"Would you test your children without their consent?" and other sticky dilemmas in the field of cancer genetic testing

Cancer genetic testing is surrounded by myriad ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications which are being revisited as testing expands into an everyday practice and into more complicated areas like whole exome and direct-to-consumer testing. We chose to survey cancer genetic counselors and physicians from a wide range of non-genetics specialties to determine what they would do if faced with the complex decisions associated with cancer genetic testing, how their views compare, and how they align with current guidelines and data. Genetic counselors were significantly more likely than non-genetics physicians to bill their insurance for testing (94.9 vs. 86.8 %; p = 0.001) and purchase life insurance before testing (86.6 vs. 68.6 %; p = 0.000) and were less likely to use an alias (3.2 vs. 13.2 %; p = 0.000) or order testing on their own DNA (15.3 vs. 24.2 %; p = 0.004). They were also less likely to test their minor children (0.9 vs. 33.1 %; p = 0.000) or test their children without their knowledge and consent/assent (1.4 vs.11.5 %; p = 0.000). The results of our study indicate that there is wide variation regarding what clinicians predict they would do in the areas of ethical, legal and psychosocial issues in cancer genetic testing. Cancer genetic counselors' choices are more aligned with professional guidelines, likely due to their experience in the field and awareness of current guidelines. These data are a starting point for a broader discussion of who should offer cancer genetic counseling and testing to patients, particularly as the complexity of the available testing options and associated issues increase with whole exome sequencing.

Erratum to: Changes in specialists' perspectives on cancer genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination: then and now

Erratum to: J Genet Counsel DOI 10.1007/s10897-013-9625-z . In the “Funding” section, the company HRA was incorrectly referred to as HSR. The full name of the company is “HRA— Healthcare Research & Analytics.”

Changes in specialists' perspectives on cancer genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination: then and now

We surveyed cancer genetics specialists in 1998 to learn what they would do if at 50% risk to carry a BRCA or Lynch syndrome mutation. We chose to repeat our study 14 years later, to examine how perspectives have changed with the extensive data now available. In July 2012 we surveyed the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Cancer Special Interest Group via an internet based survey. We found statistically significant increases in the percentage of specialists who: would undergo BRCA testing (p = 0.0006), opt for prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (p =0.0001), opt for prophylactic removal of their uterus and ovaries for Lynch syndrome (p =0.0057 and P = 0.0090, respectively), and bill testing to insurance (p >0.0001). There were also statistically significant decreases in the percentage of participants who would have their colon removed for Lynch syndrome (p = 0.0002) and use an alias when pursuing testing (p > 0.0001). Over the past 14 years there has been a major change in perspective amongst cancer genetic specialists regarding genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination.

What would the experts do? Genetic testing, surveillance, and risk-reduction preferences for BRCA and Lynch syndrome

e12542

Background: Extensive data and national guidelines are now available regarding surveillance and risk reduction options for BRCA and Lynch syndrome mutation carriers. However, most of these options are presented as choices to patients who will often ask their providers, “What would you do?” We surveyed providers from multiple specialties to learn what they would do if at 50% risk to carry a BRCA or Lynch syndrome mutation. Methods: In July of 2012 we surveyed providers from multiple specialties via internet- based surveys. Participants were obtained through the American Medical Association and the National Society of Genetic Counselors. All responses were anonymized. Results: 1,313 specialists completed the online questionnaire. Those providers who commonly treat breast, ovarian, colon and uterine cancers were grouped and compared to providers who are less likely to be the treating specialist. We found statistically significant differences in the percentage of cancer genetics specialists who would pursue BRCA and Lynch syndrome testing compared with providers in other specialties (p=0.000, 0.007, respectively). We found statistically significant differences in the percentage of providers who treat breast or ovarian cancer that would opt for prophylactic bilateral mastectomy or prophylactic oophorectomy if BRCA+ (p=0.000, p=0.004, respectively) compared to other providers. We found statistically significant differences in the percentage of providers who treat colon or uterine cancer that would have their colon or uterus removed if found to carry a Lynch syndrome mutation (p=0.000, p=0.04, respectively) compared to other specialists. Conclusions: Providers’ specialties and, possibly, disease-specific exposure to surveillance and treatment regimens impacted their personal choices with respect to cancer genetic testing, surveillance and prophylactic surgeries for BRCA and Lynch syndrome.