Search

This study aimed to describe the acceptability and perceived barriers and enablers to establish a national registry targeting carriers of pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes from stakeholders’ perspectives. Such a registry may effectively target carriers to translate existing research findings into optimised clinical care and provide a population-level resource for further clinical research and new gene and therapy discovery. In-depth interviews were conducted with individuals from four stakeholder groups: carriers of pathogenic variants, healthcare professionals, data custodians from the field of familial cancer, and heads of molecular pathology laboratories. Interview data were subjected to a qualitative analysis guided by a thematic analysis framework using NVivo software. A total of 28 individuals were interviewed: 11 carriers, 8 healthcare professionals, 5 laboratory heads, and 4 data custodians. All carriers and healthcare professionals were enthusiastic about the potential research applications of the registry. Carriers described that altruistic motivations provided the foundation of their support of the planned registry. Some carriers felt comfortable with a broad consent (consenting once, prospectively), while others preferred a narrow consent approach (consenting each time data is accessed). Some carriers and data custodians and registry developers also expressed a reluctance to link family member data without appropriate consent. Participants’ enthusiasm and support for a national registry herald a productive and responsive research partnership once the registry has been established. Participants’ views can be used to inform the approaches to be taken to develop and manage such a registry as an implicit codesign approach. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12687-021-00559-8.

Background This nationwide study assessed the impact of nationally agreed cancer genetics guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given by health professionals to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of such advice by patients. Methods Clinic files of 883 women who had initial proband screens for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants at 12 familial cancer clinics between July 2008–July 2009 (i.e. before guideline release), July 2010–July 2011 and July 2012–July 2013 (both after guideline release) were audited to determine reason given for genetic testing. Separately, the clinic files of 599 female carriers without a personal history of breast/ovarian cancer who underwent BRCA1/2 predictive genetic testing and received their results pre- and post-guideline were audited to ascertain the risk management advice given by health professionals. Carriers included in this audit were invited to participate in a telephone interview to assess uptake of advice, and 329 agreed to participate. Results There were no significant changes in the percentages of tested patients meeting at least one published indication for genetic testing - 79, 77 and 78% of files met criteria before guideline, and two-, and four-years post-guideline, respectively (χ = 0.25, p = 0.88). Rates of documentation of post-test risk management advice as per guidelines increased significantly from pre- to post-guideline for 6/9 risk management strategies. The strategies with the highest compliance amongst carriers or awareness post-release of guidelines were annual magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography in women 30–50 years (97%) and annual mammography in women > 50 years (92%). Of women aged over 40 years, 41% had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. Amongst women aged > 40 years, 75% had a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Amongst women who had not had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, only 6% took risk-reducing medication. Fear of side-effects was cited as the main reasons for not taking these medicines by 73% of women. Conclusions Guidelines did not change the percentages of tested patients meeting genetic testing criteria but improved documentation of risk management advice by health professionals. Effective approaches to enhance compliance with guidelines are needed to improve risk management and quality of care.