Familial disclosure by genetic healthcare professionals: a useful but sparingly used legal provision in France

[Suspicion of constitutional abnormality at diagnosis of childhood leukemia: Update of the leukemia committee of the French Society of Childhood Cancers]

The spectrum of childhood leukemia predisposition syndromes has grown significantly over last decades. These predisposition syndromes mainly involve CEBPA, ETV6, GATA2, IKZF1, PAX5, RUNX1, SAMD9/SAMD9L, TP53, RAS-MAPK pathway, DNA mismatch repair system genes, genes associated with Fanconi anemia, and trisomy 21. The clinico-biological features leading to the suspicion of a leukemia predisposition are highly heterogeneous and require varied exploration strategies. The study of the initial characteristics of childhood leukemias includes high-throughput sequencing techniques, which have increased the frequency of situations where a leukemia predisposing syndrome is suspected. Identification of a leukemia predisposition syndrome can have a major impact on the choice of chemotherapy, the indication for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and screening for associated malformations and pathologies. The diagnosis of a predisposition syndrome can also lead to the exploration of family members and genetic counseling. Diagnosis and management should be based on dedicated and multidisciplinary care networks.

[The role of physicians in patient and family adherence to genetic testing]

INTRODUCTION

More and more French cancer patients are offered by their physicians having their genetic characteristics analyzed (diagnosis, adaptation of treatment plans, etc.). In oncology, considering the development of personalized medicine, these analyses are commonplace. Analyses of germline (hereditary) genetic characteristics require information from patients who must sign an informed consent (article 16.10 of the Civil Code and articles L. 1131-3 and L. 1122-1-1 of the Public Health Code). However, prescribing physicians are rarely geneticists and have little training in genetics. Patients report that few are able to answer their questions and often sign a consent that is not truly informed.

METHODS

To identify the genetic knowledge and training needs of prescribers, we conducted an online survey of physicians prescribing genetic testing in oncology between January and March 2020. The survey consisted of 17 closed questions and 3 open questions.

RESULTS

We obtained 35 usable questionnaires which show that 50% of the prescribing physicians questioned lack knowledge of genetics, but do not express a need for training. They were interested in the provision of a digital teaching aid for patients.

DISCUSSION

We have therefore made a film for patients, available in free access, which aims to shed light on the analysis of genetic characteristics. The film helps physicians to explain the offered analyses and their consequences (https://youtu.be/5lWUSsteavs).

Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease

Advances in genetic diagnostics lead to more patients being diagnosed with hereditary conditions. These findings are often relevant to patients' relatives. For example, the success of targeted cancer prevention is dependent on effective disclosure to relatives at risk. Without clear information, individuals cannot take advantage of predictive testing and preventive measures. Against this background, we argue that healthcare professionals have a duty to make actionable genetic information available to their patients' at-risk relatives. We do not try to settle the difficult question of how this duty should be balanced against other duties, such as the duty of confidentiality and a possible duty not to know one's genetic predisposition. Instead, we argue for the importance of recognising a general responsibility towards at-risk relatives, to be discharged as well as possible within the limits set by conflicting duties and practical considerations. According to a traditional and still dominant perspective, it is the patient's duty to inform his or her relatives, while healthcare professionals are only obliged to support their patients in discharging this duty. We argue that this perspective is a mistake and an anomaly. Healthcare professionals do not have a duty to ensure that their patients promote the health of third parties. It is often effective and desirable to engage patients in disseminating information to their relatives. However, healthcare professionals should not thereby deflect their own moral responsibility.

Disclosing genetic information to family members without consent: Five Australian case studies

Genetic risk information is relevant to individual patients and also their blood relatives. Health practitioners (HPs) routinely advise patients of the importance of sharing genetic information with family members, especially for clinically actionable conditions where prevention is possible. However, some patients refuse to share genetic results with at-risk relatives, and HPs must choose whether to use or disclose genetic information without consent. This requires an understanding of their legal and ethical obligations, which research shows many HPs do not have. A recent UK case held that HPs have a duty to a patient's relatives where there is a proximate relationship, to conduct a balancing exercise of the benefit of disclosure of the genetic risk information to the relative against the interest of the patient in maintaining confidentiality. In Australia, there is currently no legal duty to disclose genetic information to a patient's at-risk relatives, but there are laws and guidelines governing unconsented use/disclosure of genetic information. These laws are inconsistent across different Australian states and health contexts, requiring greater harmonisation. Here we provide an up-to-date and clinically accessible resource summarising the laws applying to HPs across Australia, and outline five Australian case studies which have arisen in clinical genetics services, regarding the disclosure of genetic results to relatives without consent. The issues addressed here are relevant to any Australian HP with access to genetic information, as well as HPs and policy-makers in other jurisdictions considering these issues.

When to break the news and whose responsibility is it? A cross-sectional qualitative study of health professionals' views regarding disclosure of BRCA genetic cancer risk

OBJECTIVES

Disclosure of a hereditary condition in the family poses notable challenges for patients who often seek the assistance of genetic health professionals (GHPs). This study aimed to investigate GHPs' opinions about the ideal time for disclosure to offspring and their responsibility to at-risk relatives.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional qualitative study.

SETTING

Genetic familial cancer clinics related to mostly secondary and tertiary care hospitals and centres in urban, regional and rural areas across all states of Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

GHPs (N=73) including clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, medical specialists, nurses, surgeons and mental health specialists (eg, psychiatrists, psychologists) who had worked with BRCA1 and BRCA2 families for an average of 9 years.

RESULTS

Focus groups and interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. GHPs perceived that life stage, maturity, parents' knowledge and capacity to disseminate information influenced parent-offspring disclosure. In general, GHPs recommended early informal conversations with offspring about a family illness. GHPs considered that facilitation of disclosure to relatives using counselling strategies was their responsibility, yet there were limitations to their role (eg, legal and resource constraints). Variability exists in the extent to which genetic clinics overcome challenges to disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

GHPs' views on the ideal time for the disclosure of genetic risk are generally dependent on the patient's age and relative's ability to disclose information. A responsibility towards the patient and their at-risk relative was widely accepted as a role of a GHP but views vary depending on legislative and specialty differences. Greater uniformity is needed in genetic procedural guidelines and the role of each discipline (eg, geneticists, genetic counsellors, oncologists, nurses and mental health specialists) in genetic clinics to manage disclosure challenges.