Genetic counseling and clinical cancer genetics services

Cancer genetic services, typically provided by clinicians with expertise in both oncology and genetics, include cancer risk assessment and education, facilitation of genetic testing, pre-and post-test counseling, provision of personally tailored cancer risk management options and recommendations, and psychosocial counseling and support services. All oncology providers should obtain basic information on the family cancer history of their patients to determine the likelihood of hereditary cancer risk as well as possible indications for providing brief or comprehensive cancer genetic counseling. Those who choose to provide these services themselves must be familiar with the complex issues of genetic counseling and testing, and be aware of the time and expertise required to adequately deliver these services. Genetic nurses and genetic counselors with master's degrees function as valuable members of a comprehensive cancer genetic service; they are trained to independently collect and confirm medical and family history information, perform risk assessments, offer patient education regarding cancer and genetics, and provide supportive counseling services for patients and families. It is hoped that specific risk interventions will significantly reduce morbidity and mortality from familial forms of cancer. This review outlines the process of cancer genetic counseling and defines the roles of the cancer genetic counselor and the function of the cancer genetics specialty clinic. The possible medical and legal implications for failing to obtain adequate family history information are reviewed, and the issues of genetic discrimination are discussed.     

Ethical obligations and counseling challenges in cancer genetics

Cancer genetics is creating new practice opportunities in medical genetics, oncology, and primary care. The ethical and counseling challenges of this new area of practice are not unique but sometimes take new form in the context of genetic risk. This article uses cases to explore the issues associated with shared family risk, including competing concerns of family members, duty to warn relatives of genetic risk, and testing of children and other relatives. The ethical obligations of clinicians start with the need to maintain competence in the face of rapidly evolving science. Clinicians should be able to identify patients within their practice who are candidates for genetic testing. When genetic susceptibility to cancer is identified, patients should be offered counseling and follow-up, with referral as appropriate, to ensure delivery of care consistent with current standards. When patients experience barriers to needed health care, clinicians should advocate for their needs. Clinicians must ensure the autonomy and informed decision-making of all members of cancer-prone families. Clinicians must also provide emotional support and accurate information about cancer risks and cancer risk reduction measures, including uncertainties. Teamwork among different specialties is important in addressing these challenges.     

Practical aspects of delivering hereditary cancer risk counseling

The primary element involved in the practical delivery of hereditary cancer risk counseling is the development of a cancer genetics service. This service should involve a multidisciplinary core of specialists, aim to identify at-risk individuals and their families, and provide comprehensive genetic counseling with the option of genetic testing. This article examines the development of a cancer genetics service beginning with the fundamentals of patient ascertainment, location, staffing, and billing. It also reviews the elements involved in the provision of genetic counseling services, including formalized risk assessment and risk communication. Finally, we review novel modes of delivery of genetic counseling including the use of telephone counseling and telemedicine as a means of expanding the scope of this service and extending its reach to individuals who might otherwise not have access to a risk assessment clinic. Overall, this presentation can serve as a resource for identifying the practical aspects involved in the delivery of hereditary cancer risk counseling and their subsequent integration into the workings of a proficient cancer genetics service able to identify and serve at-risk patients and their family members.     

Genetic testing in prostate cancer management: Considerations informing primary care

Inherited genetic mutations can significantly increase the risk for prostate cancer (PC), may be associated with aggressive disease and poorer outcomes, and can have hereditary cancer implications for men and their families. Germline genetic testing (hereditary cancer genetic testing) is now strongly recommended for patients with advanced/metastatic PC, particularly given the impact on targeted therapy selection or clinical trial options, with expanded National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and endorsement from multiple professional societies. Furthermore, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend genetic testing for men with PC across the stage and risk spectrum and for unaffected men at high risk for PC based on family history to identify hereditary cancer risk. Primary care is a critical field in which providers evaluate men at an elevated risk for PC, men living with PC, and PC survivors for whom germline testing may be indicated. Therefore, there is a critical need to engage and educate primary care providers regarding the role of genetic testing and the impact of results on PC screening, treatment, and cascade testing for family members of affected men. This review highlights key aspects of genetic testing in PC, the role of clinicians, with a focus on primary care, the importance of obtaining a comprehensive family history, current germline testing guidelines, and the impact on precision PC care. With emerging evidence and guidelines, clinical pathways are needed to facilitate integrated genetic education, testing, and counseling services in appropriately selected patients. There is also a need for providers to understand the field of genetic counseling and how best to collaborate to enhance multidisciplinary patient care.     

The evolution of personalized cancer genetic counseling in the era of personalized medicine

Practice changes in cancer genetic counseling have occurred to meet the demand for cancer genetic services. As cancer genetics continues to impact not only prevention strategies but also treatment decisions, current cancer genetic counseling models will need to be tailored to accommodate emerging clinical indications. These clinical indications include: surgical prophylactic bilateral mastectomy candidates, PARP-inhibitor candidates, patients with abnormal tumor screening results for Lynch syndrome, and post-test counseling patients (after genetic testing is ordered by another healthcare provider). A more personalized, multidisciplinary approach to selecting the best framework, for a given clinical indication, may become increasingly necessary in this era of personalized medicine.     

Cancer screening and genetic counseling

Familial predisposition to cancer has been recognized for many years. The discovery fifteen years ago of some of the genes that are involved in the heritance of very common malignant diseases, like breast and colorectal cancer, has represented a major advance, and a challenge, for cancer prevention. Colorectal cancer is the first incident malignancy in our population, and breast cancer can affect 1 in 12 women in some European countries. There are several models that calculate the risk of cancer based on personal conditions or familial history. Testing for genes related to hereditary cancer allows the selection of individuals who will really benefit of prevention measures in such high prevalent diseases. The majority of these genes belong to the category of tumor suppressor genes, a second genetic hit is always needed for tumor developing. Epigenetics, defined as the factors that modulate the penetrance of a genetic disease, play an important role in hereditary cancer predisposition. Due to the complexity of genetics and clinical management of the hereditary cancers, all individuals with risk should be seen at Cancer Genetic Counseling units or Cancer Family Clinics. The clinicians that work in these Units should have special training in genetic counseling, cancer genetics and hereditary cancer management. Cancer Genetic Counseling is a communication process in which genetics, medical and psychological issues related to hereditary cancer risk development and prevention options are discussed with the individuals and families. Counseling must not be biased, and individual autonomy must be protected. A collaborative model between counselor and patient is preferred, and all the following points should be included in the informed consent process: options for risk estimation if genetic testing is not done,information on the specific test (accuracy, limitations), interpretation of all possible test results, implications of results for the individual and family, confidentiality issues, risk of psychological distress, options for care after testing and limitations. Some ethical and legal issues arise in the global processes of cancer genetic counseling that must be recognized and taken in account. Many questions have still not answers in this field. Nonetheless, it would be inappropiate to dismiss the potential benefits of genetic counseling as a reaction to sporadic uncritical application of genetic testing. This paper will review the genetic basis and the opportunity for screening and prevention of the hereditary predisposition to cancer, mainly focused to breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer.     

Cancer genetics in rural primary care: a pilot nurse-led service using a new mobile IT system

Somerset has a relatively high incidence of cancer. The county is very rural with pockets of deprivation and sizeable areas of poor access to services. The Cancer Plan advocates early identification of cancer and identified the genetic revolution as having the potential to predict risk, and detect and diagnose cancer early. This innovative Public Health led pilot takes specialist cancer genetics services into primary care. It explores a new service model that is patient focused, provides services close to home and reduces hospital visits and pressure on genetics departments. People who believe they are at increased risk of developing cancer, due to family history, are assessed by nurse specialists at their local surgery and triaged into population, medium and high risk groups. Patient pathways have been streamlined for breast, ovarian and colorectal cancers, which are known to have a genetic link and there may be advantage in increased surveillance and/or genetic testing. People are given the opportunity to understand their personal level of risk and make choices about lifestyles and interventions. To support the delivery of cancer genetics services in primary care a bespoke software package has been developed building on a commercial programme already established in many genetics departments. Electronic transmission of pedigrees from primary to tertiary care assists the lean pathways and the incorporation of a new risk calculator based on NICE guidelines for familial breast cancer is being assessed.     

Swiss primary care physicians' knowledge, attitudes and perception towards genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer

PURPOSE: The Swiss Institute for Applied Cancer Research's (SIAK) Network for Cancer Predisposition Testing and Counseling was established in 1999. To define its role in the care of individuals with inherited cancer predisposition, attitudes, knowledge and perception of primary care physicians towards genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast cancer were examined. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 1391 primary care physicians in private practice in the German-speaking Canton of Zürich. RESULTS: 628 (45%) questionnaires were returned: 319/778 (41%) general practitioners, 156/367 (43%) internists, 118/218 (54%) obstetrician-gynecologists and 22/28 (76%) oncologists answered. Socio-demographic characteristics were: 74% males and 26% females with a mean age of 51 and a mean number of 14 years in private practice. Fifty-two percent of responding physicians approved of genetic susceptibility testing and seventy-seven percent would recommend it to individuals at risk if asked for it. Of the responding physicians, 47% wanted to disclose test results and discuss its consequences and 79% wanted to provide long term care and support, whereas only 36% and 9%, respectively, assigned these tasks to specialized cancer genetics services. Eight knowledge questions had to be answered: 290 (46%) gave 0-2 correct answers, 284 (45%) gave 3-5 and 54 (9%) gave 6-8 correct answers. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that the majority of responding primary care physicians in the Canton of Zürich approve of genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer and want to play a central role in the management of these families, but lack the knowledge to do so efficiently. Our findings underline the importance of educational programs in cancer genetics.     

Psychosocial predictors of BRCA counseling and testing decisions among urban African-American women.

Genetic counseling and testing for mutations in XXX (BRCA)1/2 genes that increase breast cancer susceptibility potentially offer a number of benefits (e.g., more informed decision making regarding breast cancer prevention options) but also raise potential problems (e.g., issues of discrimination). However, the literature suggests that African-American women underuse genetics-related services. Therefore, the primary aim of the current study was to investigate predictors of the use of genetic counseling and testing for breast cancer susceptibility in this population. Participants were 76 African-Americans at increased risk for breast cancer attributable to their family history of the disease. Participants were recruited from an urban cancer screening clinic and completed measures assessing sociodemographic information, breast cancer knowledge, breast cancer-specific emotional distress, and perceived benefits of and barriers to BRCA testing. Free BRCA counseling and testing were offered to all interested participants, and measures were completed before counseling sessions. On the basis of their subsequent acceptance or refusal of these services, participants were described as having either: (a) declined BRCA-related genetic counseling (GC-); (b) participated in genetic counseling but refused genetic testing (GC+GT-); or (c) participated in both genetic counseling and testing (GC+GT+). Results revealed that participants who declined counseling had significantly less knowledge of breast cancer genetics than those who accepted both counseling and testing. No differences emerged among the three groups in terms of perceived benefits of testing. However, participants declining counseling demonstrated significantly higher perceived barrier scores compared with those accepting counseling and testing. Specifically, those who did not participate in counseling reported greater anticipation of negative emotional responses to testing and more concern about stigmatization, whereas those who underwent both counseling and testing had significantly lower family-related guilt. Finally, cancer-specific distress was positively associated with participation in counseling, regardless of participation in testing. The current findings underscore the need for refinement of outreach and intervention efforts that both increase awareness of BRCA counseling and testing among African-American women and provide information to those considering these options.     

Genetics and the multidisciplinary breast center

The cancer genetics consultation and comprehensive breast centers logically go hand in hand. Breast surgeons may be interacting for the first time with a relatively new class of colleagues-genetics professionals, such as medical geneticists and genetic counselors. This article introduces surgical oncologists to the current applications of genetic counseling in oncology practice through the involvement of genetics professionals on interdisciplinary teams, in case conference, at grand rounds and oncology meetings, and through genetic risk assessment, counseling, and possible susceptibility testing. Surgeons interacting with the cancer genetics specialists have critical roles to play in the organization of cancer genetics programs, recognition of patients and families at increased genetic risk, appropriate referrals for genetic counseling and testing, and management of high-risk families.     

How to establish a high-risk cancer genetics clinic: Limitations and successes

The development of technology to locate and isolate cancer susceptibility genes has brought together the fields of oncology, cancer control, genetics, and genetic counseling to create a new specialty of cancer risk counseling with the goal to communicate more accurate information about personal cancer risk profiles based on personal and family histories. As cancer risk assessment and counseling services become standard of care in medical practice, their availability is increasingly moving from comprehensive cancer centers and academic institutions to community settings. High-risk cancer genetics clinics in the community face several challenges, including staffing, time commitment, costs, and unique quality control issues. The societal benefits include a more educated public armed with the information needed to make health decisions appropriate for the individual level of risk.     

How to eastablish a high-risk cancer genetics clinic: Limitations and successes

The development of technology to locate and isolate cancer susceptibility genes has brought together the fields of oncology, cancer control, genetics, and genetic counseling to create a new specialty of cancer risk counseling with the goal to communicate more accurate information about personal cancer risk profiles based on personal and family histories. As cancer risk assessment and counseling services become standard of care in medical practice, their availability is increasingly moving from comprehensive cancer centers and academic institutions to community settings. High-risk cancer genetics clinics in the community face several challenges, including staffing, time commitment, costs, and unique quality control issues. The societal benefits include a more educated public armed with the information needed to make health decisions appropriate for the individual level of risk.     

Strategies for clinical implementation of screening for hereditary cancer syndromes

Hereditary cancer syndromes generally account for 5%–10% of malignancies. While these syndromes are rare, affected patients carry significantly elevated risks of developing cancer, as do their at-risk relatives. Identification of these patients is critical to ensure timely and appropriate genetic testing relevant to cancer patients and their relatives. Several guidelines and tools are available to assist clinicians. Patients suspected to have hereditary cancer syndromes should be offered genetic testing in the setting of genetic counseling by a qualified genetics professional. Germline testing ranges from testing for a known specific familial mutation to testing of a broad differential diagnosis using a pan-cancer multi-gene panel. Taking a family history, referring specific types of tumors with higher likelihood of heredity, implementing universal screening protocols such as microsatellite instability/immunohistochemistry (MSI/IHC) for specific tumors, and referring patients with somatic tumor testing that have potentially germline consequences are all important components to the identification of hereditary cancer syndromes in the oncology clinic.     

Genetic testing for colorectal carcinoma susceptibility: focus group responses of individuals with colorectal carcinoma and first-degree relatives

BACKGROUND: Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) may be the most frequent form of hereditary cancer. Genetic counseling and testing for heritable CRC is a promising approach for reducing the high incidence and mortality rates associated with the disease. Patients with CRC or those with at least one family member with the disease are the most likely persons to request or be offered genetic testing in the clinical or research setting. Currently, however, little is known about the behavioral, psychosocial, ethical, legal, and economic outcomes of CRC genetic counseling and testing. METHODS: Eight focus group interviews, four for CRC patients (n = 28) and four for first-degree relatives (n = 33), were conducted to obtain insights into attitudes, beliefs, and informational needs about genetic testing for hereditary CRC. RESULTS: Focus group interviews revealed a general lack of knowledge about cancer genetics and genetic testing; worry about confidentiality issues; strong concern for family members, particularly children; and a need for primary care providers to be informed about these issues. Major perceived advantages of genetic testing included improving health-related decisions, guiding physicians in making recommendations for surveillance, and informing relatives about risk potential. Disadvantages included potential discrimination, adverse psychologic effects, and financial costs associated with testing. CONCLUSIONS: As knowledge and media coverage of genetics continue to expand, it becomes increasingly important to continue efforts on behalf of, and in partnership with, those individuals most affected by genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. These findings provide data needed to develop and implement informational, educational, counseling, and research-oriented programs that are sensitive to individuals' concerns and preferences.     

A randomized trial of specialist genetic assessment: psychological impact on women at different levels of familial breast cancer risk

The aim was to compare the psychological impact of a multidisciplinary specialist genetics service with surgical provision in women at high risk and those at lower risk of familial breast cancer. Women (n=735) were randomized to a surgical consultation with (trial group) or without (control group) specialist genetic risk assessment and the possible offer of presymptomatic genetic testing. Participants completed questionnaires before and immediately after the consultation to assess anxiety, cancer worry, perceived risk, interest in genetic testing and satisfaction. Responses of subgroups of women stratified by clinicians as low, moderate, or high risk were analyzed. There were no significant main effects of study intervention on any outcome variable. Regardless of risk information, there was a statistically significant reduction in state anxiety (P<0.001). Reductions in cancer worry and perceived risk were significant for women at low or moderate risk (P<0.001) but not those at high risk, and satisfaction was significantly lower in the high risk group (P<0.001). In high risk women who received specialist genetic input, there was a marginally significant trend towards increased perceived risk. The effect of risk information on interest in genetic testing was not significant. Breast care specialists other than geneticists might provide assessments of breast cancer risk, reassuring women at reduced risk and targeting those at high risk for specialist genetic counselling and testing services. These findings are discussed in relation to the existing UK Calman-Hine model of service delivery in cancer genetics. DOI: 10.1038/sj/bjc/6600051 www.bjcancer.comCopyright 2002 The Cancer Research Campaign     

Genetic testing for inherited breast cancer risk in African Americans

As genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations is increasingly integrated into the clinical management of high-risk women, it will be important to understand barriers and motivations for genetic counseling among women from underserved minority groups to ensure equitable access to these services. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to synthesize literature on knowledge and attitudes about genetic counseling and testing for inherited breast cancer risk in African Americans. We also review studies that evaluated genetic testing intentions in this population. We conducted a search of the PubMed database to identify studies related to BRCA1/2 testing in African Americans that were published between 1995 and 2003. Overall, studies have evaluated ethnic differences in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing or have compared African American and Caucasian women in terms of genetic testing intentions. These studies have shown that knowledge about breast cancer genetics and exposure to information about the availability of testing is low among African Americans, whereas expectations about the benefits of genetic testing are endorsed highly. However, much less is known about the psychological and behavioral impact of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations in African Americans. Additional research is needed to understand barriers and motivations for participating in genetic testing for inherited cancer risk in African Americans. The lack of studies on psychological functioning, cancer surveillance, and preventive behaviors following testing is a significant void; however, for these studies to be conducted, greater access to genetic counseling and testing in African Americans will be needed.     

A descriptive study of UK cancer genetics services: an emerging clinical response to the new genetics.

The objective was to describe NHS cancer genetic counselling services and compare UK regions. The study design was a cross-sectional study over 4 weeks and attendee survey. The setting was 22 of the 24 regional cancer genetics services in the UK NHS. Participants were individuals aged over 18 attending clinics at these services. Outcome measures were staff levels, referral rates, consultation rates, follow-up plans, waiting time. There were only 11 dedicated cancer geneticists across the 22 centres. Referrals were mainly concerned with breast (63%), bowel (18%) and ovarian (12%) cancers. Only 7% of referrals were for men and 3% were for individuals from ethnic minorities. Referral rates varied from 76 to 410 per million per annum across the regions. Median waiting time for an initial appointment was 19 weeks, ranging across regions from 4 to 53 weeks. Individuals at population-level genetic risk accounted for 27% of consultations (range 0%, 58%). Shortfalls in cancer genetics staff and in the provision of genetic testing and cancer surveillance have resulted in large regional variations in access to care. Initiatives to disseminate referral and management guidelines to cancer units and primary care should be adequately resourced so that clinical genetics teams can focus on the genetic testing and management of high-risk families.     

The impact of acculturation on awareness of genetic testing for increased cancer risk among Hispanics in the year 2000 National Health Interview Survey.

Previous studies suggest disparities in use of preventive cancer services among U.S. Hispanics are partly explained by knowledge and access factors. One area of emerging interest is uptake of genetic counseling and testing services by underserved populations. This study aims to estimate the percentage of Hispanics in five ethnic subgroups who are aware of genetic testing for inherited cancer risk, and to assess the influence of acculturation factors primarily related to language on test awareness. Weighted data from 4,313 Hispanic respondents (age >25 years) in the year 2000 National Health Interview Survey were analyzed. Overall, 20.6% of Hispanics had heard of genetic testing for cancer risk, with percentages highest among Puerto Ricans (27.3%) and lowest among Mexicans (14.3%). Completing the interview in Spanish and English [odds ratio (OR), 0.52; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.35-0.78], or only Spanish (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.86), was inversely associated with test awareness (reference group, only English). Having an intermediate (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.90) or low (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39-1.01) level of English language preference was also inversely associated (reference, high level) whereas being born outside the United States was weakly associated (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.57-1.11). Estimates were adjusted for age, education, ethnicity, parents' cancer history, health care access, and selected health behaviors and beliefs. Results of this national survey indicate that acculturation factors related to language may affect cancer genetic test awareness in Hispanics. These factors must be taken into account when informing individuals about the role of genetics in cancer risk and providing cancer genetic health services.     

Hereditary ovarian cancers: from BRCA mutations to clinical management. A modern appraisal

In the past few years, ovarian cancer research has focused increasingly on disease prevention; but an increasing number of women refer to gynecology and clinical genetics clinics with a family history of ovarian cancer and inherited familial mutations. The interest on the issue has increased also due to the identification of BReast CAncer1 (BRCA1) and BRCA2 genes mutations. The importance of recognizing the characteristics of hereditary ovarian cancer (HOC) and manage women at risk appropriately will provide more accurate care of the high-risk population. Women at risk can be identified by pedigree analysis and may receive counseling from interdisciplinary cancer genetics clinics, while those at high risk need to receive genetic testing. Risk calculation programs define risks and assist in decision-making in clinical options and genetic testing; they provide information on the risks of the disease, mutation status, and the use of genetic testing in the management of high-risk families. Furthermore, while a large number of surrogate preliminary markers have been identified, there are still limited studies on ovarian cancer genomics. Different options for risk management of HOC are available: surveillance, chemoprevention and prophylactic surgery. Surveillance in HOC high-risk patients is still not accurate. Chemoprevention is currently a controversial topic, because a number of major issues still need to be addressed in developing and testing agents for ovarian cancer chemoprevention. Prophylactic surgery has been shown to effectively decrease cancer risk, and it has the possibility to substantially reduce ovarian cancer mortality.     

Assessment of clinical practices among cancer genetic counselors

Various models of cancer genetics service delivery have been published, and practice guidelines were set forth by the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) in 2004. While the demand for services has increased, there has not been a comprehensive study of current practice models. An online survey of the NSGC Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group was conducted to study current methods of providing clinical cancer genetics services. Respondents were asked to quantify patient volume, support staff availability, and physician involvement in cases. Two case examples were used to further describe current practices including the number of genetic counseling tasks performed, time spent in these tasks, and number of in-person visits versus phone encounters. Although published cancer genetic counseling guidelines advise a 3-visit model (initial consult, sample draw, and result disclosure), 29.3% of respondents have adopted a 1-visit model, where the sample is drawn at the first visit and phone disclosure replaces the third visit. The content of the initial consult does not vary significantly, and is consistent with the NSGC practice guidelines. Furthermore, 56% report spending >15 min on case preparation, and 27 respondents self-reported redundancy in tasks such as documentation. It appears that a proportion of genetic counselors are following a new model of service delivery. However, insufficient documentation and case preparation are apparent, and many respondents reported lack of support staff as a barrier to efficient patient care. Factors contributing to the variability in current practice, and how they affect efficiency, require further study.