Controversies in Communication of Genetic Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer

n Abstract: Increased availability and heightened consumer awareness of ''cancer genes'' has increased consumer interest in, and demand for breast cancer risk assessment, and thus a pressing need for providers to identify effective, efficient methods of communicating complicated genetic information to consumers and their potentially at-risk relatives. With increasing direct-to-consumer and -physician marketing of predictive genetic tests, there has been considerable growth in web-and telephone-based genetic services. There is urgent need to further evaluate the psychosocial and behavioral outcomes (i.e., risks and benefits) of telephone and web-based methods of delivery before they become fully incorporated into clinical care models. Given the implications of genetic test results for family members, and the inherent conflicts in health care providers' dual responsibilities to protect patient privacy and to ''warn'' those at-risk, new models for communicating risk to at-risk relatives are emerging. Additional controversies arise when the at-risk relative is a minor. Research evaluating the impact of communicating genetic risk to offspring is necessary to inform optimal communication of genetic risk for breast cancer across the lifespan. Better understanding the risks and benefits associated with each of these controversial areas in cancer risk communication are crucial to optimizing adherence to recommended breast cancer risk management strategies and ensuring psycho-social well-being in the clinical delivery of genetic services for breast cancer susceptibility. n T he discovery of the role of BRCA1/2 mutations in the development of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and the development of a clinical test for the identification of those mutations holds great promise for reducing the risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Although professional societies have provided recommendations for pre-and post-test counseling by health care practitioners with specialized genetics training, there are aspects of genetic testing for hereditary cancer that remain controversial. Increased availability and heightened consumer awareness of ''cancer genes'' has increased consumer interest in, and demand for hereditary cancer risk assessment, and thus, a pressing need for providers to identify effective, efficient methods of communicating complicated genetic information to consumers and their potentially at-risk relatives. Optimal outcomes of communication of genetic test results include adherence to recommended risk management strategies and maximization of psycho-social well-being. This requires not only the effective communication of risk information, but also an understanding of the consumers' translation of that information into personalized perceptions of risk of disease, benefits of interventions and the bio-psychosocial factors that mediate that process. Other concerns include the transfer of genetic risk information to atrisk relatives, including providers' obligation regarding ''duty to warn'' at-risk relatives. When the at-risk relative is a minor, additional controversies arise regarding the timing of disclosure of familial risk, and the appropriateness of minors' testing for adult-onset hereditary cancers. These concerns remain the subjects of ongoing debate and necessitate further empiric research to inform evidence-based guidelines. PROVIDER COMMUNICATION OF GENETIC RISK INFORMATION TO PATIENTS Effective counseling of patients undergoing BRCA1/2 genetic testing includes risk communication, informed consent, and psychosocial support (1-7)

Global, regional, and national consumption of animal-source foods between 1990 and 2018: findings from the Global Dietary Database

International audienceBackground:Diet is a major modifiable risk factor for human health and overall consumption patterns affect planetary health. We aimed to quantify global, regional, and national consumption levels of animal-source foods (ASF) to inform intervention, surveillance, and policy priorities.Methods:Individual-level dietary surveys across 185 countries conducted between 1990 and 2018 were identified, obtained, standardised, and assessed among children and adults, jointly stratified by age, sex, education level, and rural versus urban residence. We included 499 discrete surveys (91·2% nationally or subnationally representative) with data for ASF (unprocessed red meat, processed meat, eggs, seafood, milk, cheese, and yoghurt), comprising 3·8 million individuals from 134 countries representing 95·2% of the world population in 2018. We used Bayesian hierarchical models to account for differences in survey methods and representativeness, time trends, and input data and modelling uncertainty, with five-fold cross-validation.Findings:In 2018, mean global intake per person of unprocessed red meat was 51 g/day (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 48–54; region-specific range 7–114 g/day); 17 countries (23·9% of the world's population) had mean intakes of at least one serving (100 g) per day. Global mean intake of processed meat was 17 g/day (95% UI 15–21 g/day; region-specific range 3–54 g/day); seafood, 28 g/day (27–30 g/day; 12–44 g/day); eggs, 21 g/day (18–24 g/day; 6–35 g/day); milk 88 g/day (84–93 g/day; 45–185 g/day); cheese, 8 g/day (8–10 g/day; 1–34 g/day); and yoghurt, 20 g/day (17–23 g/day; 7–84 g/day). Mean national intakes were at least one serving per day for processed meat (≥50 g/day) in countries representing 6·9% of the global population; for cheese (≥42 g/day) in 2·3%; for eggs (≥55 g/day) in 0·7%; for milk (≥245 g/day) in 0·3%; for seafood (≥100 g/day) in 0·8%; and for yoghurt (≥245 g/day) in less than 0·1%. Among the 25 most populous countries in 2018, total ASF intake was highest in Russia (5·8 servings per day), Germany (3·8 servings per day), and the UK (3·7 servings per day), and lowest in Tanzania (0·9 servings per day) and India (0·7 servings per day). Global and regional intakes of ASF were generally similar by sex. Compared with children, adults generally consumed more unprocessed red meat, seafood and cheese, and less milk; energy-adjusted intakes of other ASF were more similar. Globally, ASF intakes (servings per week) were higher among more-educated versus less-educated adults, with greatest global differences for milk (0·79), eggs (0·47), unprocessed red meat (0·42), cheese (0·28), seafood (0·28), yoghurt (0·22), and processed meat (0·21). This was also true for urban compared to rural areas, with largest global differences (servings per week) for unprocessed red meat (0·47), milk (0·38), and eggs (0·20). Between 1990 and 2018, global intakes (servings per week) increased for unprocessed red meat (1·20), eggs (1·18), milk (0·63), processed meat (0·50), seafood (0·44), and cheese (0·14).Interpretation:Our estimates of ASF consumption identify populations with both lower and higher than optimal intakes. These estimates can inform the targeting of intervention, surveillance, and policy priorities relevant to both human and planetary health