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

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

Psychological distress in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients following microsatellite instability testing for Lynch syndrome on the pathologist’s initiative

According to the Dutch Guideline on Hereditary Colorectal Cancer published in 2008, patients with recently diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo microsatellite instability (MSI) testing by a pathologist immediately after tumour resection if they are younger than 50 years, or if a second CRC has been diagnosed before the age of 70 years, owing to the high risk of Lynch syndrome (MIPA). The aim of the present MIPAPS study was to investigate general distress and cancer-specific distress following MSI testing. From March 2007 to September 2009, 400 patients who had been tested for MSI after newly diagnosed CRC were recruited from 30 Dutch hospitals. Levels of general distress (SCL-90) and cancer-specific distress (IES) were assessed immediately after MSI result disclosure (T1) and 6 months later (T2). Response rates were 23/77 (30%) in the MSI-positive patients and 58/323 (18%) in the MSI-negative patients. Levels of general distress and cancer-specific distress were moderate. In the MSI-positive group, 27% of the patients had high general distress at T1 versus 18% at T2 (p = 0.5), whereas in the MSI-negative group, these percentage were 14 and 18% (p = 0.6), respectively. At T1 and T2, cancer-specific distress rates in the MSI-positive group and MSI-negative group were 39 versus 27% (p = 0.3) and 38 versus 36% (p = 1.0), respectively. High levels of general distress were correlated with female gender, low social support and high perceived cancer risk. Moderate levels of distress were observed after MSI testing, similar to those found in other patients diagnosed with CRC. Immediately after result disclosure, high cancer-specific distress was observed in 40% of the MSI-positive patients

A whisper-game perspective on the family communication of DNA-test results: a retrospective study on the communication process of BRCA1/2-test results between proband and relatives

Objective of this paper is to study how DNA-test result information was communicated and perceived within families. A retrospective descriptive study in 13 probands with a BRCA1/2 unclassified variant, 7 with a pathogenic mutation, 5 with an uninformative result, and in 44, 14, and 12 of their 1st and 2nd degree relatives respectively. We examined differences and correlations between: (a) information actually communicated (b) probands' perception, (c) relatives' perception. The perception consisted of recollections and interpretations of both their own and their relatives' cancer-risks, and heredity-likelihood (i.e. likelihood that cancer is heritable in the family). Differences and low correlations suggested few similarities between the actually communicated information, the probands' and the relatives' perception. More specifically, probands recalled the communicated information differently compared with the actually communicated information (R = .40), and reinterpreted this information differently (R = .30). The relatives' perception was best correlated with the proband's interpretation (R = .08), but this perception differed significantly from their proband's perception. Finally, relatives reinterpreted the information they received from their proband differently (R = .25), and this interpretation was only slightly related with the original message communicated by the genetic-counsellor (R = .15). Unclassified-variants were most frequently misinterpreted by probands and relatives, and had the largest differences between probands' and relatives' perceptions. Like in a children's whisper-game, many errors occur in the transmission of DNA-test result information in families. More attention is required for how probands disseminate information to relatives. Genetic-counsellors may help by supporting the probands in communicating to relatives, e.g. by providing clear summary letters for relatives