therapies or eligibility for clinical trials. In recent years, the criteria for the consideration of germline testing in patients with breast cancer has expanded. Additionally, studies have shown a similar prevalence of pathogenic mutations in those patients outside of these traditional criteria, prompting calls for genetic testing for all patients with a history of breast cancer. While data confirms the benefit of counseling by certified genetics professionals, the capacity of genetic counselors may no longer meet the needs of these growing numbers of patients. National societies assert that counseling and testing can be performed by providers with training and experience in genetics. Breast surgeons are well positioned to offer this service, as they receive formal genetics training during their fellowship, manage these patients daily in their practices, and are often the first providers to see patients after their cancer diagnosis.

Assessing Psychological Morbidity in Cancer-Unaffected BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers: A Systematic Review

Female BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers have an increased lifetime risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer-unaffected women who are newly diagnosed with this pathogenic variant may experience psychological distress because of imminent health threat. No comprehensible review on psychological morbidity in cancer-unaffected BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers is currently available. This review aims to give an overview about all available the studies in which psychological outcomes have been assessed in cancer-unaffected BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, whether as a primary outcome or secondary measurement. A systematic search across four databases (Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCO) was conducted. Studies had to report on cancer-unaffected pathogenic variant carriers (exclusively or separately) and use a validated measure of psychological morbidity to be eligible. Measures were only included if they were used in at least three studies. The final review consisted of 45 studies from 13 countries. Distress measures, including anxiety and cancer worry, were most often assessed. Most studies found a peak of distress immediately after genetic test result disclosure, with a subsequent decline over the following months. Only some studies found elevated distress in carriers compared to non-carriers in longer follow-ups. Depression was frequently investigated but largely not found to be of clinical significance. Quality of life seemed to be largely unaffected by a positive genetic test result, although there was some evidence that younger women, especially, were less satisfied with their role functioning in life. Body image has been infrequently assessed so far, but the evidence suggested that there may be a decrease in body image after genetic test result disclosure that may decrease further for women who opt for a prophylactic mastectomy. Across all the outcomes, various versions of instruments were used, often limiting the comparability among the studies. Hence, future research should consider using frequently used instruments, as outlined by this review. Finally, while many studies included cancer-unaffected carriers, they were often not reported on separately, which made it difficult to draw specific conclusions about this population.

Impact of BRCA1/2 cascade testing on anxiety, depression, and cancer worry levels among unaffected relatives in a multiethnic Asian cohort

Cascade testing for families with BRCA pathogenic variants is important to identify relatives who are carriers. These relatives can benefit from appropriate risk management and preventative strategies arising from an inherited increased risk of breast, ovarian, prostate, melanoma, and pancreatic cancers. Cascade testing has the potential to enable cost-effective cancer control even in low- and middle-income settings, but few studies have hitherto evaluated the psychosocial impact of cascade testing in an Asian population, where the cultural and religious beliefs around inheritance and destiny have previously been shown to influence perception and attitudes toward screening. In this study, we evaluated the short- and long-term psychosocial impact of genetic testing among unaffected relatives of probands identified through the Malaysian Breast Cancer Genetics Study and the Malaysian Ovarian Cancer Study, using validated questionnaires (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Cancer Worry Scale) administered at baseline, and 1-month and 2-year post-disclosure of results. Of the 305 unaffected relatives from 98 independent families who were offered cascade testing, 256 (84%) completed predictive testing and family history of cancers was the only factor significantly associated with uptake of predictive testing. We found that the levels of anxiety, depression, and cancer worry among unaffected relatives decreased significantly after result disclosure and remained low 2-year post-result disclosure. Younger relatives and relatives of Malay descent had higher cancer worry at both baseline and after result disclosure compared to those of Chinese and Indian descent, whereas relatives of Indian descent and those with family history of cancers had higher anxiety and depression levels post-result disclosure. Taken together, the results from this Asian cohort highlight the differences in psychosocial needs in different communities and inform the development of culture-specific genetic counseling strategies.

La médecine prédictive à l’épreuve de l’oncohématologie : réflexions à partir de la clinique

Le développement de l’oncogénétique permet de mieux adapter le traitement pour les patients atteints de cancer et aussi de proposer, dans les cas d’anomalies génétiques héréditaires, un suivi adapté aux proches concernés. Néanmoins, les nouvelles technologies de séquençage suscitent des questions éthiques et cliniques, notamment quant à l’impact psychologique de ces tests génétiques. Nous abordons la spécificité de l’identification de mutations génétiques constitutionnelles dans le cadre de l’oncohématologie.

Impact of Health Perception and Knowledge on Genetic Testing Decisions Using the Health Belief Model

PURPOSE

Early detection of cancer risk is essential as it is associated with a higher chance of survival, more successful treatment, and improved quality of life. Genetic testing helps at-risk patients estimate the likelihood of developing cancer in a lifetime. This study aims to indentify the factors (perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, and self-efficacy) that impact one's decision to take the genetic test.

METHODS

We examined the impacts of different factors of the health belief model on the engagement of patients in genetic testing using data from the National Cancer Institute's 2020 cross-sectional nationally representative data published in 2021. Complete surveys were answered by 3,865 participants (weighted population size = 253,815,197). All estimates were weighted to be nationally representative of the US population using the jackknife weighting method for parameter estimation. We used multivariable logistic regression to test our hypotheses for patients who have taken the genetic test for cancer risk detection. We adjusted the multivariate model for age, education, income, race, sex, cancer history, familial cancer history, and education.

RESULTS

We tested five hypotheses using the health belief model. Respondents who had genetic testing were more likely to rely on their health care providers and genetic counselors to make their decisions. Respondents who had genetic tests also reported less reliability on other sources than doctors: for the internet and social media (odds ratio = 0.33; P < .001) and for journals and magazines (odds ratio = 0.48; P = .007).

CONCLUSION

The findings show that patients generally rely on suggestions from their health care providers and counselors in genetic testing decisions. These findings also indicate that health care providers play a critical role in helping patients decide whether to use genetic testing to detect cancer risk in the early stages.

Metastatic breast cancer patient perceptions of somatic tumor genomic testing

BACKGROUND

To assess metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patient psychological factors, perceptions, and comprehension of tumor genomic testing.

METHODS

In a prospective, single institution, single-arm trial, patients with MBC underwent next-generation sequencing at study entry with sequencing results released at progression. Patients who completed surveys before undergoing sequencing were included in the present secondary analysis (n = 58). We administered four validated psychosocial measures: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Trust in Physician Scale, and Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for Cancer. Genetic comprehension was assessed using 7-question objective and 6-question subjective measures. Longitudinal data were assessed (n = 40) using paired Wilcoxon signed rank and McNemar's test of agreement.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the beginning and end of study in depression, anxiety, physician trust, or self-efficacy (median time on study: 7.6 months). Depression and anxiety were positively associated with each other and both negatively associated with self-efficacy. Self-efficacy decreased from pre- to post-genomic testing (p = 0.05). Objective genetics comprehension did not significantly change from pre- to post-genomic testing, but patients expressed increased confidence in their ability to teach others about genetics (p = 0.04). Objective comprehension was significantly lower in non-white patients (p = 0.02) and patients with lower income (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the only study, to our knowledge, to longitudinally evaluate multiple psychological metrics in MBC as patients undergo tumor genomic testing. Overall, psychological dimensions remained stable over the duration of tumor genomic testing. Among patients with MBC, depression and anxiety metrics were negatively correlated with patient self-efficacy. Patients undergoing somatic genomic testing had limited genomic knowledge, which varied by demographic groups and may warrant additional educational intervention.

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

NCT01987726, registered November 13, 2013.

Psychosocial Impact of Predictive Genetic Testing in Hereditary Heart Diseases: The PREDICT Study

Predictive genetic testing (PGT) is offered to asymptomatic relatives at risk of hereditary heart disease, but the impact of result disclosure has been little studied. We evaluated the psychosocial impacts of PGT in hereditary heart disease, using self-report questionnaires (including the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) in 517 adults, administered three times to the prospective cohort (PCo: n = 264) and once to the retrospective cohort (RCo: n = 253). The main motivations for undergoing PGT were “to remove doubt” and “for their children”. The level of anxiety increased between pre-test and result appointments (p <0.0001), returned to baseline after the result (PCo), and was moderately elevated at 4.4 years (RCo). Subjects with a history of depression or with high baseline anxiety were more likely to develop anxiety after PGT result (p = 0.004 and p <0.0001, respectively), whatever it was. Unfavourable changes in professional and/or family life were observed in 12.4% (PCo) and 18.7% (RCo) of subjects. Few regrets about PGT were expressed (0.8% RCo, 2.3% PCo). Medical benefit was not the main motivation, which emphasises the role of pre/post-test counselling. When PGT was performed by expert teams, the negative impact was modest, but careful management is required in specific categories of subjects, whatever the genetic test result.

Oncology Clinic-Based Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing in a Population-Based Health Care System

New streamlined models for genetic counseling and genetic testing have recently been developed in response to increasing demand for cancer genetic services. To improve access and decrease wait times, we implemented an oncology clinic-based genetic testing model for breast and ovarian cancer patients in a publicly funded population-based health care setting in British Columbia, Canada. This observational study evaluated the oncology clinic-based model as compared to a traditional one-on-one approach with a genetic counsellor using a multi-gene panel testing approach. The primary objectives were to evaluate wait times and patient reported outcome measures between the oncology clinic-based and traditional genetic counselling models. Secondary objectives were to describe oncologist and genetic counsellor acceptability and experience. Wait times from referral to return of genetic testing results were assessed for 400 patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer undergoing genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer from June 2015 to August 2017. Patient wait times from referral to return of results were significantly shorter with the oncology clinic-based model as compared to the traditional model (403 vs. 191 days; p < 0.001). A subset of 148 patients (traditional n = 99; oncology clinic-based n = 49) completed study surveys to assess uncertainty, distress, and patient experience. Responses were similar between both models. Healthcare providers survey responses indicated they believed the oncology clinic-based model was acceptable and a positive experience. Oncology clinic-based genetic testing using a multi-gene panel approach and post-test counselling with a genetic counsellor significantly reduced wait times and is acceptable for patients and health care providers.

Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Potentially harmful mutations of the breast cancer susceptibility 1 and 2 genes (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk for breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. For women in the United States, breast cancer is the most common cancer after nonmelanoma skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. In the general population, BRCA1/2 mutations occur in an estimated 1 in 300 to 500 women and account for 5% to 10% of breast cancer cases and 15% of ovarian cancer cases.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations in asymptomatic women who have never been diagnosed with BRCA-related cancer, as well as those with a previous diagnosis of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer who have completed treatment and are considered cancer free. In addition, the USPSTF reviewed interventions to reduce the risk for breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer in women with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations, including intensive cancer screening, medications, and risk-reducing surgery.

FINDINGS

For women whose family or personal history is associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are moderate. For women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to none. Regardless of family or personal history, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that the overall harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation).

Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer in Women: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Pathogenic mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 increase risks for breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer in women; interventions reduce risk in mutation carriers.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force review on benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA1/2-related cancer in women.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane libraries; MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE (January 1, 2013, to March 6, 2019, for updates; January 1, 1994, to March 6, 2019, for new key questions and populations); reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Discriminatory accuracy studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and observational studies of women without recently diagnosed BRCA1/2-related cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data on study methods, setting, population characteristics, eligibility criteria, interventions, numbers enrolled and lost to follow-up, outcome ascertainment, and results were abstracted. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cancer incidence and mortality; discriminatory accuracy of risk assessment tools for BRCA1/2 mutations; benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk-reducing interventions.

RESULTS

For this review, 103 studies (110 articles; N = 92 712) were included. No studies evaluated the effectiveness of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in reducing incidence and mortality of BRCA1/2-related cancer. Fourteen studies (n = 43 813) of 8 risk assessment tools to guide referrals to genetic counseling demonstrated moderate to high accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.68-0.96). Twenty-eight studies (n = 8060) indicated that genetic counseling was associated with reduced breast cancer worry, anxiety, and depression; increased understanding of risk; and decreased intention for testing. Twenty studies (n = 4322) showed that breast cancer worry and anxiety were higher after testing for women with positive results and lower for others; understanding of risk was higher after testing. In 8 RCTs (n = 54 651), tamoxifen (relative risk [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]; 4 trials), raloxifene (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.24-0.80]; 2 trials), and aromatase inhibitors (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.70]; 2 trials) were associated with lower risks of invasive breast cancer compared with placebo; results were not specific to mutation carriers. Mastectomy was associated with 90% to 100% reduction in breast cancer incidence (6 studies; n = 2546) and 81% to 100% reduction in breast cancer mortality (1 study; n = 639); oophorectomy was associated with 69% to 100% reduction in ovarian cancer (2 studies; n = 2108); complications were common with mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among women without recently diagnosed BRCA1/2-related cancer, the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing to reduce cancer incidence and mortality have not been directly evaluated by current research.

A Systematic Review of the Psychological Implications of Genetic Testing: A Comparative Analysis Among Cardiovascular, Neurodegenerative and Cancer Diseases

Background: Genetic testing is performed for different purposes, such as identifying carriers, predicting a disease onset in presymptomatic individuals or confirming a diagnosis. However, these tests may have notable psychological effects, such as generating anxiety and depression. These effects may depend on people's perception of risk, severity, and controllability of the disease; and the availability of treatments. To date, there are no reports that analyze these factors specifically, and their role in influencing genetic test users' experience. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the psychological implication of undergoing genetic testing for cardiovascular, neurodegenerative and cancer diseases. Articles were searched on PubMed, Google Scholar, and PsychInfo. Results: 47 studies were included, 9 concerning cardiovascular disease, 18 neurodegenerative disorders, and 20 for cancer disease. According to the reviewed studies, people experience no significant increase in distress and anxiety, or adverse impacts on quality of life, except the Huntington disease, which is characterized by depressive symptoms, suicidal ideations, and hopelessness in gene carriers. People tend to consider genetic tests as valid information to take important preventive decisions. Genetic risk for cardiovascular disease is perceived to be manageable; genetic analysis for some neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., Alzheimer) or cancer (breast cancer in particular) is considered useful because the problem could be addressed in advance with preventive behaviors. Conclusions: Genetic tests should be proposed along with proper psychological support and counseling focused on users' genetic health literacy; perception of risk, beliefs about disease controllability, in order to foster fruitful medical decisions.

Risk-reducing mastectomy rates in the US: a closer examination of the Angelina Jolie effect

PURPOSE

In 2013, Angelina Jolie disclosed in the New York Times (NYT) that she had undergone risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy (RRBM) after learning that she was a BRCA1 mutation carrier. We examined the rates of BRCA testing and RRBM from 1997 to 2016, and quantified trends before and after the Jolie op-ed.

METHODS

This observational study of insurance claims data representative of the commercially-insured US population (Truven MarketScan® database) measured BRCA testing and RRBM rates among females ≥ 18 years. Censoring events were breast cancer or ovarian cancer diagnosis, last follow-up date (September 2016), or death. Interrupted time series analyses were used to quantify trends before and after the op-ed.

RESULTS

Angelina Jolie's NYT op-ed led to a statistically significant increase in the uptake of genetic testing and in RRBM among women without previous diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer in the US population, and in women who did not undergo testing for BRCA (P < 0.0001 for both). The rate (slope) of RRBM among women who were previously tested for BRCA (P = 0.70) was unchanged. After excluding women with in-situ tumors, the editorial's effect became less pronounced, suggesting that high-risk women with in-situ breast cancers were most influenced by Jolie's announcement.

CONCLUSION

The Angelina Effect-a term coined by Time magazine to describe the rise in internet searches related to breast cancer genetics and counseling-represents a long-lasting impact of celebrity on public health awareness as significant increases in genetic testing and mastectomy rates were observed and sustained in subsequent years.

Breast cancer in the young: role of the geneticist

The genetics professional plays an important role in the care of young women with breast cancer by providing counseling on issues specific to these young women. The issues addressed in counseling include hereditary predisposition to cancer, fertility and reproductive options in the context of hereditary cancer, and the impact and implications of their history of early breast cancer on close family members. A thorough risk assessment and counseling session address the patient's personal and family history, with particular attention paid to benign and malignant findings that suggest the need for genetic testing. Genetics professionals, especially genetic counselors, also address the physical and emotional implications of an increased risk of cancer with patients and family members. This review highlights the unique aspects of care provided by these specialized healthcare providers.

"Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer

Despite significant progress in genomics research over the past decade, we remain years away from the integration of genomics into routine clinical care. As an initial step toward the implementation of genomic-based medicine, we explored primary care patients' ideas about genomic testing for common complex diseases to help develop future patient education materials and interventions to communicate genomic risk information. We conducted a mixed-methods study with participants from a large primary care clinic. Within four focus groups, we used a semi-structured discussion guide and administered brief pre- and post- discussion quantitative surveys to assess participants' interest, attitudes, and preferences related to testing and receipt of test results. Prior to the discussion, moderators presented a plain-language explanation of DNA and genetics, defined "SNP", and highlighted what is known and unknown about the risks associated with testing for SNPs related to colorectal cancer risk. We used the NVIVO 8 software package to analyze the transcripts from the focus group discussions. The majority of participants (75 %) were "very" or "somewhat interested" in receiving information from a colon cancer SNP test, even after learning about and discussing the small and still clinically uncertain change in risk conferred by SNPs. Reported interest in testing was related to degree of risk conferred, personal risk factors, family history, possible implications for managing health /disease prevention and curiosity about genetic results. Most people (85 %) preferred that genetic information be delivered in person by a healthcare or genetics professional rather than through print materials or a computer. These findings suggest that patients may look to genetic counselors, physicians or other healthcare professionals as gatekeepers of predictive genomic risk information.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing uptake and psychosocial outcomes in men

Few studies have quantitatively evaluated the uptake and outcomes of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling and testing in men. We conducted a prospective longitudinal study to describe and compare uptake of and psychosocial outcomes following BRCA1/2 testing in a sample of men and women at high-risk for carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation. Men (n = 98) and women (n = 243) unaffected with cancer completed baseline assessments prior to genetic counseling and testing and then 6- and 12-months post-testing. Most men (n = 94; 95.9%) opted to have genetic testing, of whom 44 received positive BRCA1/2 genetic test results and 50 received true negative results. Among women, 93.4% had genetic testing, of whom 79 received positive results and 148 received negative results. In multivariate models, male BRCA1/2 carriers reported significantly higher genetic testing distress (6-months: Z = 4.48, P < 0.0001; 12-months: Z = 2.78, P < 0.01) than male non-carriers. After controlling for baseline levels of distress, no statistically significant differences emerged between male and female BRCA1/2 carriers in psychological distress at 12-months post-testing, although absolute differences were evident over time. Predictors of distress related to genetic testing among male carriers at 12-months included higher baseline cancer-specific distress (Z = 4.73, P < 0.0001) and being unmarried (Z = 2.18, P < 0.05). Similarly, baseline cancer-specific distress was independently associated with cancer-specific distress at 6- (Z = 3.66, P < 0.001) and 12-months (Z = 4.44, P < 0.0001) post-testing among male carriers. Clinically, our results suggest that pre-test assessment of distress and creation of educational materials specifically tailored to the needs and concerns of male carriers may be appropriate in this important but understudied high-risk group.