June A. Peters

Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

These cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of identifying at-risk individuals through cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Genetic Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensivereview of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provid information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Key components include the intake (medical and family histories), psychosocial assessment (assessment of risk perception), cancer risk assessment (determination and communication of risk), molecular testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (regulations, informed consent, and counseling process), and follow-up considerations. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care providers professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.

Malignancies and survival patterns in the National Cancer Institute inherited bone marrow failure syndromes cohort study.

Fanconi anaemia (FA), dyskeratosis congenita (DC), Diamond‐Blackfan anaemia (DBA), and Shwachman‐Diamond syndrome (SDS) comprise major inherited bone marrow failure syndromes (IBMFS). Adverse events include severe bone marrow failure (BMF), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), and solid tumours (ST). The natural history of FA is well characterised; hazard rates in the other syndromes have not yet been quantified. An open cohort was established at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in 2002. Patients enrolled prior to December, 2007 were followed up to December, 2008. Diagnoses were confirmed with standard tests. Age‐associated risks of adverse events were calculated. Most patients in each syndrome survived to young adulthood. Patients with FA had earlier onset of cancers, need for stem cell transplant, and death; followed by DC; DBA and SDS were mildest. While FA and DC patients had markedly increased risks of cancer, AML and MDS, there were no cases of leukaemia in DBA or SDS patients. The NCI cohort provides the first direct quantitative comparison of timing and magnitude of cancer risk in the IBMFS. The findings demonstrate that both FA and DC are major cancer susceptibility syndromes. The IBMFS, historically considered paediatric disorders, have important management implications for physicians treating adult patients.

Essential Elements of Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment, Counseling, and Testing: Updated Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Updated from their original publication in 2004, these cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of counseling at-risk individuals through genetic cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provide information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Essential components include the intake, cancer risk assessment, genetic testing for an inherited cancer syndrome, informed consent, disclosure of genetic test results, and psychosocial assessment. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider’s professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.

Characteristics of Health Information Gatherers, Disseminators, and Blockers Within Families at Risk of Hereditary Cancer: Implications for Family Health Communication Interventions

OBJECTIVES Given the importance of the dissemination of accurate family history to assess disease risk, we characterized the gatherers, disseminators, and blockers of health information within families at high genetic risk of cancer. METHODS A total of 5466 personal network members of 183 female participants of the Breast Imaging Study from 124 families with known mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes (associated with high risk of breast, ovarian, and other types of cancer) were identified by using the Colored Eco-Genetic Relationship Map (CEGRM). Hierarchical nonlinear models were fitted to characterize information gatherers, disseminators, and blockers. RESULTS Gatherers of information were more often female (P<.001), parents (P<.001), and emotional support providers (P<.001). Disseminators were more likely female first- and second-degree relatives (both P<.001), family members in the older or same generation as the participant (P<.001), those with a cancer history (P<.001), and providers of emotional (P<.001) or tangible support (P<.001). Blockers tended to be spouses or partners (P<.001) and male, first-degree relatives (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Our results provide insight into which family members may, within a family-based intervention, effectively gather family risk information, disseminate information, and encourage discussions regarding shared family risk.

Use of an educational computer program before genetic counseling for breast cancer susceptibility: Effects on duration and content of counseling sessions

Purpose: Patients seeking genetic testing for inherited breast cancer risk are typically educated by genetic counselors; however, the growing demand for cancer genetic testing will likely exceed the availability of counselors trained in this area. We compared the effectiveness of counseling alone versus counseling preceded by use of a computer-based decision aid among women referred to genetic counseling for a family or personal history of breast cancer.Methods: We developed and evaluated an interactive computer program that educates women about breast cancer, heredity, and genetic testing. Between May 2000 and September 2002, women at six study sites were randomized into either: Counselor Group (n = 105), who received standard genetic counseling, or Computer Group (n = 106), who used the interactive computer program before counseling. Clients and counselors both evaluated the effectiveness of counseling sessions, and counselors completed additional measures for the Computer Group. Counselors also recorded the duration of each session.Results: Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. Participants and counselors both rated the counseling sessions as highly effective, whether or not the sessions were preceded by computer use. Computer use resulted in significantly shorter counseling sessions among women at low risk for carrying BRCA1/2 mutations. In approximately half of the sessions preceded by clients’ computer use, counselors indicated that clients’ use of the computer program affected the way they used the time, shifting the focus away from basic education toward personal risk and decision-making.Conclusion: This study shows that the interactive computer program “Breast Cancer Risk and Genetic Testing” is a valuable adjunct to genetic counseling. Its use before counseling can shorten counseling sessions and allow counselors to focus more on the clients’ individual risks and specific psychological concerns. As the demand for counseling services increases, a program such as this can play a valuable role in enhancing counseling efficiency.

The relationship of nondirectiveness to genetic counseling: report of a workshop at the 2003 NSGC Annual Education Conference.

Nondirectiveness has been a guiding principle for genetic counseling since the founding of the profession. However, its efficacy and appropriateness in this role have been frequently questioned. A workshop at the 2003 Annual Education Conference of the National Society of Genetic Counselors provided audience participation in a discussion of these issues. Participants presented arguments for and against nondirectiveness as a central ethos. They described complex personal transitions in adapting what they had learned about nondirectiveness during training to the realities of the workplace. There was support for flexible approaches to genetic counseling, with varying adherence to nondirectiveness, based on client and family needs and values, clinical circumstances, and desired counseling outcomes. The discussion supports the use of clinical experience, outcomes research, and the experience of other professions to move beyond nondirectiveness and more accurately identify the theoretical bases that underlie genetic counseling in the variety of circumstances in which it is currently practiced.

Sisters in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: communal coping, social integration, and psychological well-being

Objective: We investigated the association between psychological distress and indices of social integration and communal coping among sisters from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) families.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome: report of a clinical research workshop and creation of a research consortium

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a rare dominantly inherited cancer predisposition syndrome that was first described in 1969. In most families, it is caused by germline mutations in the TP53 gene and is characterized by early onset of multiple specific cancers and very high lifetime cumulative cancer risk. Despite significant progress in understanding the molecular biology of TP53, the optimal clinical management of this syndrome is poorly defined. We convened a workshop on November 2, 2010, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, bringing together clinicians and scientists, as well as individuals from families with LFS, to review the state of the science, address clinical management issues, stimulate collaborative research, and engage the LFS family community. This workshop also led to the creation of the Li-Fraumeni Exploration (LiFE) Research Consortium.

BRCA mutation-negative women from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: a qualitative study of the BRCA-negative experience

Background  When women from families with a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation test negative for the family mutation, it is assumed that they will transition their personal cancer risk perception from high to average risk. However, there are scant data regarding the experience of mutation‐negative women after genetic testing disclosure, particularly related to the shift of risk perception from assumed mutation‐positive to actual mutation‐negative. This study was designed to explore cancer risk perception and the experience of being a mutation‐negative woman within a known BRCA1/2 mutation‐positive family.

Referral to cancer genetic counseling: Are there stages of readiness?†

As genetic awareness spreads among healthcare providers and the general public, and evidence mounts to show the efficacy of cancer control methods, referrals to cancer genetic counseling services for risk assessment are becoming more common. However, few studies have examined referral patterns to genetics and even less is known about referral uptake to clinical cancer genetic counseling. We investigated outcome of genetics referral in 43 affected women attending a breast cancer treatment program who were referred based on having BRCA mutation carrier risks ≥10%. Within 6 months, of the 36 women we were able to recontact, 13 (36%) came to an appointment at the cancer genetic counseling clinic (Acceptors), 10 (27%) said they intended to come in the future (Intenders), and 13 (36%) said they would not consider genetic counseling (Decliners). Referral uptake was framed by elements of the Transtheoretical model (TTM) to determine if decisional balance scores (DBSs), a summary of an individuals “Pro” and “Con” opinions related to genetic testing, correlated with their decision to follow through. Mean DBSs were strongly negative for the Decliner group (−7.4), weakly negative for the Intender group (−1.1), and positive for the Acceptor group (5.4). The difference in the DBS along the continuum was due more to the mean “Con” score decreasing, rather than the mean “Pro” score increasing. Theoretical frameworks are needed to study adherence to referral for cancer genetic counseling. Stage‐based theories may have a role to play.