Search

available at: https://rdcu.be/4BhD Genome-wide sequencing may generate secondary findings (SFs). It is recommended that validated, clinically actionable SFs are reported back to patients/research participants. To explore publics’ perspectives on the best ways to do this, we performed a vignette study among Finnish adults. Our aim was to explore how lay people react to different types of hypothetical genomic SFs. Participants received a hypothetical letter revealing a SF predisposing to a severe but actionable disease - cardiovascular disease (familial hypercholesterolemia, long QT syndrome) or cancer (Lynch syndrome, Li–Fraumeni syndrome). Participants (N=29) wrote down their initial reactions, and discussed (N=23) these in focus groups. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Reactions to hypothetical SFs varied according to perceived severity and familiarity of the diseases. SFs for cancer were perceived as more threatening than for cardiovascular diseases, but less distressing than risk for psychiatric or neurological disorders, which participants spontaneously brought up. Illness severity in terms of lived experience, availability of treatment, stigma, and individual’s responsibility to control risk were perceived to vary across these disease types. In addition to clinical validity and utility, SF reporting practices need to take into account potential familiarity and lay illness representations of different diseases. Illness representations may influence willingness to receive SFs, and individuals’ reactions to this information.

Genome wide association studies have identified a number of common genetic variants - single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) – that combine to increase breast cancer risk. SNP profiling may enhance the accuracy of risk assessment and provides a personalized risk estimate. SNP testing for breast cancer risks may supplement other genetic tests in the future, however, before it can be implemented in the clinic we need to know how it will be perceived and received. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 39 women who had previously had a breast cancer diagnosis and undergone BRCA1/2 testing, participated in the Variants in Practice (ViP) study and received personalized risk (SNP) profiles. Interviews explored their understanding and experiences of receiving this SNP information. Women reported feeling positive about receiving their personalized risk profile, because it: provided an explanation for their previous diagnosis of cancer, vindicated previous risk management decisions and clarified their own and other family members’ risks. A small group was initially shocked to learn of the increased risk of a second primary breast cancer. This study suggests that the provision of personalized risk information about breast cancer generated by SNP profiling is understood and well received. However, a model of genetic counseling that incorporates monogenic and polygenic genetic information will need to be developed prior to clinical implementation.

Individuals identified as at high risk of developing Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer (HDGC) are advised to undergo prophylactic surgery - have their stomach removed - in their early twenties. Research with (older) cancer patients who undergo gastrectomy for curative reasons suggests that gastric resection has a number of physical and psychosocial sequelae. Because it is difficult to extrapolate the findings of studies of older cancer patients to younger healthy patients who are considering prophylactic total gastrectomy (PTG), the aim of this qualitative interview study was to determine the psychosocial implications of undergoing prophylactic surgery to manage genetic risk. Fourteen men and 13 women from the UK's Familial Gastric Cancer study who had undergone PTG were invited to participate in qualitative interviews. Most reported that undergoing surgery and convalescence was easier than anticipated. There was evidence that age affected experiences of PTG, with younger patients tending to report faster recovery times and more transient aftereffects. All saw the benefits of risk reduction as outweighing the costs of surgery. Surgery was described as having a range of physical impacts (disrupted appetite, weight loss, fatigue, GI symptoms) that had related psychological, social and economic implications. Those considering PTG need to be aware that its impact on quality of life is difficult to predict and negative sequelae may be ongoing for some individuals.

Many studies have reported that individuals frequently over- or underestimate their risk of developing cancer both before and after they attend genetic counseling for breast and/or ovarian cancer. Using a combination of interviews and written questionnaires, we investigated counselees' understanding of their risk of developing cancer before and after genetic counseling. We demonstrate that although 76% of the sample thought that their risk was elevated relative to women in general, only a small proportion (17%) were willing or able to provide a numerical estimate of their risk of developing cancer before they attended the clinic. Following the consultation, 43% indicated that their risk of developing cancer was lower than they had anticipated. Twenty-two percent described their risk in absolute rather than relative terms, i.e., that they would definitely (not) develop cancer in the future. The implications of these findings for further research are discussed.

Men who have a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer may be offered a predictive genetic test to determine whether or not they carry the family specific BRCA1/2 mutation. Male carriers may be at increased risk of breast and prostate cancers. Relatively little is known about at-risk men's decision-making about BRCA1/2 testing. This qualitative study explores the influences on male patients' genetic test decisions. Twenty-nine in-depth interviews were undertaken with both carrier and noncarrier men and immediate family members (17 male patients, 8 female partners, and 4 adult children). These explored family members' experiences of cancer and genetic testing, decision-making about testing, family support, communication of test results within the family, risk perception and risk management. Implicit influences on men's testing decisions such as familial obligations are examined. The extent to which other family members--partners and adult children--were involved in testing decisions is also described. It is demonstrated that mothers of potential mutation carriers not only perceive themselves as having a right to be involved in making this decision, but also were perceived by their male partners as having a legitimate role to play in decision-making. There was evidence that (adult) children were excluded from the decision-making, and some expressed resentment about this. The implications of these findings for the practice of genetic counseling are discussed.

Neurofibromatosis type 1(NF1) is a complex and variable inherited disorder. The complexity and variability present particular difficulty for genetic counseling. Thirty-three people with NF1 of reproductive age were interviewed about their experience of genetic counseling, their past reproductive behavior and future intentions. One third reported having had no genetic counseling or not having it until after their first child. In part, this may be due to delay in diagnosis but also indicates poor access to genetic services. Only three people had ever been offered prenatal genetic testing and only one had accepted. Although testing is still technically difficult, the greatest deterrent to uptake of prenatal testing for NF1 is the variability of the disorder. However, six of the 17 people planning future pregnancies would want a test with a view to termination if necessary. Others would welcome testing in order to be prepared but not to terminate. We discuss some of the factors which influence reproductive decision making for people with NF1 and some of the difficulties in genetic counseling in such a variable and complex disorder.

Using observations, questionnaires, and interviews, this study describes the formats used to present risk information during genetic counseling for breast and ovarian cancer. Counselees' preferences for different types of qualitative and quantitative presentation formats are also discussed. The data indicate that there is considerable variation in the presentation of risk information both within and between consultations. The counselees were positive about the way the counselors had described their risk. Seventy-three percent of the sample expressed a preference for risk to be described using quantitative formats, and there was little difference in the number who stated a preference for percentages, proportions, or population comparisons. Comparing preferred formats with those used in the consultations indicated that in over 40% of cases, risk information was not presented in the counselees' preferred quantitative format. This descriptive study raises questions about the presentation of risk information which warrant further research.

In familial breast/ovarian cancer, the information that the proband is able to supply about other family members is of critical importance for genetic counseling. This frequently requires family communication. Forty-six women attending a cancer genetics clinic were interviewed as part of a longitudinal study. Nearly all reported affected maternal, rather than paternal relatives, which may indicate lack of awareness by women with paternal histories. There was also much more communication among female relatives. Mothers, where they were still alive, were key figures in supplying family information. Although the majority of the sample contacted at least one relative regarding counseling, most named a relative with whom they did not feel able to communicate on this subject. Probands balanced the perceived obligation of passing on information with that of not causing alarm. Communication, both obtaining and giving information, was impeded by adoption, divorce and remarriage, family rifts, and large age gaps between siblings.