Withdrawal from Genetic Counselling for Cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A substantial minority of individuals who initially apply for genetic counselling for breast/ovarian cancer withdraw at an early stage from the counselling process. This study investigated the self-reported reasons for early withdrawal and the factors associated significantly with such withdrawal.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Self-report questionnaires were mailed to 83 women who had applied for genetic counselling for breast/ovarian cancer but who subsequently withdrew from the counselling process (the "withdrawers"). A comparison group of 105 women who had completed the genetic counselling (the "attendees") received a similar questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed sociodemographic characteristics, reasons for applying for genetic counselling, general distress (MHI-5), cancer-specific distress (IES), and cancer worries. For those women who discontinued the counselling, reasons for withdrawal were also assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The primary reasons given for withdrawing from counselling were difficulties in anticipating the consequences of genetic counselling (28%), and worries about being unable to adequately cope with an unfavourable test result (20%). Compared to the attendees, the withdrawers were significantly younger, more frequently asymptomatic, more often the first and only member of the family to apply for counselling, and less worried about cancer. Current levels of cancer-specific distress and general distress were comparable between the two groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Younger women, those without a history of cancer, and those who are first in their family to apply are more likely to withdraw prematurely from genetic counselling for breast/ovarian cancer. These withdrawers have no elevated levels of distress. However, a substantial percentage of individuals discontinue counselling due to concerns about their (in)ability to cope with a possible unfavourable test outcome. This suggests that greater attention should be paid to ways of coping with test results during the very first contact with the clinic.</p

'We don't know for sure':discussion of uncertainty concerning multigene panel testing during initial cancer genetic consultations

Pre-test counseling about multigene panel testing involves many uncertainties. Ideally, counselees are informed about uncertainties in a way that enables them to make an informed decision about panel testing. It is presently unknown whether and how uncertainty is discussed during initial cancer genetic counseling. We therefore investigated whether and how counselors discuss and address uncertainty, and the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), and explored associations between counselors' communication and their characteristics in consultations on panel testing for cancer. For this purpose, consultations of counselors discussing a multigene panel with a simulated patient were videotaped. Simulated patients represented a counselee who had had multiple cancer types, according to a script. Before and afterwards, counselors completed a survey. Counselors' uncertainty expressions, initiating and the framing of expressions, and their verbal responses to scripted uncertainties of the simulated patient were coded by two researchers independently. Coding was done according to a pre-developed coding scheme using The Observer XT software for observational analysis. Additionally, the degree of SDM was assessed by two observers. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to assess associations of communicated uncertainties, responses and the extent of SDM, with counselors' background characteristics. In total, twenty-nine counselors, including clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, physician assistants-in-training, residents and interns, participated of whom working experience varied between 0 and 25 years. Counselors expressed uncertainties mainly regarding scientific topics (94%) and on their own initiative (95%). Most expressions were framed directly (77%), e.g. We don't know, and were emotionally neutral (59%; without a positive/negative value). Counselors mainly responded to uncertainties of the simulated patient by explicitly referring to the uncertainty (69%), without providing space for further disclosure (66%). More experienced counselors provided less space to further disclose uncertainty (p <0.02), and clinical geneticists scored lower on SDM compared with other types of counselors (p <0.03). Our findings that counselors mainly communicate scientific uncertainties and use space-reducing responses imply that the way counselors address counselees' personal uncertainties and concerns during initial cancer genetic counseling is suboptimal

A simple method for co-segregation analysis to evaluate the pathogenicity of unclassified variants; BRCA1 and BRCA2 as an example

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the clinical significance of unclassified variants (UVs) identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is very important for genetic counselling. The analysis of co-segregation of the variant with the disease in families is a powerful tool for the classification of these variants. Statistical methods have been described in literature but these methods are not always easy to apply in a diagnostic setting. METHODS: We have developed an easy to use method which calculates the likelihood ratio (LR) of an UV being deleterious, with penetrance as a function of age of onset, thereby avoiding the use of liability classes. The application of this algorithm is publicly available http://www.msbi.nl/cosegregation. It can easily be used in a diagnostic setting since it requires only information on gender, genotype, present age and/or age of onset for breast and/or ovarian cancer. RESULTS: We have used the algorithm to calculate the likelihood ratio in favour of causality for 3 UVs in BRCA1 (p.M18T, p.S1655F and p.R1699Q) and 5 in BRCA2 (p.E462G p.Y2660D, p.R2784Q, p.R3052W and p.R3052Q). Likelihood ratios varied from 0.097 (BRCA2, p.E462G) to 230.69 (BRCA2, p.Y2660D). Typing distantly related individuals with extreme phenotypes (i.e. very early onset cancer or old healthy individuals) are most informative and give the strongest likelihood ratios for or against causality. CONCLUSION: Although co-segregation analysis on itself is in most cases insufficient to prove pathogenicity of an UV, this method simplifies the use of co-segregation as one of the key features in a multifactorial approach considerably

‘We don’t know for sure’: discussion of uncertainty concerning multigene panel testing during initial cancer genetic consultations

Pre-test counseling about multigene panel testing involves many uncertainties. Ideally, counselees are informed about uncertainties in a way that enables them to make an informed decision about panel testing. It is presently unknown whether and how uncertainty is discussed during initial cancer genetic counseling. We therefore investigated whether and how counselors discuss and address uncertainty, and the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), and explored associations between counselors’ communication and their characteristics in consultations on panel testing for cancer. For this purpose, consultations of counselors discussing a multigene panel with a simulated patient were videotaped. Simulated patients represented a counselee who had had multiple cancer types, according to a script. Before and afterwards, counselors completed a survey. Counselors’ uncertainty expressions, initiating and the framing of expressions, and their verbal responses to scripted uncertainties of the simulated patient were coded by two researchers independently. Coding was done according to a pre-developed coding scheme using The Observer XT software for observational analysis. Additionally, the degree of SDM was assessed by two observers. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to assess associations of communicated uncertainties, responses and the extent of SDM, with counselors’ background characteristics. In total, twenty-nine counselors, including clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, physician assistants-in-training, residents and interns, participated of whom working experience varied between 0 and 25 years. Counselors expressed uncertainties mainly regarding scientific topics (94%) and on their own initiative (95%). Most expressions were framed directly (77%), e.g. We don’t know, and were emotionally neutral (59%; without a positive/negative value). Counselors mainly responded to uncertainties of the simulated patient by explicitly referring to the uncertainty (69%), without providing space for further disclosure (66%). More experienced counselors provided less space to further disclose uncertainty (p < 0.02), and clinical geneticists scored lower on SDM compared with o

Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer

The use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for hereditary cancer is subject to on-going debate, particularly among professionals. This study evaluates the attitude towards PGD and attitude-associated characteristics of those concerned: family members with a hereditary cancer predisposition. Forty-eight Von Hippel-Lindau and 18 Li–Fraumeni Syndrome families were identified via the 9 family cancer clinics in the Netherlands. In total, 216 high risk family members and partners were approached, of whom 179 (83%) completed a self-report questionnaire. Of the high risk family members, 35% expressed a positive attitude towards PGD. Those with a current desire to have children were significantly more likely to have a positive attitude: 48% would consider the use of PGD. No other sociodemographic, medical or psychosocial variables were associated significantly with a positive attitude. The most frequently reported advantage of PGD is the avoidance of a possible pregnancy termination. Uncertainty about late effects was the most frequently reported disadvantage. These results indicate that approximately half of those contemplating a future pregnancy would consider the use of PGD. The actual uptake, however, is expected to be lower. There is no indication that psychosocial factors affect interest in PGD

The contribution of CHEK2 to the TP53-negative Li-Fraumeni phenotype

Background: CHEK2 has previously been excluded as a major cause of Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). One particular CHEK2 germline mutation, c.1100delC, has been shown to be associated with elevated breast cancer risk. The prevalence of CHEK21100delC differs between populations and has been found to be relatively high in the Netherlands. The question remains nevertheless whether CHEK2 germline mutations contribute to the Li-Fraumeni phenotype.Methods: We have screened 65 Dutch TP53-negative LFS/LFL candidate patients for CHEK2 germline mutations to determine their contribution to the LFS/LFL phenotype.Results: We identified six index patients with a CHEK2 sequence variant, four with the c.1100delC variant and two sequence variants of unknown significance, p.Phe328Ser and c.1096-?_1629+?del.Conclusion: Our data show that CHEK2 is not a major LFS susceptibility gene in the Dutch population. However, CHEK2 might be a factor contributing to individual tumour development in TP53-negative cancer-prone families

A method to assess the clinical significance of unclassified variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes based on cancer family history

Introduction Unclassified variants (UVs) in the BRCA1/BRCA2 genes are a frequent problem in counseling breast cancer and/or ovarian cancer families. Information about cancer family history is usually available, but has rarely been used to evaluate UVs. The aim of the present study was to identify which is the best combination of clinical parameters that can predict whether a UV is deleterious, to be used for the classification of UVs. Methods We developed logistic regression models with the best combination of clinical features that distinguished a positive control of BRCA pathogenic variants (115 families) from a negative control population of BRCA variants initially classified as UVs and later considered neutral (38 families). Results The models included a combination of BRCAPRO scores, Myriad scores, number of ovarian cancers in the family, the age at diagnosis, and the number of persons with ovarian tumors and/ or breast tumors. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were respectively 0.935 and 0.836 for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 models. For each model, the minimum receiver operating characteristic distance (respectively 90% and 78% specificity for BRCA1 and BRCA2) was chosen as the cutoff value to predict which UVs are deleterious from a study population of 12 UVs, present in 59 Dutch families. The p. S1655F, p. R1699W, and p. R1699Q variants in BRCA1 and the p. Y2660D, p. R2784Q, and p. R3052W variants in BRCA2 are classified as deleterious according to our models. The predictions of the p. L246V variant in BRCA1 and of the p. Y42C, p. E462G, p. R2888C, and p. R3052Q variants in BRCA2 are in agreement with published information of them being neutral. The p. R2784W variant in BRCA2 remains uncertain. Conclusions The present study shows that these developed models are useful to classify UVs in clinical genetic practic

Behavioral and psychosocial effects of rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: Design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been estimated that between 5% and 10% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have a hereditary form of the disease, primarily caused by a <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>gene mutation. Such women have an increased risk of developing a new primary breast and/or ovarian tumor, and may therefore opt for preventive surgery (e.g., bilateral mastectomy, oophorectomy). It is common practice to offer high-risk patients genetic counseling and DNA testing after their primary treatment, with genetic test results being available within 4-6 months. However, some non-commercial laboratories can currently generate test results within 3 to 6 weeks, and thus make it possible to provide <it>rapid </it>genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) prior to primary treatment. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of RGCT on treatment decisions and on psychosocial health.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In this randomized controlled trial, 255 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with at least a 10% risk of carrying a <it>BRCA </it>gene mutation are being recruited from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants are randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either a RGCT intervention group (the offer of RGCT directly following diagnosis with tests results available before surgical treatment) or to a usual care control group. The primary behavioral outcome is the uptake of direct bilateral mastectomy or delayed prophylactic contralateral mastectomy. Psychosocial outcomes include cancer risk perception, cancer-related worry and distress, health-related quality of life, decisional satisfaction and the perceived need for and use of additional decisional counseling and psychosocial support. Data are collected via medical chart audits and self-report questionnaires administered prior to randomization, and at 6 month and at 12 month follow-up.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will provide essential information on the impact of RGCT on the choice of primary surgical treatment among women with breast cancer with an increased risk of hereditary cancer. This study will also provide data on the psychosocial consequences of RGCT and of risk-reducing behavior.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR1493) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00783822).</p

Genetic modifiers of CHEK2*1100delC-associated breast cancer risk

Purpose: CHEK2*1100delC is a founder variant in European populations that confers a two-to threefold increased risk of breast cancer (BC). Epidemiologic and family studies have suggested that the risk associated with CHEK2*1100delC is modified by other genetic factors in a multiplicative fashion. We have investigated this empirically using data from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Methods: Using genotype data from 39,139 (624 1100delC carriers) BC patients and 40,063 (224) healthy controls from 32 BCAC studies, we analyzed the combined risk effects of CHEK2*1100delC and 77 common variants in terms of a polygenic risk score (PRS) and pairwise interaction. Results: The PRS conferred odds ratios (OR) of 1.59 (95% CI: 1.212.09) per standard deviation for BC for CHEK2*1100delC carriers and 1.58 (1.55-1.62) for noncarriers. No evidence of deviation from the multiplicative model was found. The OR for the highest quintile of the PRS was 2.03 (0.86-4.78) for CHEK2*1100delC carriers, placing them in the high risk category according to UK NICE guidelines. The OR for the lowest quintile was 0.52 (0.16-1.74), indicating a lifetime risk close to the population average. Conclusion: Our results confirm the multiplicative nature of risk effects conferred by CHEK2*1100delC and the common susceptibility variants. Furthermore, the PRS could identify carriers at a high lifetime risk for clinical actions.Peer reviewe

Exploring the link between MORF4L1 and risk of breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Proteins encoded by Fanconi anemia (FA) and/or breast cancer (BrCa) susceptibility genes cooperate in a common DNA damage repair signaling pathway. To gain deeper insight into this pathway and its influence on cancer risk, we searched for novel components through protein physical interaction screens. METHODS: Protein physical interactions were screened using the yeast two-hybrid system. Co-affinity purifications and endogenous co-immunoprecipitation assays were performed to corroborate interactions. Biochemical and functional assays in human, mouse and Caenorhabditis elegans models were carried out to characterize pathway components. Thirteen FANCD2-monoubiquitinylation-positive FA cell lines excluded for genetic defects in the downstream pathway components and 300 familial BrCa patients negative for BRCA1/2 mutations were analyzed for genetic mutations. Common genetic variants were genotyped in 9,573 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers for associations with BrCa risk. RESULTS: A previously identified co-purifying protein with PALB2 was identified, MRG15 (MORF4L1 gene). Results in human, mouse and C. elegans models delineate molecular and functional relationships with BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51 and RPA1 that suggest a role for MRG15 in the repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Mrg15-deficient murine embryonic fibroblasts showed moderate sensitivity to γ-irradiation relative to controls and reduced formation of Rad51 nuclear foci. Examination of mutants of MRG15 and BRCA2 C. elegans orthologs revealed phenocopy by accumulation of RPA-1 (human RPA1) nuclear foci and aberrant chromosomal compactions in meiotic cells. However, no alterations or mutations were identified for MRG15/MORF4L1 in unclassified FA patients and BrCa familial cases. Finally, no significant associations between common MORF4L1 variants and BrCa risk for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers were identified: rs7164529, Ptrend = 0.45 and 0.05, P2df = 0.51 and 0.14, respectively; and rs10519219, Ptrend = 0.92 and 0.72, P2df = 0.76 and 0.07, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While the present study expands on the role of MRG15 in the control of genomic stability, weak associations cannot be ruled out for potential low-penetrance variants at MORF4L1 and BrCa risk among BRCA2 mutation carriers.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are