Psychological distress and quality of life associated with genetic testing for breast cancer risk

This study investigated short- and long-term psychological outcomes associated with BRCA1/2 genetic testing in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer. Participants included 126 women considering genetic testing. Questionnaires were administered prior to testing, one week, three and six months after result disclosure. Results indicated no systematic effects of testing based on personal cancer history. Mutation carriers and women who elected not to be tested reported greater perceived risk and intrusive and avoidant thoughts at follow-up time points than did women who received negative (uninformative) or variant results. Mutation carriers reported more distress at the three-month follow-up but by six months the effects of test result on distress dissipated and groups were comparable. Cluster analyses identified two groups of individuals based on distress at baseline; these groups were used to predict psychological outcomes after testing. Distress remained constant in both groups: those who were high at baseline remained high and those who were low remained low. Test results did not moderate this effect. Results suggest that genetic testing for BRCA1/2 does not increase distress or have deleterious effects on quality of life over the long term. However, sub-groups of women may report more distress over time. These data indicate the need for more targeted counseling to individuals who report high levels of distress when considering genetic testing.     

Psychosocial aspects of cancer genetics: women at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer

In the past five years the advent of cancer genetic testing has created concern about the negative psychosocial sequelae of genetic counseling and testing. Research indicates that the women most likely to seek genetic testing are anxious about carrying a gene mutation and developing breast cancer. Women who are at high risk have poor knowledge and the expectation of being a gene-mutation carrier. High levels of distress have been shown to interfere with decision-making about genetic testing. Further, individuals who decline genetic testing may be at increased risk for depressive symptoms even more than those who are found to be gene-mutation carriers. There is great concern that inappropriate candidates will seek genetic testing. Improved education and access to genetic counseling are essential to help women make appropriate decisions about genetic testing. Strategies for the prevention of breast and ovarian cancer are explored, and methods to reduce the adverse psychosocial effects of decision-making about genetic testing and preventive treatment strategies are suggested.     

Psychosocial issues associated with cancer in pregnancy

Although one of 1,000 pregnant women will receive a diagnosis of cancer, there is a dearth of empirical research on the psychosocial impact. Clinical experience suggests that most women are highly distressed at having to cope with cancer during pregnancy. The efficacy of psychologic intervention in relieving emotional distress or in preventing long-term emotional sequelae has not been studied. Women who terminate a pregnancy or experience a spontaneous pregnancy loss during cancer treatment may be particularly vulnerable. Even after cancer treatment is finished, women may have continued anxiety about the health of children exposed in utero to chemotherapy or radiation, about future fertility, and about the safety of another pregnancy. Oncology professionals must educate women about reproductive health after cancer and be aware of indications for a mental health referral.     

Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Individuals and families dealing with the possibility of hereditary cancer risk face numerous decisions, including whether to obtain genetic testing. The purpose of this article is to determine what is known about the rate at which people obtain cancer genetic testing. METHODS: Using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PSYCHINFO plus reviewing reference lists of relevant articles, we identified 40 studies in May 2002 that addressed breast cancer-related decisions, enrolled adult participants, were published in 1990 or more recently, were peer-reviewed primary clinical studies, addressed genetic testing either alone or in combination with genetic counseling, and reported rates at which participants showed interest in and/or underwent cancer genetic testing. Information regarding study design, participants, and genetic testing uptake rates was recorded. Each article was reviewed for methodologic quality using a flexible quality review system applicable to all study types. RESULTS: Of the 40 studies, 25 provided information about hypothetical genetic testing decisions, 14 about real decisions, and 1 about both. Mean hypothetical uptake was 66% (range, 20-96%) and real uptake was 59% (range, 25-96%). Multivariate logistic regression analyses found that decision type (real/hypothetical), personal and family history of breast cancer, and variability in sampling strategy, recruitment setting, and criteria for real and hypothetical uptake were independently associated with uptake. Our systematic review identified additional explanations for uptake variability (investigator influences, small sample sizes, variability in target populations, lack of clearly described sampling strategies, sampling methods open to bias, and variability in reporting associated risk factors). CONCLUSION: In addition to clinical characteristics, research methodologic issues are likely to be major determinants of variability in published breast cancer genetic testing uptake rates. An understanding of these issues will clarify to clinicians why their clinical experience may not be congruent with published rates and help guide future research.     

Measurement of psychological factors associated with genetic testing for hereditary breast,ovarian and colon cancers

Despite numerous individual studies of psychological factors (depression, anxiety, distress) related to genetic testing for inherited cancer syndromes (CGT), there has been no systematic review of the psychological factors are measured among individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast, ovarian, or colon cancer. Our review provides an analysis of psychological factors in studies of CGT and discusses the instruments most commonly used to measure them. We performed a literature search using three major OVID databases from 1993 to January 2003. In the 19 studies that met our inclusion criteria, the most commonly assessed psychological factors were distress, anxiety, and depression. These factors were most often measured by the impact of event scale (IES), the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI), and the Centers for Epidemiologic Studies and Depression scale (CES-D), respectively. Our results show deficits in the existing body of literature on psychological factors associated with CGT including limited documentation of psychometrics and variability in instrumentation.     

A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women considering genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk

Purpose To measure the effectiveness of a tailored decision aid (DA) designed to help women make informed decisions about genetic testing for breast/ovarian cancer risk. Methods A total of 145 women were randomized to receive the DA or a control pamphlet at the end of their first genetic counseling consultation. Of these, 120 (82.8%) completed two questionnaires, 1 week and 6 months post-consultation. Results While the DA had no effect on informed choice, post-decisional regret or actual genetic testing decision, the trial showed that women who received the DA had higher knowledge levels and felt more informed about genetic testing than women who received the control pamphlet (χ²(2) = 6.82; P = 0.033; χ²(1) = 4.86; P = 0.028 respectively). The DA also helped women who did not have blood drawn at their first consultation to clarify their values with regards to genetic testing (χ²(1) = 5.27; P = 0.022). Women who received the DA were less likely to share the information with other family members than women in the control condition (χ²(1) = 8.78; P = 0.003). Conclusions Decision aids are an effective decision-support strategy for women considering genetic testing for breast/ovarian cancer risk, and are most effective before the patient has made a decision, which is generally at the point of having blood drawn. AGenDA Collaborative group The members of the Australian GENetic testing Decision Aid Collaborative Group are in alphabetical order of group or institution: Centre for Genetics Education, Sydney (K. Barlow-Stewart); Familial Cancer Service, Westmead Hospital, Sydney (G. Fenton, A. Goodwin, P. Zodgekar); Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney (L. Andrews, J. Koeler, A. Overkov, J. Tyler, B. Warner); Hunter Genetics, Newcastle (M. Gleeson, C. Groombridge, S. O’Donnell, A. Spigelman); Macquarie University (C. McMahon); Peter McCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne (L. Hossack, M. Kentwell); Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne (C. Aragona, R. D’Souza, C. Gaff, L. Hodgkin); St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney (R. Ward), University of Sydney (P. Butow, H. Davey).     

Present status and tasks for genetic testing and risk-reducing surgery in patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

In Japan, awareness of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) has gradually increased among health care workers and the general population. We focus on two current topics: genetic testing and risk-reducing surgery for HBOC. Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, the genes responsible for HBOC, is performed to diagnose HBOC. PCR-direct sequencing is a standard method used for BRCA1/2 mutation analysis. Recently, genetic rearrangement of BRCA1 was reported in a Japanese patient with HBOC. Therefore, MLPA tests are also being included in routine genetic testing for the disease. The result of "uncertain significance, " which indicates unclear pathogenic significance, is obtained in about 3% of all patients who undergo BRCA1/2 genetic tests. Furthermore, novel candidate genes for HBOC, such as RAD51C, PALB2, and BRIP1, were recently identified. Prophylactic surgical intervention for HBOC includes procedures such as risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and risk-reducing mastectomy(RRM). In Japan, RRSO is performed in very few patients at present. Increasing evidence from overseas indicates that RRSO contributes to a decreased incidence of ovarian/breast cancers and lowers overall mortality. Therefore, a system for performing RRSO was established in our institute. RRSO was approved to be performed as a clinical examination by our Institutional Review Board. The clinical significance of ipsilateral complete mastectomy and RRM remains unclear. Based on the NCCN guidelines, conservative mastectomy with radiation therapy is relatively contraindicated in patients with HBOC. However, several studies have reported that conservative mastectomy with radiation the rapydoes not increase the incidence of recurrent or metachronous breast cancers in the ipsilateral breast of mutation-positive patients when compared to mutation-negative or control patients. However, more aggressive malignancies seem to be included in the mutation-positive group(especially BRCA1 -mutation-positive cases). RRM clearly reduced the incidence of breast cancers. RRM may also be allowed as a treatment option for HBOC in Japan.     

Attitudes and compliance of clinical management after genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer among high-risk Southern Chinese females with breast cancer history

Western studies have shown that the uptake rates of surveillance and prophylaxis may vary among BRCA mutation carriers between ethnicities. The present study is the first to investigate the behavioural impact and subjective attitudes in Southern Chinese high-risk families who had undergone BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing up to 2.5 years post-testing. Individuals who had such genetic testing and have consented to participate in the prospective database of Hong Kong Hereditary Breast Cancer Family Registry were recruited and surveyed by a face-to-face or telephone interview. Sociodemographic information, genetic test results, pre- and post-testing surveillance, medical regimes, and attitudes towards the choice of clinical management were obtained by interviews and retrieval of medical records using this prospective database. 69 females with breast cancer history were recruited into the study. Twenty-nine female carriers (15 BRCA1 mutated gene-carriers and 14 BRCA2 mutated gene-carriers) and 40 non-carriers of a BRCA 1/2 mutations were interviewed. The uptake rate of high risk breast screening i.e. clinical breast examination, mammography, and breast MRI is significantly higher among female carriers (48.3 %) after knowing genetic testing results than before (p < 0.01). A strong significant relationship between any increase or decrease of ovarian ultrasound screening (OS) and genetic status is found (p < .001), with more females did OS and with a higher frequency after knowing genetic testing results among both carriers (22.7 % → 86.4 %) and non-carriers (37.5 % → 50.0 %). Among carriers, very few opted for prophylactic surgeries. The present cohort might see prophylaxis as last resort and would use traditional Chinese medicine in cancer risk management.     

A systematic review of genetic polymorphisms and breast cancer risk.

Studies investigating the relationship between common genetic variants and cancer risk are being reported with rapidly increasing frequency. We have identified 46 published case-control studies that have examined the effect of common alleles of 18 different genes on breast cancer risk. Of these, 12 report statistically significant associations, none of which were reported by more than one study. However, many of the studies were small: 10 of the 46 had 80% power or greater to detect a rare allele homozygote relative risk <2.5. We therefore combined the results of individual studies to obtain more precise estimates of risk. Statistically significant differences in genotype frequencies were found in three case-control comparisons of unselected cases. These were for CYP19 (TTTA)n polymorphism [(TTTA)10 carrier odds ratio (OR) = 2.33; P = 0.002], the GSTP1 Ile105Val polymorphism (Val carrier OR = 1.60; P = 0.02), and the TP53 Arg72Pro polymorphism (Pro carrier OR = 1.27; P = 0.03). In addition, the GSTM1 gene deletion was found to be significantly associated with postmenopausal breast cancer (null homozygote OR = 1.33; P = 0.04). There was also some evidence that homozygotes for the PR PROGINS allele are protected against breast cancer, although this result was of borderline statistical significance. For polymorphisms in BRCA1, COMT, CYP17, CYP1A1, NAT1, and NAT2, the best estimate of risk either from the individual studies or the meta-analyses was sufficiently precise to exclude a relative risk of 1.5 or greater. For the polymorphisms in EDH17B2, ER, CYP2D6, CYP2E1, GSTT1, HSP70, and TNFalpha, the risk estimates, although nonsignificant, were insufficiently precise to exclude a moderate risk (>1.5). Precise estimation of the risks associated with these and other as yet untested genes, as well as investigation of more complex risks arising from gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, will require much larger studies.     

Psychosocial issues in adolescents with cancer

Cancer in adolescents is uncommon and when it occurs raises a number of unique challenges for both the patient and their families. Adolescence is a period of time of significant physical and emotional changes and a diagnosis of cancer during this time has a major impact on their psychological and physical development. In this review we will look at the psychosocial issues facing adolescents who have cancer. We will address adolescent development, issues related to informed consent and assent, initial responses to the diagnosis of cancer, quality of life and the experience of the adolescent with cancer, psychological adjustment, support systems, body image issues, sexuality, education, hope, and treatment compliance.     

Familial risk and genetic susceptibility for breast cancer

Clinical observations suggest that breast cancer is occasionallyinherited as an autosomal dominant disease in families. Epidemiologic studies consistently have shown that a history of breast cancer in a first-degree relative increases a woman's risk of breast cancer when compared with the general population. The risk is similar if a mother or sister is affected and is increased further if both are affected. The difficulty with such an observation is that in itself it does not clarify the nature of the true underlying risk factors which could be genetic or due to the aggregation of environmental risk factors in families. Complex segregation analysis of breast cancer aggregation in families suggests that breast cancer susceptibility is due to an autosomal dominant inheritance of one or more rare genes in a few families in which carriers have a high probability of developing the disease perhaps as great as 100 percent. Close linkage of a breast-cancer-susceptibility gene (BRCA1), between markers of the chromosomal region 17q12-q21 on the long arm of chromosome 17, with breast cancer recently has been reported. Families linked to BRCA1 were more likely to have early onset of breast cancer or have breast and ovarian cancer in the family. It is likely that other genes play a role in the unlinked breastcancer families. Both the epidemiologic and genetic data suggest that breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease.     

Women's interest in genetic testing for breast cancer risk: the influence of sociodemographics and knowledge.

The objective of this study was to assess women's interest in genetic testing for breast cancer risk. Randomly selected samples of 761 women without breast cancer from the general population of British Columbia, Canada, and 260 women with breast cancer from the provincial cancer registry participated in a telephone survey that assessed interest in genetic testing for breast cancer risk, knowledge of hereditary breast cancer and genetic testing, and sociodemographics. Women with breast cancer did not possess superior knowledge of breast cancer genetics compared with women from the general population. Of the women with breast cancer, 30.8% reported interest in testing or had been tested, compared with 28.5% of women without breast cancer. Controlling for differences in age, education, personal history of breast cancer, and knowledge of genetics, women with at least one relative with breast cancer were 2.3 times more likely to express interest in genetic testing for breast cancer risk than those with no family history. There were significant interactions between breast cancer status and education and between age and knowledge of breast cancer genetics. Women without breast cancer and with a positive family history, who were between 20 and 40 years of age, were most likely to be interested in testing. The women with breast cancer who were interested in testing tended to be approximately 50 years of age, had a positive family history, and had more years of education. Women with a family history of breast cancer, well-educated women with breast cancer, and younger women, particularly those with knowledge of genetic testing, are important target audiences for community-based education on genetic testing for breast cancer risk.     

Breast cancer genetic risk profile is differentially associated with interval and screen-detected breast cancers

This is a report looking into the genetic differences between screen-detected and interval cancers. It is an affirmation that screen-detected and interval cancers may have unique underlying biology. Genetic risk discrimination has potential relevance in clinical care where interval cancers, which are usually rapidly growing and aggressive, do not currently benefit from mammography screening.BackgroundPolygenic risk profiles computed from multiple common susceptibility alleles for breast cancer have been shown to identify women at different levels of breast cancer risk. We evaluated whether this genetic risk stratification can also be applied to discriminate between screen-detected and interval cancers, which are usually associated with clinicopathological and survival differences.Patients and methodsA 77 single-nucleotide polymorphism polygenic risk score (PRS) was constructed for breast cancer overall and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. PRS was inspected as a continuous (per standard deviation increment) variable in a case-only design. Modification of the PRS by mammographic density was evaluated by fitting an additional interaction term.ResultsPRS weighted by breast cancer overall estimates was found to be differentially associated with 1865 screen-detected and 782 interval cancers in the LIBRO-1 study {age-adjusted odds ratio (OR)_perSD [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.91 [0.83–0.99],P = 0.023}. The association was found to be more significant for PRS weighted by ER-positive breast cancer estimates [OR_perSD = 0.90 (0.82–0.98),P = 0.011]. This result was corroborated by two independent studies [combined OR_perSD = 0.87 (0.76–1.00),P = 0.058] with no evidence of heterogeneity. When enriched for ‘true’ interval cancers among nondense breasts, the difference in the association with PRS in screen-detected and interval cancers became more pronounced [OR_perSD = 0.74 (0.62–0.89),P = 0.001], with a significant interaction effect between PRS and mammographic density (P_interaction = 0.017).ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first report looking into the genetic differences between screen-detected and interval cancers. It is an affirmation that the two types of breast cancer may have unique underlying biology.     

Genetic risk assessment and prevention: the role of genetic testing panels in breast cancer

Multigene panel tests are being increasingly used for the genetic assessment of women with an apparent predisposition to breast cancer. Here, we review all studies reporting results from individuals who have undergone multigene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer. Across all gene panel studies, the prevalence of pathogenic mutations was highest in BRCA1 (5.3%) and BRCA2 (3.6%) and was lowest in PTEN (0.1%), CDH1 (0.1%) and STK11 (0.01%). After BRCA1/2, the prevalence of pathogenic mutations was highest in CHEK2 (1.3%), PALB2 (0.9%) and ATM (0.8%). The prevalence of variants of unknown significance was highest in ATM (9.6%). Based on the prevalence and penetrance of pathogenic mutations and the prevalence of variants of unknown significance, it is our interpretation that BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2 and CHEK2 are the best candidates for inclusion in a clinical multigene breast cancer panel.