Cancer risk comparative perception and overscreening behaviours of non-carriers from BRCA1/2 families

Family Adjustment to Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: A Systematic Review

Hereditary cancer syndromes are inherited pathogenic genetic variants that significantly increase the risk of developing cancer. When individuals become aware of their increased probability of having cancer, the whole family is affected by this new reality and needs to adjust. However, adjustment to hereditary cancer syndromes has been mainly studied at an individual level, and research about familial adjustment remains dispersed and disorganized. To overcome this gap, this review aims to understand how families adjust to genetic testing and risk management, and to what extent the family’s adjustment influences the psychological response and risk management behaviors of mutation carriers. We conducted searches on the PubMed/Med Line, PsycInfo, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar databases and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT-v2018) to assess the methodological quality of each selected study. Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria. Most results highlighted the interdependent nature of adjustment of pathogenic variant carriers and their families. The way carriers adjust to the syndrome is highly dependent on family functioning and related to how family members react to the new genetic information, particularly partners and siblings. Couples who share their worries and communicate openly about cancer risk present a better long-term adjustment than couples who use protective buffering (not talking about it to avoid disturbing the partner) or emotional distancing. Parents need help dealing with disclosing genetic information to their children. These findings reinforce the importance of adopting a family-centered approach in the context of genetic counseling and the necessity of involving family members in research.

"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.

A Model-Based Meta-Analysis of Willingness to Participate in Cancer Screening

Although early screening tests are beneficial for the detection and treatment of cancers, many people have failed to participate in screening tests. The present study aims to explore the theoretical underpinning of low participation in screening programs using the method of meta-analytic structural equation modeling. It was found that the health belief model is the most adopted theoretical framework. Moreover, the intended uptake of screening was positively predicted only by cues to action, health literacy, and perceived susceptibility. As a result, a health intention model, including the three significant variables, is proposed. The practical implications of the findings are that health communication campaigns should focus on enlightening and engaging the public through all necessary means to raise awareness and transfer knowledge in relation to screening procedures as well as cancers per se.

Genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk perceptions for breast and colorectal cancer: Results from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey

We examined what proportion of the U.S. population with no personal cancer history reported receiving either genetic counseling or genetic testing for cancer risk, and also the association of these behaviors with cancer risk perceptions. We used data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey. Objective relative risk scores for breast (women) and colorectal (men and women) cancer risk were generated for individuals without a personal history of cancer. Participants' risk perceptions were compared with their objective relative risk. Of 12,631 women, 1.2% reported receiving genetic counseling and 0.8% genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer risk. Of 15,085 men and women, 0.8% reported receiving genetic counseling and 0.3% genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer risk. Higher breast cancer risk perception was associated with genetic counseling (OR: 4.31, 95%CI: 2.56, 7.26) and testing (OR: 3.56, 95%CI: 1.80, 7.03). Similarly, higher perception of colorectal cancer risk was associated with genetic counseling (OR: 5.04, 95%CI: 2.57, 9.89) and testing (OR: 5.92, 95%CI: 2.40, 14.63). A higher proportion of individuals with colorectal cancer risk perceptions concordant with their objective risk (vs. discordant) had undergone genetic counseling or testing for colorectal cancer risk. Concordant risk perceptions for breast cancer were not associated with breast cancer genetic counseling or testing. Given frequent dialogue about implementing population level programs involving genetic services for cancer risk, policy makers and investigators should consider the role of risk perceptions in the effectiveness and design of such programs and potential strategies for addressing inaccuracies in risk perceptions.

No evidence of excessive cancer screening in female noncarriers from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families

BACKGROUND

In families with a proven BRCA1/2 mutation, women not carrying the familial mutation should follow the cancer screening recommendations applying to women in the general population. In the present study, we evaluated the cancer screening practices of unaffected noncarriers from families with a proven BRCA mutation, and we assessed the role of family history in their screening practices.

METHODS

Self-report data were provided retrospectively by 220 unaffected female noncarriers for periods of up to 10 years (mean: 4.3 years) since disclosure of their BRCA1/2 genetic test result. A ratio for the annual frequency of breast and ovarian cancer screening exams (mammography, breast ultrasonography, breast magnetic resonance imaging, transvaginal or pelvic ultrasound, cancer antigen 125 testing) was calculated as number of screening exams divided by the number of years in the individual observation period.

RESULTS

The annual average for mammography exams was 0.15, 0.4, 0.56, and 0.71 in women 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 years of age respectively. The uptake of other breast and ovarian cancer screening exams was very low. Mammography and breast ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were generally more frequent among participants with at least 1 first-degree relative affected by breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

In most noncarriers, screening practices are consistent with the guidelines concerning women in the general population. When noncarriers adopt screening behaviours that are different from those that would be expected for average-risk women, those behaviours are influenced by their familial cancer history.

IMPACT

Decision tools might help female noncarriers to be involved in their follow-up in accordance with their genetic status and their family history, while taking into account the benefits and disadvantages of cancer screening.

Factors Associated with Interest in Gene-Panel Testing and Risk Communication Preferences in Women from BRCA1/2 Negative Families

Scientific advances have allowed the development of multiplex gene-panels to assess many genes simultaneously in women who have tested negative for BRCA1/2. We examined correlates of interest in testing for genes that confer modest and moderate breast cancer risk and risk communication preferences for women from BRCA negative families. Female first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients who tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations (N = 149) completed a survey assessing multiplex genetic testing interest and risk communication preferences. Interest in testing was high (70 %) and even higher if results could guide risk-reducing behavior changes such as taking medications (79 %). Participants preferred to receive genomic risk communications from a variety of sources including: primary care physicians (83 %), genetic counselors (78 %), printed materials (71 %) and the web (60 %). Factors that were independently associated with testing interest were: perceived lifetime risk of developing cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 1.67: 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.65) and high cancer worry (OR = 3.12: CI 1.28-7.60). Findings suggest that women from BRCA1/2 negative families are a unique population and may be primed for behavior change. Findings also provide guidance for clinicians who can help develop genomic risk communications, promote informed decision making and customize behavioral interventions.

Clinical follow-up and breast and ovarian cancer screening of true BRCA1/2 noncarriers: a qualitative investigation

PURPOSE

Most women from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families who did not inherit the familial mutation have breast and ovarian cancer risks similar to those of women of the same age in the general population. However, recent studies suggest that some of these noncarriers may exhibit screening practices that may be considered as excessive compared to general population screening guidelines. Reasons for such tendencies remain largely unknown. This study aims to better understand how the implications of a noncarrier status are explained to these women and how their own realization of this status affects their screening behaviors.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted with five focus groups (n = 28) in Quebec City and Montreal, Canada.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis of the discussions highlighted four major themes: (i) acquiring a noncarrier identity takes place progressively; (ii) noncarriers show a range of opinions about screening; (iii) noncarriers have mixed feelings about the follow-up by their physicians and gynecologists; and (iv) noncarriers need more information in a context where genetics progresses ever more rapidly.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide novel insights regarding the physician-patient interaction and the organizational aspects of the health-care system that may significantly impact the cancer screening practices of BRCA1/2 noncarriers.Genet Med 18 6, 627-634.

Comparison of the screening practices of unaffected noncarriers under 40 and between 40 and 49 in BRCA1/2 families

This study aimed to 1) compare the cancer screening practices of unaffected noncarrier women under 40 and those aged 40 to 49, following the age-based medical screening guidelines, and 2) consider the way the patients justified their practices of screening or over-screening. For this study, 131 unaffected noncarriers-77 women under age 40 and 54 between 40 and 49, all belonging to a BRCA1/2 family-responded to a questionnaire on breast or ovarian cancer screenings they had undergone since receiving their negative genetic test results, their motives for seeking these screenings, and their intentions to pursue these screenings in the future. Unaffected noncarriers under age 40 admitted practices that could be qualified as over-screening. Apart from mammogram and breast ultrasounds, which the women under 40 reported seeking less often, these women's screening practices were comparable to those of women between 40 and 49. Cancer prevention and a family history of cancer were the two most frequently cited justifications for pursuing these screenings. We suggest that health care professionals discuss with women under 50 the ineffectiveness of breast and ovarian cancer screenings so that they will adapt their practices to conform to medical guidelines and limit their exposure to the potentially negative impacts of early cancer screening.