Withdrawal from genetic counselling for cancer

Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

BACKGROUND

Understanding service user preferences is key to effective health care decision making and efficient resource allocation. It is of particular importance in the management of high-risk patients in whom predictive genetic testing can alter health outcomes.

PURPOSE

This review aims to identify the relative importance and willingness to pay for attributes of genetic testing in hereditary cancer syndromes.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, Web of Science, and EconLit using discrete choice experiment (DCE) terms combined with terms related to hereditary cancer syndromes, malignancy synonyms, and genetic testing.

STUDY SELECTION

Following independent screening by 3 reviewers, 7 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, being a DCE investigating patient or public preferences related to predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Extracted data included study and respondent characteristics, DCE attributes and levels, methods of data analysis and interpretation, and key study findings.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Studies covered colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer syndromes. Results were summarized in a narrative synthesis and the quality assessed using the Lancsar and Louviere framework.

LIMITATIONS

This review focuses only on DCE design and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes rather than other complex diseases. Challenges also arose from heterogeneity in attributes and levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Test effectiveness and detection rates were consistently important to respondents and thus should be prioritized by policy makers. Accuracy, cost, and wait time, while also important, showed variation between studies, although overall reduction in cost may improve uptake. Patients and the public would be willing to pay for improved detection and clinician over insurance provider involvement. Future studies should seek to contextualize findings by considering the impact of sociodemographic characteristics, health system coverage, and insurance policies on preferences.

HIGHLIGHTS

Test effectiveness and detection rates are consistently important to respondents in genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.Reducing the cost of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes may improve uptake.Individuals are most willing to pay for a test that improves detection rates, identifies multiple cancers, and for which results are shared with a doctor rather than with an insurance provider.

Evaluating the performance of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) breast and ovarian genetic/familial high risk assessment referral criteria for breast cancer women in an Asian surgical breast clinic

BACKGROUND

Globally, resources for genomic services vary. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) breast and ovarian genetic/familial high risk assessment criteria for further genetic risk evaluation are useful, but lack specificity for reliably excluding patients with low a priori risk. This may result in patient overload in lesser-equipped genetics clinics. Since we use Manchester and the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk assessment models in our genetics clinic to determine whether genetic testing is warranted, we chose Manchester and BOADICEA as the reference standard to compare how the NCCN breast and ovarian genetic/familial high risk assessment criteria for further genetic risk evaluation performs against these two risk assessment models in referring breast cancer patients for genetic evaluation.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2009-2011 were assessed using the NCCN criteria, Manchester and BOADICEA. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used to compare the NCCN criteria versus the Manchester and BOADICEA scoring systems in identifying high-risk patients.

RESULTS

A total of 666 patients were included in the study. Percentages of high-risk patients resulting from Manchester and BOADICEA were 1.80% and 2.55%, respectively. Among the NCCN criteria, breast cancer and ≥1 close relatives with breast cancer at ≤50 years of age correlated best with Manchester and/or BOADICEA (c-statistic =0.831) with a false negative rate of 1.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer at any age and ≥1 close relative with breast cancer at ≤50 years of age exhibited the highest correlation with Manchester and/or BOADICEA, promising greater specificity compared to the other NCCN criteria for segregating high risk, Asian breast cancer patients for referral to a genetics clinic, nevertheless recognizing the inherent limitations of the scoring systems.

Psychosocial outcomes and counselee satisfaction following genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: A patient-reported outcome study

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the psychosocial consequences of genetic counseling and testing (GCT) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) at follow-up in a "real-life" sample of counselees at an Austrian tertiary care center.

METHODS

The study cohort included counselees who had undergone genetic counseling for HBOC and completed a follow-up self-report questionnaire battery on psychosocial outcomes (quality of life, psychological distress, satisfaction with counseling and decisions). For comparison of distress, we recruited a reference sample of breast cancer survivors (BCS; n=665) who had not requested GCT in the same setting.

RESULTS

Overall, counselees did not exhibit increased levels of anxiety and depression when compared to BCS. No specific follow-up deleterious psychosocial consequences were detected among the former group. Of the 137 counselees, 22.6% and 9.8% experienced clinically relevant levels of anxiety and depression, respectively, at an average follow-up time of 1.8years. However, both anxiety and depression significantly decreased with time and were alike between counselees with and without cancer diagnosis. Follow-up cancer worry seems to be significantly higher among counselees who had not undergone genetic testing or were undecided about it than among counselees who had been tested.

CONCLUSION

Our results strongly support GCT as part of routine care for patients with HBOC. The risk factors of increased distress in specific subgroups of counselees, such as recent cancer diagnosis or uncertainty about testing, warrant further exploration and specific attention in clinical routines. Particularly, the psychological needs of undecided counselees warrant ongoing attention and potential follow-ups.

Communication Between Breast Cancer Patients Who Received Inconclusive Genetic Test Results and Their Daughters and Sisters Years After Testing

Inconclusive genetic test results including screening recommendations for the breast cancer patients and their first-degree relatives are the most common outcomes of BRCA 1/2 testing. Patients themselves should communicate these results to their relatives. Our aim was to explore communication of breast cancer genetic counseling results with daughters and sisters over a long period of time. Breast cancer patients, who had received an inconclusive DNA test result 7-14 years earlier, completed a self-report questionnaire. Additionally, in-depth interviews were conducted and analysed thematically. Of the 93 respondents, 85 (91 %) considered themselves responsible for communicating genetic test results to relatives. In-depth interviews (n = 14) showed, that counselees wanted 'to hand over' their responsibilities to communicate the test results and screening recommendations to their sisters. Although most patients had informed their daughters and sisters about the genetic test results, usually little is spoken about genetic test results and screening recommendations once the duty of informing is completed. We recommend that, similar to the procedure for BRCA1/2-mutation carriers, a separate letter for first-degree relatives of patients with an inconclusive test result should be provided. In this way information about risks and screening recommendations can be verified by family members years after genetic testing has been completed.

Attitudinal concordance toward uptake and disclosure of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility in patient-family member dyads

Decisions for cancer susceptibility genetic testing (CSGT) uptake and dissemination of results occur within the family context. A national survey was performed with 990 patient-family member dyads (participation rate:76.2%), with paired questionnaires examining attitudes toward CSGT uptake and disclosure of results in response to a hypothetical scenario in which a reliable CSGT was available for the specific cancer a patient was being treated. While most patients and family members responded they would uptake or recommend CSGT if available, concordance between the dyads was poor for both patient's testing (agreement rate 77.5%, weighted κ=0.09) and first-degree relatives' testing(agreement rate 78.0%, weighted κ=0.09). Most patients (93.2%) and family members (92.9%) indicated that patients should disclose positive CSGT results to family members, with dyadic agreement of 89.1% (κ=0.15). However, there were substantial disagreement regarding when disclosure should take place, who should make the disclosure (the patient or the health care professionals), and to whom the results should be disclosed. Patients and family members may hold different attitudes toward CSGT uptake of and disclosure of results within the family. Our findings reinforce the need for a family system approach to incorporate perspectives of patients as well as their family members.

Communication in genetic counselling for breast/ovarian cancer

Cancer genetic counselling represents a very special situation of interaction between the geneticist and the counselee, marked by a number of specificities that account for its complexity. Cancer genetic counselling has multiple repercussions, such as identification of a deleterious genetic mutation associated with a high probability of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer, the implementation of preventive measures ranging from close surveillance to the decision to perform mutilating prophylactic surgical procedures, or the impact of the information on the other members of the counselee's family also concerned by the genetic risk. This chapter is based on a review of the literature that has been rapidly growing over recent years and on our clinical expertise as psycho-oncologists and geneticists. We will first present the reasons that make the information so critical. These reasons are both objective (complexity of the genetic information per se, difficulties of understanding the concept of risk) and subjective (information given to people with an emotionally charged family history and a perception of risks closely linked to their representation of cancer). At the same time, the counsellees are charged with the transmission of this information to members of their own family. We will then discuss the various modalities of communication in this setting. While unidirectional transfer of information from the geneticist to the counselee has been the preferred method in cancer genetics for a long time, a model based on patient-centered communication is more adequate in predictive medicine and allows shared decision making. In all cases, the different professionals involved in the process have to learn how to work in a performing cohesion. We also present the main guidelines on the subject and the various underlying objectives with regard to information delivery and the subject's personal experience. Although the psychological impact of genetic counselling consultations raises a number of questions, the results of preliminary studies are reassuring, demonstrating psychological benefits. However, a number of aspects concerning communication in predictive medicine remain to be investigated and improved.