Eileen Dimond

Colon Cancer Screening Practices After Genetic Counseling and Testing for Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is the most common hereditary form of colon cancer. Cancer screening recommendations differ between individuals identified to carry an HNPCC mutation and those who do not carry a known family mutation. We assessed the impact of genetic counseling and testing (GCT) on the use of endoscopic screening procedures and adherence to recommended endoscopic screening guidelines in 56 asymptomatic at-risk individuals from families known to carry an HNPCC mutation. PATIENTS AND METHODS We analyzed data on colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy screenings collected before GCT and 6 months and 12 months post-GCT on 17 mutation-positive and 39 true mutation-negative individuals. Main outcome measures were use of endoscopic screening and adherence to recommended guidelines for the relevant mutation status. Mutation status, age, sex, employment, and income were analyzed as predictor variables. RESULTS Among mutation-negative individuals, use of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy decreased significantly between pre- and post-GCT (P <.00001 and P <.0003, respectively). Among mutation-positive individuals, a nonsignificant increase (P =.24) in use was noted. Age was also associated with use of endoscopic screening after GCT (P =.03). Mutation status (odds ratio [OR], 7.5; P =.02) and employment (OR, 8.6; P =.025) were associated with nonadherence to endoscopic screening guidelines. More mutation-negative individuals strictly adhered to guidelines than did mutation-positive individuals (87% v 65%). CONCLUSION Genetic counseling and testing for HNPCC significantly influences the use of colonic endoscopy and adherence to recommendations for colon cancer screening.

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

Purpose: This study evaluated whether phone results were equivalent to in-person result disclosure for individuals undergoing BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic testing.Methods: A 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.Results: There 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.Conclusions: These 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.

THE ROLE OF THE NURSE IN CANCER GENETICS

Knowledge gained from the Human Genome Project and related genetic research is already impacting clinical oncology nursing practice. Because cancer is now understood to be a genetic disease, changes in the traditional approaches to prevention, diagnosis, and therapeutic management of cancer are becoming increasingly genetically based. Therefore, to ensure competency in oncology nursing practice at all levels, nurses must incorporate an understanding of the underlying biology of carcinogenesis and the molecular rationale underlying strategies to prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer.

Cancer genetics fundamentals.

It is often said that cancer is genetic. What exactly does that mean? This article is our answer to that question at the turn of the millennium. We present models of carcinogenesis, review basic cancer genetics terminology, and explain some of the fundamental genetic changes common to all types of cancer. These are organized into 6 sections of (1) self-sufficiency in growth signals, (2) insensitivity to growth-inhibitory signals, (3) evasion of programmed cell death, (4) limitless replicative potential, (5) sustained angiogenesis, and (6) tissue invasion and metastases. Underlying all of these changes are the even more fundamental enabling factors of genetic instability on both the chromosomal and the gene level. Finally, we look toward the future in a field where the future is now!

CE TEST: The Role of the Nurse in Cancer Genetics

Knowledge gained from the Human Genome Project and related genetic research is already impacting clinical oncology nursing practice. Because cancer is now understood to be a genetic disease, changes in the traditional approaches to prevention, diagnosis, and therapeutic management of cancer are becoming increasingly genetically based. Therefore, to ensure competency in oncology nursing practice at all levels, nurses must incorporate an understanding of the underlying biology of carcinogenesis and the molecular rationale underlying strategies to prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer.