A Pilot study of the Sharing Risk Information Tool (ShaRIT) for Families with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome

Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: a review of barriers and breakthroughs

Germline genetic sequencing is now at the forefront of cancer treatment and preventative medicine. Cascade genetic testing, or the testing of at-risk relatives, is extremely promising as it offers genetic testing and potentially life-saving risk-reduction strategies to a population exponentially enriched for the risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. However, many relatives do not complete cascade testing due to barriers that span individual, relationship, healthcare community, and societal/policy domains. We have reviewed the published research on cascade testing. Our aim is to evaluate barriers to cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and explore strategies to mitigate these barriers, with the goal of promoting increased uptake of cascade genetic testing.

Do people with hereditary cancer syndromes inform their at-risk relatives? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate rates of familial disclosure of hereditary cancer syndrome information.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO no.: CRD42020134276). Key electronic databases were searched to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer syndrome cascade relative disclosure. Eligible studies were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Among 11,711 included relatives, 70% (95% CI 60 - 78%) were informed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant; of 2,875 relatives informed of their risk who were evaluated for uptake of cascade testing, 43% (95% CI 27 - 61%) completed testing. Rates of disclosure were higher among female vs male relatives (79% [95% CI 73% - 84%] vs 67% [95% CI 57% - 75%]) and first-degree vs second-degree relatives (83% [95% CI 77% - 88%] vs 58% [95% CI 45 - 69%]).

Conclusion

Nearly one-third of at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. Even among those informed, fewer than half subsequently complete genetic testing, representing a critical missed opportunity for precision cancer prevention.

Innovation

Five studies evaluating interventions to improve disclosure rates were generally ineffective. Urgent work is needed to elucidate barriers to relative disclosure by probands to develop targeted interventions that can optimize proband-mediated cascade genetic testing rates.

Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer

Objective

Evaluate an intervention to increase family communication (FC) of positive hereditary cancer test results using the Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions (FDECI).

Methods

We developed 'programme theory' during the FDECI development phase by aligning intervention components with behavior change techniques (BCTs) and theoretical factors expected to improve FC. During the feasibility phase, we obtained feedback from 12 stakeholder interviews.

Results

Intervention components aligned with a total of 14 unique BCTs for which prior evidence links the BCT to theoretical factors that influence behavior change. Constructive stakeholder feedback included: more information desired, rewording to support autonomy by highlighting options, and improvements to navigation, visuals, and audio. Positive comments included: comprehensiveness of materials, modeling of conversations, and usefulness of the materials for helping a person prepare to share positive test results.

Conclusion

The first FDECI phases were helpful for improving the intervention and planning our ongoing effectiveness and future implementation phases.

Innovation

Our application of the FDECI is novel, including plans to test our 'programme theory' using coincidence analysis (CNA) to determine who accesses which intervention materials, how utilizing certain materials impact the aligned theoretical factors, and whether these in turn make a difference in the behavioral outcome.

Proband-mediated interventions to increase disclosure of genetic risk in families with a BRCA or Lynch syndrome condition: a systematic review

Interventions to assist family communication about inherited cancer risk have the potential to improve family cancer outcomes. This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of proband-mediated interventions employed within genetics clinics to increase disclosure of genetic risk to at-risk relatives. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed and PsycINFO were searched for publications between 1990-2020. The quality of studies was assessed. From 5605 records reviewed, 9 studies (4 randomised control trials and 5 cohort studies) were included involving families with BRCA1, BRCA2 and Lynch syndrome. Intervention delivery modes included genetic counselling with additional telephone or in-person follow-up, letters, videos, and decision aids. The percentages of at-risk relatives informed by the proband about their risk ranged from 54.0% to 95.5% in the intervention or family-mediated comparison group. Of those who were informed, 24.4-60.0% contacted a genetics clinic and 22.8-76.2% had genetic testing after they were counselled at a genetics clinic. Significant differences between intervention and control group were reported on all three outcomes by one study, and with relatives contacting a genetics clinic by another study. The studies suggest but do not conclusively show, that tailored genetic counselling with additional follow-up can increase both the proportion of informed relatives and relatives who contact the genetics clinic. With the increase in germline testing, interventions are required to consider the family communication process and address post-disclosure variables (e.g., relative's perceptions, emotional reactions) through engagement with probands and relatives to maximise the public health benefit of identifying inherited cancer risk in families.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50).

CONCLUSION

Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

A systematic review of theory-informed strategies used in interventions fostering family genetic risk communication

BACKGROUND

Inherited risk is a family issue. Identifying family members who carry a pathogenic genetic variant that increases risk of cancers and other chronic diseases can be lifesaving for those affected.

OBJECTIVE

The research questions are: (1) which family communication frameworks have been applied, (2) how do intervention strategies employed map to these theories, and (3) to what extent were families receptive to these strategies and communication increased?

METHODS

Manuscripts published between January 2010 and August 2020 were searched in three databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science.

RESULTS

Nine intervention trials were identified. All interventions were evaluated in clinical genetic counseling contexts using at least one individual-level strategy (e.g. increase knowledge). Only three focused on dyadic conversations such as preparing for relatives' information needs.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review posed the question whether theoretically based approaches have been applied to foster family genetic risk communication. Greater attention needs to be paid to the utilization of dyadic level and family system level theories to guide intervention developments.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

We conclude by calling for accelerating and broadening the development of interventions to enable family communication about inherited risk that are theory-based, incorporate family-systems thinking, and are conducted outside of specialty clinic settings.

The Impact of Proband Indication for Genetic Testing on the Uptake of Cascade Testing Among Relatives

Although multiple factors can influence the uptake of cascade genetic testing, the impact of proband indication has not been studied. We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study comparing cascade genetic testing rates among relatives of probands who received either diagnostic germline testing or non-indication-based proactive screening via next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based multigene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) and/or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The proportion of probands with a medically actionable (positive) finding were calculated based on genes associated with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 conditions, HCS genes, and FH genes. Among probands with a positive finding, cascade testing rates and influencing factors were assessed. A total of 270,715 probands were eligible for inclusion in the study (diagnostic n = 254,281,93.9%; proactive n = 16,434, 6.1%). A positive result in a gene associated with a CDC Tier 1 condition was identified in 10,520 diagnostic probands (4.1%) and 337 proactive probands (2.1%), leading to cascade testing among families of 3,305 diagnostic probands (31.4%) and 36 proactive probands (10.7%) (p < 0.0001). A positive result in an HCS gene was returned to 23,272 diagnostic probands (9.4%) and 970 proactive probands (6.1%), leading to cascade testing among families of 6,611 diagnostic probands (28.4%) and 89 proactive probands (9.2%) (p < 0.0001). Cascade testing due to a positive result in an HCS gene was more commonly pursued when the diagnostic proband was White, had a finding in a gene associated with a CDC Tier 1 condition, or had a personal history of cancer, or when the proactive proband was female. A positive result in an FH gene was returned to 1,647 diagnostic probands (25.3%) and 67 proactive probands (0.62%), leading to cascade testing among families of 360 diagnostic probands (21.9%) and 4 proactive probands (6.0%) (p < 0.01). Consistently higher rates of cascade testing among families of diagnostic probands may be due to a perceived urgency because of personal or family history of disease. Due to the proven clinical benefit of cascade testing, further research on obstacles to systematic implementation and uptake of testing for relatives of any proband with a medically actionable variant is warranted.

Development of a Secure Website to Facilitate Information Sharing in Families at High Risk of Bowel Cancer-The Familyweb Study

Simple Summary

Families with an inherited high risk of bowel cancer may struggle to share information about their diagnosis. This means that relatives are not always aware of their increased risk of cancer or able to access screening for the early detection of cancer. Through this study, we aimed to help such families by creating a website where patients could share confidential information with their relatives securely online. Following a survey and telephone interviews with affected individuals, the content of the website was developed to suit the needs of families. Website function was tested with patients to check feasibility and acceptability. Most participants wanted more information to support their adaptation to the diagnosis and help inform their relatives. This study demonstrates how health professionals can improve access to genetic testing and cancer screening in families at high risk of cancer, thus reducing morbidity and mortality.

Abstract

Individuals with pathogenic variants in genes predisposing to bowel cancer are encouraged to share this information within their families. Close relatives at 50% risk can have access to bowel cancer surveillance. However, many relatives remain unaware of their vulnerability or have insufficient information. We investigated the feasibility and acceptability of using a secure website to support information sharing within families at high risk of bowel cancer. Patients (n = 286) answered an anonymous cross-sectional survey, with 14 participating in telephone interviews. They reported that the diagnosis had a profound effect on them and their family relationships, and consequently desired more support from health professionals. Website content was created in response to the preferences of survey and interview participants. Reactions to the website from 12 volunteers were captured through remote usability testing to guide further refinement of the website. Participants welcomed the opportunity to store and share personal information via the website and wanted more information and help informing their relatives about the diagnosis. Important website topics were: healthy lifestyle; genetic testing; and how to talk to children about the diagnosis. A website providing online access to confidential documents was both feasible and acceptable and could translate into increased uptake of cancer surveillance, resulting in lower morbidity and mortality in these families.

Preferences for and acceptability of receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail: A focus group study with a primarily African-American cohort

Although genetic counseling is traditionally done through in-person, one-on-one visits, workforce shortages call for efficient result return mechanisms. Studies have shown that telephone and in-person return of cancer genetic results are equivalent for patient outcomes. Few studies have been conducted with other modes, result types or racially diverse participants. This study explored participants' perspectives on receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail. Two experienced moderators facilitated six focus groups with 49 individuals who self-identified primarily as African-American and consented to participate in a genome sequencing cohort study. Participants were given a hypothetical pharmacogenomic result report (positive for c.521T>C in SLCO1B1). An accompanying letter explained that the result was associated with statin intolerance along with a recommendation to share it with one's doctor and immediate relatives. Participants reacted to the idea of receiving this type of result by mail, discussing whether the letter's information was sufficient and what they predicted they would do with the result. Two researchers coded the focus group transcripts and identified themes. Many participants thought that it was appropriate to receive the result through the mail, but some suggested a phone call alerting the recipient to the letter. Others emphasized that although a letter was acceptable for disclosing pharmacogenomic results, it would be insufficient for what they perceived as life-threatening results. Most participants found the content sufficient. Some participants suggested resources about statin intolerance and warning signs be added. Most claimed they would share the result with their doctor, yet few participants offered they would share the result with their relatives. This exploratory study advances the evidence that African-American research participants are receptive to return of certain genetic results by approaches that do not involve direct contact with a genetic counselor and intend to share results with providers. ClinSeq: A Large-Scale Medical Sequencing Clinical Research Pilot Study (NCT00410241).

Sharing genetic test results with family members of BRCA, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM carriers

OBJECTIVE

This study explored motivators and challenges/barriers to sharing personal genetic test results (GTR) with family members (FM).

METHODS

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 62 women who had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in aBRCA, PALB2, CHEK2, or ATM gene. Selective qualitative data analysis focused on eliciting motivators and challenges/barriers identified by participants when sharing their GTR with FM.

RESULTS

Motivators to sharing personal GTR with FM included: health protection and prevention; moral obligation; decisional empowerment; familial ties; written resources; and contextualization for a familial cause for cancer. Challenges/barriers to family sharing included: concern for FM reactions; complexities of information; lack of closeness; perceived relevance; and emotional impact.

CONCLUSIONS

All motivators and challenges/barriers were identified across BRCA and non-BRCA carriers, demonstrating commonalities in family sharing of GTR among high- to moderate-penetrance hereditary BC (breast cancer) genes. Despite challenges/barriers, participants disclosed their GTR with most close FM, yet restrictions in communication and/or strain on the timing, manner of disclosing, and strategies used varied across certain FM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These findings offer healthcare providers and researchers preliminary practical implications for broadly improving family sharing interventions across P/LP variants in BC risk genes by demonstrating important elements to include in family sharing letters.

Interventions Facilitating Family Communication of Genetic Testing Results and Cascade Screening in Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer or Lynch Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic testing of blood relatives of known Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) or Lynch Syndrome (LS) cases, to inform individualized cancer screening and prevention plans. The study identified interventions designed to facilitate family communication of genetic testing results and/or cancer predisposition cascade genetic testing for HBOC and LS. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that assessed intervention efficacy for these two outcomes. Additional outcomes were also recorded and synthesized when possible. Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis and 13 in the meta-analysis. Lack of participant blinding was the most common risk of bias. Interventions targeted HBOC (n = 5); both HBOC and LS (n = 4); LS (n = 3); or ovarian cancer (n = 2). All protocols (n = 14) included a psychoeducational and/or counseling component. Additional components were decision aids (n = 4), building communication skills (n = 4), or motivational interviewing (n = 1). The overall effect size for family communication was small (g = 0.085) and not significant (p = 0.344), while for cascade testing, it was small (g = 0.169) but significant (p = 0.014). Interventions show promise for improving cancer predisposition cascade genetic testing for HBOC and LS. Future studies should employ family-based approaches and include racially diverse samples.

Mechanisms to increase cascade testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: Impact of introducing standardized communication aids into genetic counseling

AIM

Precancer identification of women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) could prevent 20% of these ovarian cancers. The objective was to determine whether standardized Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE) materials are acceptable, improve knowledge of HBOC and increase disclosure to family members.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of women with breast or ovarian cancer was identified prior to genetic testing. Subjects completed a baseline knowledge survey and were provided three communication aids. Knowledge, acceptability and communication to family members were reassessed at 6 months and compared to a retrospective cohort who had undergone genetic testing for breast or ovarian cancer prior to the intervention. The primary outcome was increase in HBOC knowledge, requiring 20 pre- and postknowledge scores to detect a 10% difference.

RESULTS

Forty women were enrolled. The median age at cancer diagnosis was 50 years and 55% had a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Though subjects found the resources acceptable, knowledge scores did not improve after their use. Disclosure rates were of no different between cohorts (83% preintervention vs 77% postintervention, P = 0.26) though there was an increase in deleterious mutation carriers, 0% (0/6) preintervention vs 100% (22/22) postintervention. Rates of subsequent testing in relatives were low in both preintervention and postintervention cohorts (0% vs 4.5%).

CONCLUSION

Inclusion of standardized communication tools is acceptable to patients. Knowledge did not improve after their use. In deleterious mutation carriers, disclosure rates increased postintervention.

Impact of free cancer predisposition cascade genetic testing on uptake in Singapore

Cascade testing for cancer predisposition offers a highly efficient and cost-effective method for identifying individuals at increased risk for cancer, in whom targeted interventions can often improve survival. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of free cascade testing on uptake and identify other associated factors. Demographic and clinical data were gathered prospectively for 183 probands found to have a pathogenic variant associated with cancer predisposition and their 826 first-degree relatives (FDRs). The provision of free cascade testing was significantly associated with uptake (21.6% vs 6.1%; χ ², P < 0.001). Relationship type between FDR and proband and FDR age also demonstrated significant associations, suggesting greater engagement amongst younger generations. Overall, 29.0% (53/183) of families had at least 1 FDR who underwent cascade testing. Of these families, 67.9% (36/53) had an uptake rate of at least 40.0%. Cost is a significant barrier to cascade testing uptake in Singapore. Tailored interventions targeting underrepresented groups and genetic counseling approaches supporting family communication and decision-making are necessary.

The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice

Following the identification in a proband of a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) or a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation in Lynch syndrome (LS) he or she will be asked to inform at-risk family members about the option for presymptomatic DNA testing. However, in clinical practice multiple factors may complicate the process of information sharing. We critically evaluated studies on the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in both syndromes. A search of relevant MeSH terms and key words in PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO yielded 795 articles published between 2001 and 2017. Thirty of these publications included outcome measures relevant for the current study. Based on information provided by the proband (15 studies) the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing ranged from 15 to 57% in HBOC, while one study in LS kindreds reported an uptake of 70%. Based on information provided by genetics centres (the remaining 15 studies) the uptake ranged from 21 to 44% in HBOC and from 41 to 94% in LS. However, when genetics centres contacted relatives directly a substantial number of additional family members could be tested. Proband-mediated provision of information to at-risk relatives is a standard procedure in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. However, the resulting uptake of presymptomatic testing is disappointing-an issue that is now urgent due to the increased use of genetic testing in clinical oncology. We propose that additional strategies should be introduced including the geneticist directly contacting relatives. The outcomes of these strategies should be carefully monitored and evaluated.

Genetic diseases and information to relatives: practical and ethical issues for professionals after introduction of a legal framework in France

Health professionals have a role to play in assisting patients to communicate genetic information to their relatives. In France, a specific unique legal framework has been implemented concerning this issue. We questioned professionals about their practice and how it has evolved in this new frame. The French law has opted to lay responsibility for disclosure on the person concerned by a positive test result, without totally excluding some responsibility on the part of the professionals involved, in the information to be disclosed and in the transmission of the information if a patient refuses to do it themselves (indirect disclosure). We designed and validated an online survey to be sent out to healthcare professionals to explore their practice and how they went about implementing the legal provisions. We also sought to determine how healthcare professionals dealt with a patient's refusal to disclose information to their relatives, and whether the legal framework was helpful. We carried out a statistical analysis of the responses to questionnaires to interpret the results by professional category, field of medicine and genetic disorder. The results show that professionals agreed on the relevance of disclosure to relatives. However, they show a range of practices and varying representations of the genetic issue in the framework of disclosure to relatives according to their medical field, their role in the health system and their own interpretations. They indicated a lack of resources, raised some ethical issues and put forward some arguments against contacting relatives themselves.

Supporting disclosure of genetic information to family members: professional practice and timelines in cancer genetics

Disclosure of genetic information within families is one of the longstanding questions under scrutiny in the field of genetics. Most of the probands entrusted with family disclosure succeed in this task, but there are still many problematic cases where it proves difficult. How can professionals help probands disclose this information? What levers can they activate to foster the diffusion of genetic information within families? In the context of a new legal framework concerning this question in France, this paper offers a comprehensive view of the process of genetic counselling in a cancer genetics department. Based on an ethnographic study, it focuses on the interactions between professionals and probands during each step of the testing procedures in order to identify key times when the issue can be addressed. The results show that the question of family disclosure needs to be addressed before, during and after the test. Greater awareness of this continuum among professionals could help them foster family disclosure by supporting the probands at each stage of the testing procedure.

Cancer Predisposition Cascade Screening for Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndromes in Switzerland: Study Protocol

BACKGROUND

Breast, colorectal, ovarian, and endometrial cancers constitute approximately 30% of newly diagnosed cancer cases in Switzerland, affecting more than 12,000 individuals annually. Hundreds of these patients are likely to carry germline pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC) or Lynch syndrome (LS). Genetic services (counseling and testing) for hereditary susceptibility to cancer can prevent many cancer diagnoses and deaths through early identification and risk management.

OBJECTIVE

Cascade screening is the systematic identification and testing of relatives of a known mutation carrier. It determines whether asymptomatic relatives also carry the known variant, needing management options to reduce future harmful outcomes. Specific aims of the CASCADE study are to (1) survey index cases with HBOC or LS from clinic-based genetic testing records and determine their current cancer status and surveillance practices, needs for coordination of medical care, psychosocial needs, patient-provider and patient-family communication, quality of life, and willingness to serve as advocates for cancer genetic services to blood relatives, (2) survey first- and second-degree relatives and first-cousins identified from pedigrees or family history records of HBOC and LS index cases and determine their current cancer and mutation status, cancer surveillance practices, needs for coordination of medical care, barriers and facilitators to using cancer genetic services, psychosocial needs, patient-provider and patient-family communication, quality of life, and willingness to participate in a study designed to increase use of cancer genetic services, and (3) explore the influence of patient-provider communication about genetic cancer risk on patient-family communication and the acceptability of a family-based communication, coping, and decision support intervention with focus group(s) of mutation carriers and relatives.

METHODS

CASCADE is a longitudinal study using surveys (online or paper/pencil) and focus groups, designed to elicit factors that enhance cascade genetic testing for HBOC and LS in Switzerland. Repeated observations are the optimal way for assessing these outcomes. Focus groups will examine barriers in patient-provider and patient-family communication, and the acceptability of a family-based communication, coping, and decision-support intervention. The survey will be developed in English, translated into three languages (German, French, and Italian), and back-translated into English, except for scales with validated versions in these languages.

RESULTS

Descriptive analyses will include calculating means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages of variables and participant descriptors. Bivariate analyses (Pearson correlations, chi-square test for differences in proportions, and t test for differences in means) will assess associations between demographics and clinical characteristics. Regression analyses will incorporate generalized estimating equations for pairing index cases with their relatives and explore whether predictors are in direct, mediating, or moderating relationship to an outcome. Focus group data will be transcribed verbatim and analyzed for common themes.

CONCLUSIONS

Robust evidence from basic science and descriptive population-based studies in Switzerland support the necessity of cascade screening for genetic predisposition to HBOC and LS. CASCADE is designed to address translation of this knowledge into public health interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03124212; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03124212 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6tKZnNDBt).

Design and Feasibility of an Intervention to Support Cancer Genetic Counselees in Informing their At-Risk Relatives

Cancer genetic counselees receive individualized information regarding heightened risks and medical recommendations which is also relevant for their at-risk relatives. Unfortunately, counselees often insufficiently inform these relatives. We designed an intervention aimed at improving counselees’ knowledge regarding which at-risk relatives to inform and what information to disclose, their motivation to disclose, and their self-efficacy. The intervention, offered by telephone by trained psychosocial workers, is based on the principles of Motivational Interviewing. Phase 1 of the intervention covers agenda setting, exploration, and evaluation, and phase 2 includes information provision, enhancing motivation and self-efficacy, and brainstorming for solutions to disseminate information within the family. Fidelity and acceptability of the intervention were assessed using recordings of intervention sessions and by counselee self-report. A total of 144 counselees participated. Psychosocial workers (n = 5) delivered the intervention largely as intended. Counselees highly appreciated the content of the intervention and the psychosocial workers who delivered the intervention. In the sessions, psychosocial workers provided additional and/or corrective information, and brainstorming for solutions was performed in 70 %. These results indicate that this intervention is feasible and warrants testing in clinical practice. For this, a randomized controlled trial is currently in progress to test the intervention’s efficacy.

How communication of genetic information within the family is addressed in genetic counselling: a systematic review of research evidence

Supporting consultands to communicate risk information with their relatives is key to obtaining the full benefits of genetic health care. To understand how health-care professionals address this issue in clinical practice and what interventions are used specifically to assist consultands in their communication of genetic information to appropriate relatives, we conducted a systematic review. Four electronic databases and four subject-specific journals were searched for papers published, in English, between January 1997 and May 2014. Of 2926 papers identified initially, 14 papers met the inclusion criteria for the review and were heterogeneous in design, setting and methods. Thematic data analysis has shown that dissemination of information within families is actively encouraged and supported by professionals. Three overarching themes emerged: (1) direct contact from genetic services: sending letters to relatives of mutation carriers; (2) professionals' encouragement of initially reluctant consultands to share relevant information with at-risk relatives and (3) assisting consultands in communicating genetic information to their at-risk relatives, which included as subthemes (i) psychoeducational guidance and (ii) written information aids. Findings suggest that professionals' practice and interventions are predicated on the need to proactively encourage family communication. We discuss this in the context of what guidance of consultands by professionals might be appropriate, as best practices to facilitate family communication, and of the limits to non-directiveness in genetic counselling.

Aligning policy to promote cascade genetic screening for prevention and early diagnosis of heritable diseases

Cascade genetic screening is a methodology for identifying and testing close blood relatives of individuals at increased risk for heritable conditions and follows a sequential process, minimizing testing costs and the number of family members who need to be tested. It offers considerable potential for cost savings and increased awareness of heritable conditions within families. CDC-classified Tier 1 genomic applications for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), Lynch Syndrome (LS), and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) are recommended for clinical use and support the use of cascade genetic screening. Most individuals are unaware of their increased risk for heritable conditions such as HBOC, LS, and FH. Consistent implementation of cascade genetic screening could significantly increase awareness and prevention of heritable conditions. Limitations to effective implementation of cascade genetic screening include: insufficient genetic risk assessment and knowledge by a majority of healthcare providers without genetics credentials; a shortage of genetic specialists, especially in rural areas; a low rate of reimbursement for comprehensive genetic counseling services; and an individual focus on prevention by clinical guidelines and insurance coverage. The family-centric approach of cascade genetic screening improves prevention and early diagnosis of heritable diseases on a population health level. Cascade genetic screening could be better supported and augmented through changes in health policy.

The KinFact intervention - a randomized controlled trial to increase family communication about cancer history

BACKGROUND

Knowing family history is important for understanding cancer risk, yet communication within families is suboptimal. Providing strategies to enhance communication may be useful.

METHODS

Four hundred ninety women were recruited from urban, safety-net, hospital-based primary care women's health clinics. Participants were randomized to receive the KinFact intervention or the control handout on lowering risks for breast/colon cancer and screening recommendations. Cancer family history was reviewed with all participants. The 20-minute KinFact intervention, based in communication and behavior theory, included reviewing individualized breast/colon cancer risks and an interactive presentation about cancer and communication. Study outcomes included whether participants reported collecting family history, shared cancer risk information with relatives, and the frequency of communication with relatives. Data were collected at baseline, 1, 6, and 14 months.

RESULTS

Overall, intervention participants were significantly more likely to gather family cancer information at follow-up (odds ratio [OR]: 2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.01, 3.71) and to share familial cancer information with relatives (OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.37, 2.48). Communication frequency (1=not at all; 4=a lot) was significantly increased at follow-up (1.67 vs. 1.54). Differences were not modified by age, race, education, or family history. However, effects were modified by pregnancy status and genetic literacy. Intervention effects for information gathering and frequency were observed for nonpregnant women but not for pregnant women. Additionally, intervention effects were observed for information gathering in women with high genetic literacy, but not in women with low genetic literacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The KinFact intervention successfully promoted family communication about cancer risk. Educating women to enhance their communication skills surrounding family history may allow them to partner more effectively with their families and ultimately their providers in discussing risks and prevention.

Informing relatives about their hereditary or familial cancer risk: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling for hereditary breast or colon cancer has implications for both counselees and their relatives. Although counselees are encouraged by genetic counselors to disclose genetic cancer risk information, they do not always share this information with their at-risk relatives. Reasons for not informing relatives may be generally categorized as a lack of knowledge, motivation and/or self-efficacy. Presented here is the protocol of a randomized controlled trial that aims to establish the effectiveness of an intervention focused on supporting counselees in their disclosure of genetic cancer information to their relatives.

METHODS/DESIGN

A multicenter randomized controlled trial with parallel group design will be used to compare the effects of an additional telephone counseling session performed by psychosocial workers to enhance the disclosure of genetic cancer information to at-risk relatives (intervention group) with a control group of standard care. Consecutive index patients with relatives at risk for hereditary or familial breast and/or ovarian cancer or colon cancer, are randomly assigned (block size: 8; 1:1 allocation ratio) to the intervention (n = 132) or control group (n = 132, standard care). Primary outcomes are counselees' knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy regarding informing their relatives.

DISCUSSION

This intervention may prove important in supporting counselees to disclose hereditary and/or familial cancer risk information to at-risk relatives and may enable more at-risk relatives to make a well-informed decision regarding genetic services and/or screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) with trial ID number NTR3745.