Factors associated with an individuals' decision to withdraw from genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes mutations: are personality traits involved?

The aim of the study was to evaluate factors associated with early withdrawal from oncogenetic counseling. A comparison of psycho-social and personality characteristics of two samples of subjects, attendees and withdrawers was carried out. Self-report questionnaires were completed by 112 individuals who had completed counseling and to 56 individuals who withdrew from it. Individuals with few children (OR. 1,724; p = 0,017; CI = 1,101-2,700), a lower number of cancer affected relatives (OR. 1,301; p = 0,000; CI = 1,145-1,479), and with a lower hypomanic scale score (OR. 1,070; p = 0,004; CI = 1,022-1,121), were more likely to withdraw from counseling. It is important for the counselees to draw more attention to the fact that their cancer risk management and prevention is as fundamental as that of their children. Also, it is important to highlight the fact that having less cancer affected relatives does not necessarily mean being at lower risk. In conclusion, that subjects with low levels of psychological and emotional energy are those who probably need greater psychological support during the decision making process. We deem necessary that psychologists, involved in genetic counseling, investigate these aspects during their sessions in order to implement suitable interventions of psychological support during the entire counseling process.

Subjective versus objective risk in genetic counseling for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancers.

BACKGROUND: Despite the fact that genetic counseling in oncology provides information regarding objective risks, it can be found a contrast between the subjective and objective risk. The aims of this study were to evaluate the accuracy of the perceived risk compared to the objective risk estimated by the BRCApro computer model and to evaluate any associations between medical, demographic and psychological variables and the accuracy of risk perception. METHODS: 130 subjects were given medical-demographic file, Cancer and Genetic Risk Perception, Hospital Anxiety-Depression Scale. It was also computed an objective evaluation of the risk by the BRCApro model. RESULTS: The subjective risk was significantly higher than objective risk. The risk of tumour was overestimated by 56%, and the genetic risk by 67%. The subjects with less cancer affected relatives significantly overestimated their risk of being mutation carriers and made a more inaccurate estimation than high risk subjects. CONCLUSION: The description of this sample shows: general overestimation of the risk, inaccurate perception compared to BRCApro calculation and a more accurate estimation in those subjects with more cancer affected relatives (high risk subjects). No correlation was found between the levels of perception of risk and anxiety and depression. Based on our findings, it is worth pursuing improved communication strategies about the actual cancer and genetic risk, especially for subjects at "intermediate and slightly increased risk" of developing an hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer or of being mutation carrier.