How do women at increased, but unexplained, familial risk of breast cancer perceive and manage their risk? A qualitative interview study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The perception of breast cancer risk held by women who have not had breast cancer, and who are at increased, but unexplained, familial risk of breast cancer is poorly described. This study aims to describe risk perception and how it is related to screening behaviour for these women.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were recruited from a population-based sample (the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study - ABCFS). The ABCFS includes women diagnosed with breast cancer and their relatives. For this study, women without breast cancer with at least one first- or second-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 were eligible unless a <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>mutation had been identified in their family. Data collection consisted of an audio recorded, semi-structured interview on the topic of breast cancer risk and screening decision-making. Data was analysed thematically.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 24 interviews were conducted, and saturation of the main themes was achieved. Women were classified into one of five groups: don't worry about cancer risk, but do screening; concerned about cancer risk, so do something; concerned about cancer risk, so why don't I do anything?; cancer inevitable; cancer unlikely.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The language and framework women use to describe their risk of breast cancer must be the starting point in attempts to enhance women's understanding of risk and their prevention behaviour.</p

Attitudes of Australian health professionals towards rapid genomic testing in neonatal and paediatric intensive care

We investigated the attitudes of intensive care physicians and genetics professionals towards rapid genomic testing in neonatal and paediatric intensive care units (NICU/PICU). A mixed-methods study (surveys and interviews) was conducted at 13 Australian hospitals and three laboratories involved in multi-center implementation of rapid genomic testing. We investigated experience and confidence with genomic tests among intensivists; perceived usefulness of genomic diagnostic results; preferences for service delivery models; and implementation readiness among genetic services. The overall survey response rate was 59%, 47% for intensivists (80/170), and 75% (91/121) for genetics professionals. Intensivists reported moderate confidence with microarray tests and lower confidence with genomic tests. The majority of intensivists (77%), clinical geneticists (87%) and genetic counsellors (82%) favoured a clinical genetics-led service delivery model of genomic testing. Perceived clinical utility of genomic results was lower in the intensivist group compared to the genetics professionals group (20 v 50%, p < 0.001). Interviews (n = 6 intensivists; n = 11 genetic counselors) demonstrated support for implementation, with concerns relating to implementation environment and organizational readiness. Overall, our findings support initial implementation of genomic testing in NICU/PICU as part of an interdisciplinary service delivery model that promotes gradual adoption of genomics by the intensive care workforce while ensuring safety, sustainability, and efficiency

Uptake of carrier testing in families after cystic fibrosis diagnosis through newborn screening

Newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) provides the opportunity for cascade carrier testing of relatives. Uptake of testing by adult non-parent relatives of children diagnosed with CF through NBS has not been previously described, and this study describes uptake by both parents and adult non-parent relatives in Victoria, Australia. Pedigrees were taken from parents of children who were born in 2000–2004 and diagnosed with CF. A total of 40 families were eligible for the study and 30 (75%) were recruited. In all, 716 non-parent relatives were identified from the pedigrees as eligible for carrier testing, and 82 (adjusted uptake percentage: 11.8% 95% confidence interval 8.0–15.7) have had carrier testing by March 2009. On average, 2.7 non-parent relatives per family had CF carrier testing after diagnosis through NBS. The odds of being tested were greater for females than males (adjusted odds ratio 1.61; 95% confidence interval 1.11–2.33; P=0.01) and greater for those more closely related to the child with CF (adjusted odds ratio 5.17; 95% confidence interval 2.38–11.24; P<0.001). Most relatives who undergo testing are tested immediately after the baby's diagnosis; however, some testing is undertaken up to 8 years later. These results indicate that in a clinical setting, the diagnosis of a baby with CF by NBS does not lead to carrier testing for the majority of the baby's non-parent relatives. We suggest re-contact with parents to offer cascade carrier testing