Are surgeons effective counsellors for women with a family history of breast cancer?

AIM: In the TRACE (Trial of Genetic Assessment in Breast Cancer) study, the data on the time spent by the surgeon with the women with a family history of breast cancer was analysed with respect to the changes in the anxiety scores and breast cancer worry scores. We wanted to see whether longer consultation times with surgeons improved these scores. METHODS: In the TRACE study, women with a family history of breast cancer attended a standard breast clinic to be seen by a surgeon and nurse specialist. Anxiety scores and breast cancer worry scores of these women were recorded prior to attending the clinic and immediately after their appointment. RESULTS: In the 274 evaluable women, there was a significant improvement in the anxiety and breast cancer worries after surgical consultation but it did not correlate with the length of surgical consultation. However, women in the high-risk group showed a significant reduction of breast cancer worry score with longer consultation (P=0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Spending more time with the women with a family history of breast cancer does not help to reduce anxiety scores and breast cancer worry scores except in the subset of women who were told that their risk of breast cancer was high.     

The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer

The present study investigated: (1) perception of genetic risk and, (2) the psychological effects of genetic counselling in women with a family history of breast cancer. Using a prospective design, with assessment pre- and post-genetic counselling at clinics and by postal follow-up at 1, 6 and 12 months, attenders at four South London genetic clinics were assessed. Participants included 282 women with a family history of breast cancer. Outcome was measured in terms of mental health, cancer-specific distress and risk perception. High levels of cancer-specific distress were found pre-genetic counselling, with 28% of participants reporting that they worried about breast cancer 'frequently or constantly' and 18% that worry about breast cancer was 'a severe or definite problem'. Following genetic counselling, levels of cancer-specific distress were unchanged. General mental health remained unchanged over time (33% psychiatric cases detected pre-genetic counselling, 27% at 12 months after genetic counselling). Prior to their genetics consultation, participants showed poor knowledge of their lifetime risk of breast cancer since there was no association between their perceived lifetime risk (when they were asked to express this as a 1 in x odds ratio) and their actual risk, when the latter was calculated by the geneticist at the clinic using the CASH model. In contrast, women were more accurate about their risk of breast cancer pre-genetic counselling when this was assessed in broad categorical terms (i.e. very much lower/very much higher than the average woman) with a significant association between this rating and the subsequently calculated CASH risk figure (P = 0.001). Genetic counselling produced a modest shift in the accuracy of perceived lifetime risk, expressed as an odds ratio, which was maintained at 12 months' follow-up. A significant minority failed to benefit from genetic counselling; 77 women continued to over-estimate their risk and maintain high levels of cancer-related worry. Most clinic attenders were inaccurate in their estimates of the population risk of breast cancer with only 24% able to give the correct figure prior to genetic counselling and 36% over-estimating this risk. There was some improvement following genetic counselling with 62% able to give the correct figure, but this information was poorly retained and this figure had dropped to 34% by the 1-year follow-up. The study showed that women attending for genetic counselling are worried about breast cancer, with 34% indicating that they had initiated the referral to the genetic clinic themselves. This anxiety is not alleviated by genetic counselling, although women reported that it was less of a problem at follow-up. Women who continue to over-estimate their risk and worry about breast cancer are likely to go on seeking unnecessary screening if they are not reassured.     

Randomized trial of a specialist genetic assessment service for familial breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Because of the growing demand for genetic assessment, there is an urgent need for information about what services are appropriate for women with a family history of breast cancer. Our purpose was to compare the psychologic impact and costs of a multidisciplinary genetic and surgical assessment service with those of current service provisions. METHODS: We carried out a prospective randomized trial of surgical consultation with (the trial group) and without (the control group) genetic assessment in 1000 women with a family history of breast cancer. All P: values are from two-sided tests. RESULTS: Although statistically significantly greater improvement in knowledge about breast cancer was found in the trial group (P: =.05), differences between groups in other psychologic outcomes were not statistically significant. Women in both groups experienced statistically significant reductions in anxiety and found attending the clinics to be highly satisfying. An initial specialist genetic assessment cost pound 14.27 (U.S. $22.55) more than a consultation with a breast surgeon. Counseling and genetic testing of affected relatives, plus subsequent testing of family members of affected relatives identified as mutation carriers, raised the total extra direct and indirect costs per woman in the trial group to pound 60.98 (U.S. $96.35) over costs for the control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: There may be little benefit in providing specialist genetics services to all women with a family history of breast cancer. Further investigation of factors that may mediate the impact of genetic assessment is in progress and may reveal subgroups of women who would benefit from specialist genetics services.     

Psychosocial impact of breast/ovarian (BRCA1/2) cancer-predictive genetic testing in a UK multi-centre clinical cohort

This multi-centre UK study assesses the impact of predictive testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition genes (BRCA1/2) in the clinical context. In the year following predictive testing, 261 adults (59 male) from nine UK genetics centres participated; 91 gene mutation carriers and 170 noncarriers. Self-report questionnaires were completed at baseline (pre-genetic testing) and 1, 4 and 12 months following the genetic test result. Men were assessed for general mental health (by general health questionnaire (GHQ)) and women for general mental health, cancer-related worry, intrusive and avoidant thoughts, perception of risk and risk management behaviour. Main comparisons were between female carriers and noncarriers on all measures and men and women for general mental health. Female noncarriers benefited psychologically, with significant reductions in cancer-related worry following testing (P<0.001). However, younger female carriers (<50 years) showed a rise in cancer-related worry 1 month post-testing (P<0.05). This returned to pre-testing baseline levels 12 months later, but worry remained significantly higher than noncarriers throughout (P<0.01). There were no significant differences in GHQ scores between males and females (both carriers and noncarriers) at any time point. Female carriers engaged in significantly more risk management strategies than noncarriers in the year following testing (e.g. mammograms; 92% carriers vs 30% noncarriers). In the 12 months post-testing, 28% carriers had bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy and 31% oophorectomy. Oophorectomy was confined to older (mean 41 yrs) women who already had children. However, worry about cancer was not assuaged by surgery following genetic testing, and this requires further investigation. In all, 20% of female carriers reported insurance problems. The data show persistent worry in younger female gene carriers and confirm changes in risk management consistent with carrier status. Men were not adversely affected by genetic testing in terms of their general mental health.     

The evolution of worry after breast cancer risk assessment: 6‐year follow‐up of the TRACE study cohort

Objectives: There is little evidence regarding the long‐term psychological implications of breast cancer risk assessment for women at moderate genetic risk. A follow‐up study of a trial cohort was conducted to evaluate psychological outcomes and their predictors at 6‐year follow‐up. A further aim was to examine threshold scores for high cancer worry. Methods: Questionnaires were sent to 384 women assessed as moderate risk during a UK trial of genetic assessment (TRACE). Measures included cancer worry, perceived risk, health behaviours, general anxiety, psychological morbidity, optimism, and background variables assessed during TRACE and at 6‐year follow‐up. Results: Reductions from baseline cancer worry and breast self‐examination (BrSE) frequency were maintained 6 years after risk assessment, with relatively consistent levels over short‐ and long‐term follow‐up. Provision of risk information led to short‐term reductions in perceived risk. During the 6‐year period, 43% of women reported having made lifestyle changes and 27% had requested a mammogram. Baseline and post‐risk cancer worry were the only significant predictors of long‐term cancer worry. Greater worry at baseline predicted more frequent BrSE and higher perceived risk, but not lifestyle change or mammogram requests, at 6 years. Eighteen percent of women reported cancer worry above a threshold of 12.5 at long‐term follow‐up, compared with 30% at baseline. Conclusions: Overall reductions in cancer worry following moderate risk assessment were maintained in the long term. However, women at risk of sustained high cancer worry should be identified at an early stage in the risk assessment process for more intensive psycho‐educational intervention. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cancer genetic predisposition: information needs of patients irrespective of risk level

Increased insight into the information needs of people about cancer genetic predisposition could allow materials to be developed to improve decision-making for those at high risk, whilst those at lower risk could have their anxiety reduced without the need for referral to genetics services. This study aimed to identify information needs of patients concerned about a genetic predisposition to cancer, and explore how this varied according to risk perception, cancer worry, personal motivation and demographics. Stage 1 used semi-structured telephone interviews pre and post participants’ genetic risk assessment. The findings informed stage two, a structured questionnaire survey of 1,112 patients, pre and post their genetic risk assessment. Participants were stratified by risk level and included those concerned about an inherited predisposition to breast, ovarian or colorectal cancer. About 512 (46%) responded with equal proportions of responders and non-responders across the risk categories. Findings indicated that irrespective of a person’s actual or perceived level of risk, cancer worry, demographic background or personal motivation; priorities in the type of information required were similar. Greatest emphasis focused on information provision about how risk was assessed. Least important was acquiring an understanding about genes and inheritance patterns. Most participants reported difficulties accessing or finding information. Peoples’ information needs are consistent irrespective of their risk level and therefore generalised information packages could be developed for anyone requesting cancer genetic risk assessment. Better information is likely to assist patients’ understanding and ultimately increase concordance with recommended screening and preventative measures.     

Patient outcomes associated with group and individual genetic counseling formats

Identifying new methods to deliver cancer genetic counseling (GC) are needed to meet the growing interest in BRCA1/2 testing. The goal of this pilot feasibility study was designed to test the initial acceptability of group GC on selected patient outcomes (satisfaction, distress, perceived control) in a breast/ovarian cancer genetics clinic setting. Sixty-five participants at increased risk for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) agreed to participate in self-selected individual or group GC appointments. Forty-nine participants completed all study questionnaires and were included in the analyses. There were significant improvements for participants in both the individual and group GC formats with regard to perceived personal control, general psychological distress and cancer-specific psychological distress scores. Participants in both the individual and group formats reported high satisfaction scores on the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale. Study results suggest that group GC may be feasible and acceptable to high-risk women.     

Patient Satisfaction of BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing by Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer Participating in a Prevention Trial

With the increasing availability of cancer risk counseling and genetic testing, we need to determine the most effective way to provide complex and sensitive information to patients. This study was designed to determine the satisfaction of results delivery in women who participated in a breast cancer prevention trial and chose to undergo free and confidential BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Self-selected women at high-risk for breast cancer who were eligible to participate in a phase II chemoprevention trial, were offered free and confidential pre-test counseling and BRCA1/2 full sequencing. Subjects were not randomized but rather had the option of in person or telephone results disclosure. Those subjects with an identified germline alteration were required to follow-up with an in person consultation; this was optional for those with a negative result. A satisfaction survey was mailed to subjects after receiving their results. Ninety-seven percent (116/119) of the eligible subjects underwent genetic testing. Ninety-one percent (105/116) of those women tested responded to the follow-up survey. Twenty-four of the 26 women with an identified germline alteration responded. Nearly all of the responders were satisfied with the counseling and testing process. All of the respondents felt they made a wise decision in having the testing and would recommend that other women in a similar situation undergo genetic testing. We found that the majority of women at high risk for breast cancer participating in a prevention trial will choose to undergo anonymous and free BRCA1/2 genetic testing, be informed of the results, and are accepting of receiving results initially by phone.     

Changes in psychological distress after cancer genetic counselling: a comparison of affected and unaffected women

This study sought to examine changes in psychological distress following cancer genetic counselling. Women attending a family cancer clinic completed questionnaires before their appointment and at 2 weeks, 6 months and 12 months after their appointment. Twenty-six women were at low risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer, 76 were at moderate risk, 46 were at high risk and 46 women had previously had breast or ovarian cancer. All groups were compared with regard to measures of anxiety, depression, general psychological distress, worry about developing breast and ovarian cancer, and perceived risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer and perceived likelihood of carrying a genetic mutation. General psychological distress did not change over the course of the study and the groups did not differ on these measures. Worry about developing breast cancer and perceptions of the likelihood of carrying a genetic mutation significantly reduced following genetic counselling. On the whole women who had already had breast/ovarian cancer showed more concerns about ovarian cancer and raised perceptions of risk in comparison with the other groups, indicating the need for sensitive counselling of such women.     

Patient satisfaction with two different models of cancer genetic services in south-east Scotland

There is a need to integrate primary- and secondary-care cancer genetic services, but the most appropriate model of service delivery remains unclear. This study reports patients' expectations of breast cancer genetic services and a comparison of their satisfaction with two service models. In the first model, risk assessment was carried out using mailed family history data. Women estimated as being at high/moderate risk were offered an appointment at the familial breast cancer clinic, and those at low risk were sent a letter of reassurance. In the second model, all women were seen by a genetic nurse specialist, who assessed risk, referred high/moderate-risk women to the above clinic and discharged those at low risk. Over 60% of all women in the study regarded access to breast screening by mammogram and regular check-ups as very important. This underlines the demand for a multidisciplinary service providing both clinical genetic and surgical services. Satisfaction was high with both models of service, although significantly lower among women not at increased cancer risk and thus not offered a clinical check-up and mammography. Increased cancer worry was associated with a greater expressed need for information and for reassurance through follow-up clinical checks and mammography. Better targeting of counselling to the expressed concerns and needs of these women is required to improve the service offered. GPs and patients expressed no clear preference for any specific service location or staffing configuration. The novel community service was less expensive in terms of both staff and patient costs. The potential to decrease health staff/patient contact time and to employ nurse practitioners with both clinical genetic and oncology training should be explored further. The rapidly rising demand for these services suggests that the evaluation of further new models needs to continue to be given priority to guide the development of cancer genetic services.     

Communication and information-giving in high-risk breast cancer consultations: influence on patient outcomes

This longitudinal study aimed to document (i) the information-giving and patient-communication styles of clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors (consultants) in familial breast cancer clinics and (ii) assess the effect of these styles on women's knowledge, whether their expectations were met, satisfaction, risk perception and psychological status. A total of 158 women from high-risk breast cancer families completed self-report questionnaires at 2 weeks preconsultation and 4 weeks postconsultation. The consultations were audiotaped, transcribed and coded. Multivariate logistic regressions showed that discussing prophylactic mastectomy (P=0.00) and oophorectomy (P=0.01) led to women having significantly more expectations met; discussing genetic testing significantly decreased anxiety (P=0.03) and facilitating understanding significantly decreased depression (P=0.05). Receiving a summary letter of the consultation significantly lowered anxiety (P=0.01) and significantly increased the accuracy of perceived risk (P=0.02). Women whose consultant used more supportive communications experienced significantly more anxiety about breast cancer at the 4 weeks follow-up (P=0.00). These women were not significantly more anxious before genetic counselling. In conclusion, this study found that consultants vary in the amount of information they give and the way they communicate; and this variation can result in better or worse psychosocial outcomes. Greater use of supportive and counselling communications appeared to increase anxiety about breast cancer. Identifying methods to assist consultants to address emotional issues effectively may be helpful.     

A randomised controlled trial of breast cancer genetics services in South East Scotland: psychological impact

This study compared the psychological impact of two models of breast cancer genetics services in South East Scotland. One hundred and seventy general practices were randomised to refer patients to the existing standard regional service or the novel community-based service. Participants completed postal questionnaires at baseline (n=373), 4 weeks (n=276) and 6 months (n=263) to assess perceived risk of breast cancer, subjective and objective understanding of genetics and screening issues, general psychological distress, cancer worry and health behaviours. For participants in both arms of the trial, there were improvements in subjective and objective understanding up to 4 weeks which were generally sustained up to 6 months. However, improvements in subjective understanding for the women at low risk of breast cancer (i.e. not at significantly increased risk) in the standard service arm did not reach statistical significance. Cancer worry was significantly reduced at 6 months for participants in both arms of the trial. The two models of cancer genetics services tested were generally comparable in terms of the participants' psychological outcomes. Therefore, decisions regarding the implementation of the novel community-based service should be based on the resources required and client satisfaction with the service.     

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.     

Genetic testing for BRCA1: effects of a randomised study of knowledge provision on interest in testing and long term test uptake; implications for the NICE guidelines

Introduction Interest in searching for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is high. Knowledge regarding these genes and the advantages and limitations of genetic testing is limited. It is unknown whether increasing knowledge about breast cancer genetic testing alters interest in testing. Methods Three hundred and seventy nine women (260 with a family history of breast cancer; 119 with breast cancer) from The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust were randomised to receive or not receive written educational information on cancer genetics. A questionnaire was completed assessing interest in BRCA1 testing and knowledge on breast cancer genetics and screening. Actual uptake of BRCA1 testing is reported with a six year follow-up. Results Eighty nine percent of women at risk of breast cancer and 76% of women with breast cancer were interested in BRCA1 testing (P < 0.0001). Provision of educational information did not affect level of interest. Knowledge about breast cancer susceptibility genes was poor. According to the NICE guidelines regarding eligibility for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing, the families of 66% of the at risk group and 13% of the women with breast cancer would be eligible for testing (probability of BRCA1 mutation ≥20%). Within six years of randomisation, genetic testing was actually undertaken on 12 women, only 10 of whom would now be eligible, on the NICE guidelines. Conclusions There is strong interest in BRCA1 testing. Despite considerable ignorance of factors affecting the inheritance of breast cancer, education neither reduced nor increased interest to undergo testing. The NICE guidelines successfully triage those with a high breast cancer risk to be managed in cancer genetics clinics.     

Genetic counselling and the intention to undergo prophylactic mastectomy: effects of a breast cancer risk assessment

Scientific reports suggest that women at risk for familial breast cancer may benefit from prophylactic mastectomy. However, few data are available about how women decide upon this clinical option, and in particular, what role an objective risk assessment plays in this. The purpose of the present study is to assess whether this objective risk information provided in genetic counselling affects the intention for prophylactic mastectomy. Additionally, the (mediating) effects of breast cancer worry and perceived risk are investigated. A total of 241 women completed a questionnaire before and after receiving information about their familial lifetime breast cancer risk in a genetic counselling session. Path analysis showed that the objective risk information had a corrective effect on perceived risk (beta=0.38; P=0.0001), whereas the amount of breast cancer worry was not influenced by the counselling session. The objective risk information did not directly affect the intention for prophylactic mastectomy. The intention was influenced by perceived risk after counselling (beta=0.23; P=0.002), and by the precounselling levels of perceived risk (beta=0.27; P=0.00025) and breast cancer worry (beta=0.32; P=0.0001), that is, higher levels of perceived risk and breast cancer worry imply a stronger intention for prophylactic mastectomy. A personal history of breast cancer did not directly influence the intention for prophylactic mastectomy, but affected women who had undergone a mastectomy as surgical treatment were more positively inclined to have a prophylactic mastectomy than women who had had breast-conserving therapy. The impact of objective risk information on the intention for prophylactic mastectomy is limited and is mediated by perceived risk. Important determinants of the intention for prophylactic mastectomy were precounselling levels of breast cancer worry and perceived risk, suggesting that genetic counselling is only one event in the entire process of decision making. Therefore, interventions aimed at improving decision making on prophylactic mastectomy should explicitly address precounselling factors, such as personal beliefs and the psychological impact of the family medical history.     

Spiritual faith and genetic testing decisions among high-risk breast cancer probands.

Despite widespread access to genetic testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer susceptibility genes, little is known about rates or predictors of test use among individuals from newly ascertained high-risk families who have self-referred for genetic counseling/testing. The objective of this study was to examine rates of test use within this population. In addition, we sought to determine whether spiritual faith and psychological factors influenced testing decisions. Participants were 290 women with familial breast cancer. All were offered genetic counseling and testing for alterations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Baseline levels of spiritual faith, cancer-specific distress, perceived risk, and demographic factors were examined to identify independent predictors of whether participants received versus declined testing. The final logistic model revealed statistically significant main effects for spiritual faith [odds ratio (OR), 0.2; 95% confidence intervals (CIs), 0.1 and 0.5] and perceived ovarian cancer risk (OR, 2.4; 95% CIs, 1.3 and 4.7) and a statistically significant spiritual faith by perceived risk interaction effect. Among women who perceived themselves to be at low risk of developing breast cancer again, those with higher levels of spiritual faith were significantly less likely to be tested, compared with those with lower levels of faith (OR, 0.2; 95% CIs, 0.1 and 0.5). However, among women with high levels of perceived risk, rates of test use were high, regardless of levels of spiritual faith (OR, 1.2; 95% CIs, 0.4 and 3.0). These results highlight the role that spirituality may play in the decision-making process about genetic testing.     

Experience of parental cancer in childhood is a risk factor for psychological distress during genetic cancer susceptibility testing.

BACKGROUND: This study explores the effect of age at the time of parental cancer diagnosis or death on psychological distress and cancer risk perception in individuals undergoing genetic testing for a specific cancer susceptibility. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cancer-related distress, worry and risk perception were assessed in 271 applicants for genetic testing of an identified mutation in BRCA1/2 (BReast CAncer) or a HNPCC (Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer) related gene before, one week after, and six months after genetic test disclosure. The course of distress and risk perception were compared between individuals having witnessed parental cancer or loss due to cancer in childhood, adolescence, adulthood and having unaffected parents. RESULTS: Individuals with parental cancer in childhood (under age 13) reported the highest level of cancer related distress, worry and risk perception. Women having their mother affected by breast cancer in puberty (aged 10-13 years) perceived higher breast cancer risks than women with an affected mother in adulthood or without an affected mother. Individuals with an affected parent perceived cancer risks as higher than individuals without an affected parent, but were not more distressed. CONCLUSIONS: Experience of parental cancer in childhood is a risk factor for psychological distress during the genetic testing process.     

Predictive testing for BRCA1/2: attributes, risk perception and management in a multi-centre clinical cohort

The aim of this multi-centre UK study is to examine the attributes of a cohort offered predictive genetic testing for breast/ovarian cancer predisposition. Participants are adults unaffected with cancer from families with a known BRCA1/2 mutation. This is the first large multi-centre study of this population in the UK. The study evaluates mental health, perceived risk of developing cancer, preferred risk management options, and motivation for genetic testing. Participants were assessed when coming forward for genetic counselling prior to proceeding to genetic testing. Three hundred and twelve individuals, 76% of whom are female, from nine UK centres participated in the study. There are no gender differences in rates of psychiatric morbidity. Younger women (<50 years) are more worried about developing cancer than older women. Few women provide accurate figures for the population risk of breast (37%) or ovarian (6%) cancer but most think that they are at higher risk of developing breast (88%) and ovarian (69%) cancer than the average woman. Cancer related worry is not associated with perceived risk or uptake of risk management options except breast self-examination. The findings indicate that younger women may be particularly vulnerable at the time of the offer of a predictive genetic test.     

Delivering Information about Cancer Genetics via Letter to Patients at Low and Moderate Risk of Familial Cancer: A Pilot Study in Wales

Increasing demands upon specialist cancer genetics services have resulted in a need to explore alternative means of delivering genetic risk information to individuals at low-risk of familial cancer. This pilot study investigates patient satisfaction with a letter to low and moderate risk individuals notifying them of their risk. Sixty-six people completed a questionnaire designed to measure satisfaction with the way they had been notified of their cancer risk. Two key findings emerge from the data: first of all, whilst many respondents indicated overall satisfaction with the risk letter, a substantial number wanted more information about their risk; and secondly, low-risk individuals in this study are less reassured by and less satisfied with the risk letter than those at moderate risk. The optimal service provision for delivery of genetic risk information is likely to be one which can best respond to individual differences in information-seeking, distress and risk comprehension. There is a need therefore, for a randomised control trial to compare the effectiveness of a risk notification letter with more traditional telephone risk counselling and the implications of each mode of delivery upon the resources of specialist cancer genetics services.     

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.