Commercialization of BRCA1/2 testing: practitioner awareness and use of a new genetic test

It was our purpose to determine the characteristics of practitioners in the United States who were among the first to inquire about and use the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic tests outside of a research protocol. Questionnaires were mailed to all practitioners who requested information on or ordered a BRCA1/2 test from the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) Genetic Diagnostics Laboratory (GDL) between October 1, 1995 and January 1, 1997 (the first 15 months the test was available for clinical use). The response rate was 67% of practitioners; 54% (121/225) were genetic counselors, 39% (87/225) were physicians or lab directors. Most physicians were oncologists, pathologists, or obstetrician/gynecologists, but 20% practiced surgery or internal or general medicine. Fifty-six percent (125/225) had ordered a BRCA1/2 test for a patient; most of the rest had offered or were willing to offer testing. Of those who had offered testing, 70% had a patient decline BRCA1/2 testing when offered. Practitioners perceived that patients' fear of loss of confidentiality was a major reason for declining. Nearly 60% of practitioners reported that their patients had access to a genetic counselor, but 28% of physicians who ordered a BRCA1/2 test reported having no such access, despite the GDL's counseling requirement. The proportion of physicians reporting no access to genetic counselors for their patients increased from 22.4% in the first half of the study to 50% in the last half. Many practitioners have an interest in BRCA1/2 testing, despite policy statements that discourage its use outside of research protocols. Practitioner responses suggest that patient interest in testing seems to be tempered by knowledge of potential risks. An apparent increase in patient concern about confidentiality and inability to pay for testing could indicate growing barriers to testing. Although most practitioners reported having access to counseling facilities, perceived lack of such access among an increasing proportion of practitioners indicates that lab requirements for counseling are difficult to enforce and suggests that an increasing proportion of patients may not be getting access to counseling.     

Implementation and outcomes of telephone disclosure of clinical BRCA1/2 test results

Objectives

With an increasing demand for genetic services, effective and efficient delivery models for genetic testing are needed.

Methods

In this prospective single-arm communication study, participants received clinical BRCA1/2 results by telephone with a genetic counselor and completed surveys at baseline, after telephone disclosure (TD) and after in-person clinical follow-up.

Results

Sixty percent of women agreed to participate; 73% of decliners preferred in-person communication. Anxiety decreased from baseline to post-TD (p = 0.03) and satisfaction increased (p < 0.01). Knowledge did not change significantly from baseline to post-TD, but was higher post-clinical follow-up (p = 0.04). Cancer patients had greater declines in state anxiety and African-American participants reported less increase in satisfaction. 28% of participants did not return for in-person clinical follow-up, particularly those with less formal education, and higher post-disclosure anxiety and depression (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results may not be associated with negative cognitive and affective responses among willing patients, although some subgroups may experience less favorable responses. Some patients do not return for in-person clinical follow-up and longitudinal outcomes are unknown.

Practice implications

Further evaluation of longitudinal outcomes of telephone disclosure and differences among subgroups can inform how to best incorporate telephone communication into delivery of genetic services.     

Implementation and outcomes of telephone disclosure of clinical BRCA1/2 test results

ObjectivesWith an increasing demand for genetic services, effective and efficient delivery models for genetic testing are needed.MethodsIn this prospective single-arm communication study, participants received clinical BRCA1/2 results by telephone with a genetic counselor and completed surveys at baseline, after telephone disclosure (TD) and after in-person clinical follow-up.ResultsSixty percent of women agreed to participate; 73% of decliners preferred in-person communication. Anxiety decreased from baseline to post-TD (p = 0.03) and satisfaction increased (p < 0.01). Knowledge did not change significantly from baseline to post-TD, but was higher post-clinical follow-up (p = 0.04). Cancer patients had greater declines in state anxiety and African-American participants reported less increase in satisfaction. 28% of participants did not return for in-person clinical follow-up, particularly those with less formal education, and higher post-disclosure anxiety and depression (p < 0.01).ConclusionsTelephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results may not be associated with negative cognitive and affective responses among willing patients, although some subgroups may experience less favorable responses. Some patients do not return for in-person clinical follow-up and longitudinal outcomes are unknown.Practice implicationsFurther evaluation of longitudinal outcomes of telephone disclosure and differences among subgroups can inform how to best incorporate telephone communication into delivery of genetic services.     

Routine assessment of psychosocial problems after cancer genetic counseling: results from a randomized controlled trial

Approximately 70% of counselees undergoing cancer genetic counseling and testing (CGCT) experience some degree of CGCT‐related psychosocial problems. We evaluated the efficacy of an intervention designed to increase detection and management of problems 4 weeks after completion of CGCT. In this randomized, controlled trial, 118 participants completed a CGCT‐related problem questionnaire prior to an – audiotaped – telephone session with their counselor 1 month after DNA‐test disclosure. For those randomized to the intervention group (n = 63), a summary of the questionnaire results was provided to the counselor prior to the telephone session. Primary outcomes were discussion of the problems, counselors' awareness of problems, and problem management. Secondary outcomes included self‐reported distress, cancer worries, CGCT‐related problems, and satisfaction. Counselors who received a summary of the questionnaire were more aware of counselees' problems in only one psychosocial domain (practical issues). No significant differences in the number of problems discussed, in problem management, or on any of the secondary outcomes were observed. The prevalence of problems was generally low. The telephone session, combined with feedback on psychosocial problems, has minimal impact. The low prevalence of psychosocial problems 1 month post‐CGCT recommends against its use as a routine extension of the CGCT procedure.     

A randomized controlled trial of disclosing genetic risk information for Alzheimer disease via telephone

PurposeTelephone disclosure of genetic test results can improve access to services. To date, studies of its impact have focused on return of Mendelian risk information, principally hereditary cancer syndromes.MethodsIn a multisite trial of Alzheimer disease genetic risk disclosure, asymptomatic adults were randomized to receive test results in person or via telephone. Primary analyses examined patient outcomes 12 months after disclosure.ResultsData from 257 participants showed that telephone disclosure occurred 7.4 days sooner and was 30% shorter, on average, than in-person disclosure (both P < 0.001). Anxiety and depression scores were well below cutoffs for clinical concern across protocols. Comparing telephone and in-person disclosure protocols, 99% confidence intervals of mean differences were within noninferiority margins on scales assessing anxiety, depression, and test-related distress, but inconclusive about positive impact. No differences were observed on measures of recall and subjective impact. Subanalyses supported noninferiority on all outcomes among apolipoprotein E (APOE) ɛ4–negative participants. Subanalyses were inconclusive for APOE ɛ4–positive participants, although mean anxiety and depression scores were still well below cutoffs for clinical concern.ConclusionTelephone disclosure of APOE results and risk for Alzheimer disease is generally safe and helps providers meet demands for services, even when results identify an increased risk for disease.     

Randomized comparison of phone versus in-person BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic test result disclosure counseling

PurposeThis study evaluated whether phone results were equivalent to in-person result disclosure for individuals undergoing BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic testing.MethodsA total of 111 of 136 subjects undergoing education and counseling for BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic testing agreed to randomization to phone or in-person result disclosure. Content and format for both sessions were standardized. Data from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Psychological General Well-Being index were collected at baseline and then again at 1 week and 3 months after disclosure of test results. Baseline measures were administered after the following had occurred: counseling/education session had been conducted, informed consent had been obtained, and decision to be tested had been made. Satisfaction and cost assessments were administered after the result session. At 1 week, participants were asked their preferred method of result disclosure.ResultsThere were no differences in anxiety and general well-being measures between 50 phone and 52 in-person results disclosure. Both groups reported similar rates of satisfaction with services. Among those with a preference, 77% preferred the notification method assigned. There was a statistically significant preference for phone results among the 23% who did not prefer the method assigned. Greater costs were associated with in-person result disclosure.ConclusionsThese data suggest that phone results are a reasonable alternative to traditional in-person BRCA1/2 genetic test disclosure without any negative psychologic outcomes or compromise in knowledge. However, further study is needed in a more clinically representative population to confirm these findings.     

Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible.     

Psychological and social determinants of women's decisions to undergo genetic counseling and testing for breast cancer

This study examined the demand for breast cancer genetic testing and counseling among Canadian women diagnosed with breast cancer under the age of 50, together with some of the factors predicting both their intentions to be tested and the degree to which they act on their intentions. Participants were 110 women under the age of 50 and comprised of two groups: 1) women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC, n = 60): and 2) an index group of unaffected women from the general population (GP, n = 50). All participants completed a survey that addressed family history of breast and other cancers, demographic variables, knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer, and genetic testing. Members of the BC group were offered genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 free of charge. Overall, 60% of participants indicated they would like the test, and 40% either did not want it or were uncertain. Seventy-two percent of women in the BC group wanted to be tested. Of these, only 49% had actually contacted the genetic counselor about testing at follow-up 3-15 months later. Intention to be tested was associated with presence of breast cancer, greater perceived benefits of testing, fewer perceived 'costs' of testing, and higher levels of concern about the risk of relatives developing breast cancer. Actual arranging to meet with the genetic counselor among women in the BC group was associated with fewer perceived costs of having the test. Results suggest a moderate level of interest in gene testing, though intention to be tested may not translate into actual uptake. Women who do choose to have the test may believe the potential 'costs' of using this new genetic technology to be relatively few. This has implications for genetic counselors in terms of providing balanced and complete information to women considering genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility.     

Interest in genetic testing among first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients

The recent cloning of a breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA1), and determination of the locus of a related gene (BRCA2), offers potential for clinical genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. This study examined interest in and expectations about an impending genetic test among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of breast cancer patients. One hundred five females completed two structured telephone interviews to assess demographics, breast cancer risk factors, psychological factors, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Overall, 91% of FDRs said that they would want to be tested, 4% said they would not, and 5% were uncertain. The most commonly cited reasons for wanting genetic testing were to learn about one's children's risk, to increase use of cancer screening tests, and to take better care of oneself. Women with less formal education were motivated by childbearing decisions and future planning to a greater degree than were women with education beyond high school. Most women anticipated a negative psychological impact of positive test results, involving increased anxiety (83%), depression (80%), and impaired quality of life (46%). In addition, 72% of women indicated that they would still worry if they tested negative. In multivariate regression analysis, level of baseline depression was the strongest predictor of an anticipated negative impact of genetic testing (Beta =.15; P,.0001). These results suggest that the demand for genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility may be great, even among women who are not likely to have predisposing mutations. Prior to widespread availability of such testing, it will be critical to develop informed consent protocols to educate individuals about the benefits and limitations of predictive testing for this multifactorial disease. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Disclosure of insurability risks in research and clinical consent forms

Genetic testing results and research findings raise concerns about access to genetic information by insurers. Recently, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association reaffirmed its prerogative to request, for underwriting purposes, the disclosure of clinical and research genetic test results if the participant/patient or his physician has knowledge of the results. Studies have shown that access to genetic information to determine insurability can, in limited instances, lead to actual, or fear of, genetic discrimination, result in individuals refusing to undergo testing or declining participation in genomic research, and being asked to pay higher premiums or denied access to certain types of insurance. Obtaining informed consent for genetic testing and genomic research is crucial and should take into account the potential need to disclose possible insurability risks to patients and participants. Our study analyzed clinical and research consent forms, templates and guidelines from Quebec to investigate two questions: (1) whether consent forms include clauses providing information on potential insurability risks and (2) when such potential risks are included, what information is provided and how it is formulated. Our findings show that current information on insurability risks in Quebec’s forms/guidelines lack coherence, potentially resulting in patients/participants receiving inconsistent information.     

Psychosocial implications of living with familial risk of a psychiatric disorder and attitudes to psychiatric genetic testing: A systematic review of the literature

The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the existing evidence documenting the psychosocial implications of living with a familial risk of an adult‐onset psychiatric disorder. Six databases were searched systematically to identify qualitative and quantitative studies, which explored perspectives of those at increased risk for psychiatric disorders, as well as the general public. Thematic analysis was used to identify major themes. Thirty‐five articles met the eligibility criteria and reported on the views of 4,896 participants. The literature demonstrates strong interest in psychiatric genetic testing of adults as well as children, whereas attitudes toward prenatal testing were much less positive. Predictors of interest in testing, as well as perceived advantages and disadvantages were identified. Very few studies are available on anticipated and actual reactions to receiving results. Studies show that the majority of participants feel that having a genetic explanation would alleviate some of the stigma associated with mental illness. This review shows that interest in, and predictors of attitudes toward, psychiatric genetic testing are well researched, but the extent to which attitudes will translate into actual testing uptake is unknown. Future research also needs to assess the actual behavioral and psychological impact of genetic testing.     

A gift or a yoke? Women’s and men’s responses to genetic risk information from BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing

This qualitative study explored the impact of genetic risk information from BRCA1/2 testing on individuals' subjective understandings of self and self-identity. In-depth interviews were conducted with 39 participants (34 women and 5 men) who had received test results from BRCA1/2 testing. Themes emerging from qualitative data analysis revealed that participants linked their positive results to becoming more aware of their physical selves (embodied self), their selves in relation to family (familial-relational self) and their selves in relation to wider kinship or social groups (social self). Genetic information was generally viewed as enabling; it allowed participants to take measures (surveillance or prophylactic surgery) to confront the disease. However, for a small minority of women, knowledge about their genetic risk had a profound and limiting effect on their agency. Rather than giving them a sense of control, they saw little opportunity to fight the disease. For a few people, identification of a genetic mutation thrust them into an uncertain state, that is in a position of being neither ill nor completely well. In one case, BRCA information led to a disruption of social identity. Further work is needed to assess the impact of age and life stage on psychological responses to genetic information on cancer susceptibility.     

Uptake and acceptability of a mainstreaming model of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients with ovarian,pancreatic, and prostate cancer

PurposeTo address demands for timely germline information to guide treatments, we evaluated experiences of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer with a mainstreaming genetic testing model wherein multigene panel testing was ordered by oncologists with standardized pretest patient education, and genetic counselors delivered results and post-test genetic counseling via telephone.MethodsAmong 1,203 eligible patients, we conducted a prospective single-arm study to examine patient uptake and acceptability (via self-report surveys at baseline and three weeks and three months following result return) of this mainstreaming model.ResultsOnly 10% of eligible patients declined participation. Among 1,054 tested participants, 10% had pathogenic variants (PV), 16% had variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and 74% had no variant identified (NV). Participants reported high initial acceptability, including high satisfaction with their testing decision. Variability over time in several outcomes existed for participants with PV or NV: those with NV experienced a temporary increase in depression (p_Time < 0.001; p_Time2 < 0.001), and those with PV experienced a small increase in genetic testing distress (p = 0.03). Findings suggested that result type, sex, and cancer type were also associated with outcomes including clinical depression and uncertainty.ConclusionThis mainstreaming model may offer a feasible approach for extending access to germline genetic information.     

Parents’ attitudes toward genetic testing of children for health conditions: A systematic review

This review assessed parents’ attitudes toward childhood genetic testing for health conditions, with a focus on perceived advantages and disadvantages. We also evaluated the factors that influence parents’ attitudes toward childhood genetic testing. We searched Medline, Medline In‐Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts and CINAHL. We screened 945 abstracts and identified 21 studies representing the views of 3934 parents. Parents reported largely positive attitudes toward childhood genetic testing across different genetic tests with varying medical utility. Parents perceived a range of advantages and disadvantages of childhood genetic testing. Childhood genetic testing was viewed by most as beneficial. Parents’ education level, genetic status, sex and sociodemographic status were associated with reported attitudes. This yielded some conflicting findings, indicating the need for further research. Genetic counseling remains essential to support this population in making well‐informed decisions. Targeted interventions tailored to specific families with different sociodemographic characteristics may be useful. Further research on the long‐term impact of childhood genetic testing on families is warranted.     

Presymptomatic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2: how distressing are the pre-test weeks?

Presymptomatic DNA testing for autosomal dominant hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) became an option after the identification of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in 1994-1995. Healthy female mutation carriers have a high lifetime risk for breast cancer (56-87%) or ovarian cancer (10-60%) and may opt for intensive breast and ovary surveillance or prophylactic surgery (mastectomy/oophorectomy).We studied general and cancer related distress in 85 healthy women with a 25% or 50% risk of being carrier of a BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutation and 66 partners in the six to eight week period between genetic counselling/blood sampling and disclosure of the test result. Questionnaire and interview data are analysed. Associations are explored between levels of distress and (1) expected consequences of being identified as a mutation carrier, (2) personality traits, (3) sociodemographic variables, and (4) experiences related to HBOC.Mean pre-test anxiety and depression levels in women at risk of being a carrier and partners were similar to those of a normal Dutch population. In about 25% of those at risk of being a carrier and 10% of the partners, increased to high levels of general and cancer related distress were found. Increased levels of distress were reported by women who (1) anticipated an increase in problems after an unfavourable test outcome, (2) considered prophylactic mastectomy if found to be mutation carrier, (3) had an unoptimistic personality, (4) tended to suppress their emotions, (5) were younger than 40 years, and (6) were more familiar with the serious consequences of HBOC. Recently obtained awareness of the genetic nature of cancer in the family was not predictive of distress.The majority of the women and their partners experienced a relatively calm period before the disclosure of the test result and seemed to postpone distressing thoughts until the week of disclosure of the result. The low distress levels may partly be explained by the use of strategies to minimise the emotional impact of a possibly unfavourable test outcome. However, a minority reported feeling very distressed. Several factors were found to be predictive for increased distress levels.     

Pre‐test genetic counseling services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer delivered by non‐genetics professionals in the state of Florida

Genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer now includes practitioners from multiple healthcare professions, specialties, and settings. This study examined whether non‐genetics professionals (NGPs) perform guideline‐based patient intake and informed consent before genetic testing. NGPs offering BRCA testing services in Florida (n = 386) were surveyed about clinical practices. Among 81 respondents (response rate = 22%), approximately half reported: sometimes scheduling a separate session for pre‐test counseling lasting 11–30 min prior to testing, discussing familial implications of testing, benefits and limitations of risk management options, and discussing the potential psychological impact and insurance‐related issues. Few constructed a three‐generation pedigree, discussed alternative hereditary cancer syndromes, or the meaning of a variant result. This lack of adherence to guideline‐based practice may result in direct harm to patients and their family members. NGPs who are unable to deliver guideline adherent cancer genetics services should focus on identification and referral of at‐risk patients to in person or telephone services provided by genetics professionals.     

Comparison of individuals opting for BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing with regard to coping, illness perceptions, illness experiences, family system characteristics and hereditary cancer distress

OBJECTIVE: To study differences between individuals opting for genetic cancer susceptibility testing of a known familial BRCA1/2 and HNPCC related germline mutation. METHODS: Coping, illness perceptions, experiences with cancer in relatives and family system characteristics were assessed in 271 applicants for genetic testing before test result disclosure. Hereditary cancer distress, worry and cancer risk perception were assessed before, 1 week after, and 6 months after disclosure. RESULTS: Individuals from BRCA1/2 and HNPCC mutation families did not differ with regard to the number of experiences with cancer in relatives, grief symptoms, the course of cancer distress, worry and risk perception through time and most illness perceptions, coping responses and family characteristics. Individuals from BRCA1/2 families perceived hereditary cancer as more serious. They reported more frequently a passive coping style, cancer worry and a less open communication with their partner and children. CONCLUSION: Besides subtle differences, psychological mechanisms may be mainly identical in individuals opting for BRCA1/2 and HNPCC susceptibility testing. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Based on our findings, using a similar counseling approach for individuals opting for BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing is justified. In this approach, attention should be directed more to individual aspects than to the type of disorder.     

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: An assessment of genetic counselors' knowledge and beliefs

PurposeDirect-to-consumer genetic testing is a new means of obtaining genetic testing outside of a traditional clinical setting. This study assesses genetic counselors' experience, knowledge, and beliefs regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing for tests that would currently be offered in genetics clinics.MethodsMembers of the National Society of Genetic Counselors completed a web-administered survey in February 2008.ResultsResponse rate was 36%; the final data analysis included 312 respondents. Eighty-three percent of respondents had two or fewer inquiries about direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and 14% had received requests for test interpretation or discussion. Respondents believed that genetic counselors have a professional obligation to be knowledgeable about direct-to-consumer genetic testing (55%) and interpret results (48%). Fifty-one percent of respondents thought genetic testing should be limited to a clinical setting; 56% agreed direct-to-consumer genetic testing is acceptable if genetic counseling is provided. More than 70% of respondents would definitely or possibly consider direct-to-consumer testing for patients who (1) have concerns about genetic discrimination, (2) want anonymous testing, or (3) have geographic constraints.ConclusionResults indicate that genetic counselors have limited patient experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic testing and are cautiously considering if and under what circumstances this approach should be used. Genet Med 2011:13(4):325–332.