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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Individuals who carry deleterious BRCA mutations face significantly elevated risks of breast, ovarian, and other cancers. These individuals are also responsible for informing relatives of their increased risk for carrying the family BRCA mutation. Few interventions have been developed to facilitate this family communication process.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We developed the Sharing Risk Information Tool (ShaRIT), a personalized educational intervention, to support BRCA carriers as they discuss BRCA positive results and their implications with relatives. We conducted a pilot study of 19 BRCA carriers identified through the University of California San Francisco Cancer Risk Program. Our study had two aims: 1) to assess the feasibility and acceptability of ShaRIT, and 2) describe characteristics associated with increased family communication and BRCA testing. Participants in our study were divided into two groups: those who had not received ShaRIT as part of their genetic counseling protocol (control group, n = 10) and those who received ShaRIT (n = 9).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All 9 women who received ShaRIT reported that it was a useful resource. Characteristics associated with increased sharing and testing included: female gender, degree of relationship, and frequency of communication. Increased pedigree knowledge showed a trend toward higher rates of sharing.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Both participants and genetic counselors considered ShaRIT a well-received, comprehensive tool for disseminating individual risk information and clinical care guidelines to Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome families. Because of this, ShaRIT has been incorporated as standard of care at our institution. In the future we hope to evaluate the effects of ShaRIT on family communication and family testing in larger populations of BRCA positive families.</p

Shortened time interval between colorectal cancer diagnosis and risk testing for hereditary colorectal cancer is not related to higher psychological distress

Current diagnostic practices have shortened the interval between colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and genetic analysis for Lynch syndrome by MSI-testing. We studied the relation of time between MSI-testing since CRC diagnosis (MSI–CRC interval) and psychological distress. We performed a cross-sectional study in 89 patients who had previously been treated for CRC. Data were collected during MSI-testing after genetic counseling. Psychological distress was measured with the IES, the SCL-90 and the POMS; social issues with the ISS, ISB and the ODHCF. The median time of MSI–CRC interval was 24 months (range 0–332), with 23% of the patients diagnosed less than 12 months and 42% more than 36 months prior to MSI-testing. In 34% of the patients cancer specific distress was high (IES scores >26). Mean psychopathology (SCL-90) scores were low, mean mood states (POMS) scores were moderate. Interval MSI–CRC was not related to psychological distress. High cancer specific distress was reported by 24% of patients diagnosed with CRC less than 12 months ago versus 39 and 35% by those diagnosed between 12 and 36 months and more than 36 months ago respectively. Distress was positively related to female gender (P = 0.04), religiousness (P = 0.01), low social support (P = 0.02) and difficulties with family communication (P < 0.001). Shortened time interval between CRC diagnosis and MSI-testing is not associated with higher psychological distress. Females, religious persons, those having low social support and those reporting difficulties communicating hereditary colorectal cancer with relatives are at higher risk for psychological distress

“In Sickness and in Health”? Disclosures of Genetic Risks in Dating

Individuals who have, or are at risk for, various genetic disorders face many challenges concerning disclosures of genetic information in dating situations. We conducted a qualitative interview study of 64 individuals confronting Huntington's disease, breast cancer, or Alpha‐1 antitrypsin deficiency, examining what issues these individuals encountered, and how they viewed and addressed these—including issues of understandings, privacy, and disclosures of genetic information to various groups (e.g., family members). Incidental to the primary research questions addressed, participants also often described a series of dilemmas in dating situations that they and/or family members, friends, and fellow patients faced of whether to date, and if so, whether, what, how, why, and when to disclose their genetic risk or illness. At times, these individuals feared and experienced rejection, and hence delayed, avoided, or opposed disclosure, or disclosed indirectly or inadvertently. These data are reported in this paper and highlight the importance of patients, their loved ones, genetic counselors, and other health care providers being aware of these issues, and appreciating the complex factors involved, which can affect patients’ coping and social support. This paper, the first to explore several key aspects of disclosures of genetic information in dating, thus suggests needs for public and professional education, and future research in this area

Psychological distress in applicants for predictive DNA testing for autosomal dominant, heritable, late onset disorders

In a comparative study on the effects of predictive DNA testing for late onset disorders, pre-test psychological distress was assessed in people at risk for Huntington's disease (HD, n=41), cerebral haemorrhage (HCHWA-D, n=9), breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC, n=24), and polyposis coli (FAP, n=45). Partners, if available, also participated in the study, Distress was measured with the subscales Intrusion and Avoidance of the Impact of Event Scale. People at risk for the neurodegenerative disorders reported more avoidance than those at risk for the cancer syndromes. People at risk for FAP and partners of those at risk for HBOC reported less intrusion than the others at risk and the other partners. Subjects who were more distressed reported more experiences with the disease in close relatives, the disease having a great impact on their lives, having considerations against predictive testing, expecting that being identified as a gene carrier would have adverse effects, and expecting relief after being identified as a non-carrier. Test candidates who expected an increase of personal problems showed higher avoidance, whereas those who could better anticipate future life as a carrier had higher intrusion levels. Generally, subjects with high distress levels are of more concern to the healthcare professional than those with low distress levels. However, high distress may reflect worrying as a mental preparation for the test result, whereas low distress may indicate denial-avoidance behaviour and poor anticipation of the test outcome. In pre-test counselling sessions, this should be acknowledged and addressed

Psychological distress in applicants for predictive DNA testing for autosomal dominant, heritable, late onset disorders

In a comparative study on the effects of predictive DNA testing for late onset disorders, pre-test psychological distress was assessed in people at risk for Huntington's disease (HD, n=41), cerebral haemorrhage (HCHWA-D, n=9), breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC, n=24), and polyposis coli (FAP, n=45). Partners, if available, also participated in the study, Distress was measured with the subscales Intrusion and Avoidance of the Impact of Event Scale. People at risk for the neurodegenerative disorders reported more avoidance than those at risk for the cancer syndromes. People at risk for FAP and partners of those at risk for HBOC reported less intrusion than the others at risk and the other partners. Subjects who were more distressed reported more experiences with the disease in close relatives, the disease having a great impact on their lives, having considerations against predictive testing, expecting that being identified as a gene carrier would have adverse effects, and expecting relief after being identified as a non-carrier. Test candidates who expected an increase of personal problems showed higher avoidance, whereas those who could better anticipate future life as a carrier had higher intrusion levels. Generally, subjects with high distress levels are of more concern to the healthcare professional than those with low distress levels. However, high distress may reflect worrying as a mental preparation for the test result, whereas low distress may indicate denial-avoidance behaviour and poor anticipation of the test outcome. In pre-test counselling sessions, this should be acknowledged and addressed