Experience with a nurse-driven genetic counseling pathway of Italian women with uninformative BRCA test result.

Several models of genetic counseling have been proposed to tackle the increasing volume of individuals requiring access to BRCA testing. Few data are available on patient experience and retention of information with nurse-driven genetic counseling. We evaluated the experience and retention of information in women with an uninformative BRCA test result and who were not considered at high risk due to their personal/family history of cancer who underwent geneticist-supervised nurse-driven genetic counseling and who received their test result by phone. Women who received an uninformative BRCA test result between May 2017 and September 2019 were administered a questionnaire exploring experience with genetic counseling and retention of information provided. Of 366 eligible women, 299 (273 breast cancer patients and 26 women without breast cancer) completed the interview. Overall, 280 women (93.6%) positively valued their experience with genetic counseling and 287 (96.0%) considered it helpful with 57.5% of them feeling reassured for themselves and their family. Information on the clinical implications of the test result was correctly retained and women acted accordingly. Overall, 252 women (87.8%) accurately reported their test result as normal/negative. Only 67 (22.4%) recognized that despite a normal BRCA test result, a low probability of a hereditary syndrome remains. Most women showed a poor ability to estimate cancer risk in BRCA mutation carriers and in the general population. Geneticist-supervised nurse-driven genetic counseling process for women with uninformative BRCA test result is associated with a positive patient experience and an adequate retention of information concerning the management of their personal and familial cancer risk. The design and implementation of nurse-driven genetic counseling models may contribute to efficient and timely access to BRCA genetic testing.

Is radical prostatectomy feasible in all cases of locally advanced non-bone metastatic prostate cancer? Results of a single-institution study.

OBJECTIVES: Previous prospective studies of the surgical treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer have enrolled patients selected on the basis of a limited T3 disease extension. The aim of the present study was to assess the feasibility and the oncologic outcome of radical prostatectomy administered to a consecutive unselected series of advanced, non-bone metastatic prostate cancers. METHODS: Between March 1998 and February 2003 radical prostatectomy was offered at our institution to any patient diagnosed with prostate cancer with no sign of extranodal metastatic disease. Data on morbidity and survival for 51 clinically advanced cases (any T>/=3, N0-N1, or any N1 or M1a disease according to the TNM 2002 classification system) operated on by a single expert surgeon were compared with a series of 152 radical prostatectomies performed during the same period by the same operator for clinically organ-confined disease. Adjuvant treatment was administered according to current guidelines. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ significantly in surgical morbidity except for blood transfusion, operative time, and lymphoceles, which showed a higher rate in patients with advanced disease. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival at 7 yr were 76.69% and 90.2% in the advanced disease group and 88.4% and 99.3% in the organ-confined disease group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Even in the scenario of extensive surgical indications up to M1a disease, radical prostatectomy proved to be technically feasible and to have an acceptable morbidity rate compared with organ-confined disease. Our initial survival data strengthen the role for surgery as an essential part in the multimodal approach to treating advanced prostate cancer.