'I Live With Lynch. Cancer Worry Ebbs Into the Background, Then Something Brings It to the Fore.' A Qualitative Interview Study Exploring How Lynch Syndrome Carriers Make Sense of Their Cancer Risks and Implications to Support Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome carriers ('carriers') are presented with complex, emotionally laden choices regarding management of increased genetic cancer risks. Decision aids encourage active involvement in values-based health decisions. This paper aimed to address the research question: How do Lynch syndrome carriers make sense of their chances of developing cancer, and what are the implications for providing support with decision making about genetic cancer risk management? METHODS: Adult carriers were recruited through a genetics service or involvement with Lynch Syndrome UK. Semi-structured interviews explored lived experiences of carriers' access to care with a focus on decision support. Themes were constructed using framework analysis. These were developed into a conceptual model with recommendations for codevelopment of improved information and support including a tailored decision aid to complement integrated healthcare. RESULTS: Twenty participants included 12 women and eight men, half with a history of cancer. Six overarching themes were: (1) finding balance with Lynch; (2) living 'on higher alert'; (3) managing uncertainty: 'I've thought about it a lot'; (4) burden of responsibility: 'It's on me'; (5) access to joined-up care and support: 'There's something missing'; and (6) influence/pressure from others. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative interview study provided in-depth insights from Lynch syndrome carriers about their lived experiences, informed by their values. Recommendations to empower carriers to make sense of genetic cancer risks and support decisions included accessible, trusted information, educated healthcare professionals, shared decision making, and joined-up integrated care pathways complemented by tailored decision aids.

Perception about benefits and risks related to combined hormonal contraceptives use in women with Lynch syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary condition associated with an increased risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of women with LS regarding combined hormonal contraceptive (CHC) use compared to a control group of healthy women. METHODS: Pre-menopausal women with LS (n = 43) and an age-matched control group of healthy women (n = 128) participated in this prospective, cross-sectional study (NCT05909410). Participants completed an electronic questionnaire evaluating perceptions of CHC use and its impact on various cancers, medical conditions, and symptoms. Statistical analysis compared responses between the two groups, with reported p-values. RESULTS: Women with LS were less likely to use CHCs compared to the control group (p = 0.03) and had a more negative perception of CHCs' impact on colorectal cancer (p = 0.023) and endometrial cancer (p = 0.028). Limited knowledge was observed in both groups regarding the protective effects of CHCs against colorectal and ovarian cancer. Perceptions of CHC use and its impact on symptoms and chronic diseases did not significantly differ between the groups (p > 0.05). CHC use was not associated with greater awareness of the protective effect against colorectal (p = 0.89) and endometrial cancer (p = 0.47), but it was associated with a desire for contraception (OR 21.25; 95% CI 1.16 to 388.21; p = 0.039). CONCLUSION: This study highlights contrasting perceptions of CHCs and their implications in oncology between women with LS and healthy women. Tailored counselling and support strategies are crucial for empowering women with LS to make informed decisions about their gynaecologic health.

This study illuminates divergent perceptions of combined hormonal contraceptives and their oncological implications between women with Lynch syndrome and healthy women.Tailored counseling and supportive strategies are essential for empowering women with Lynch syndrome to make informed decisions regarding their gynecologic health.

Hereditary Cancer Syndrome Carriers: Feeling Left in the Corner.

OBJECTIVES: There is limited evidence on health promotion interventions in people with hereditary cancer syndromes or on their main sources of support and information. This study aimed to understand these patients' experiences and needs, including their information needs, their views on prevention and mental health, and the support they want from nurses. METHODS: This qualitative study included 22 people (8 previvors and 14 survivors) with hereditary breast and ovarian syndrome or Lynch syndrome from 10 European countries. Participants underwent individual semi-structured interviews, which were recorded and transcribed for reflexive thematic analysis. The patient and public involvement panel provided input on study design and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patient experiences were similar regardless of the country and access to testing and screening. Participants reported receiving little information on the importance of health behaviors for cancer risk and expressed their wish to be followed by cancer professionals. They felt compelled to seek support and information from the internet and patient groups. The main themes identified were: (unmet) informational and support needs, seeing life in a different way, and limitations of health care providers. CONCLUSIONS: People with hereditary cancer syndromes need professionals to be involved in their long-term management and to provide reliable information. As genomics are increasingly integrated in oncology, the need for professionals to support these populations will increase. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses are crucial for promoting self-management and advocating for patient decision-making; however, they need skills and knowledge to do so. There is a need for nurses to get more involved in understanding hereditary cancer syndromes and an opportunity to take the lead in the care of these people.

Mapping psychosocial interventions in familial colorectal cancer: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are part of a well-defined inherited genetic syndrome and up to approximately 30% of these cases have a clinically defined familial basis. Psychosocial interventions in familial colorectal cancer address aspects mainly focused on affective, cognitive and behavioural outcomes. The present review aims to systematically map out the available psychosocial interventions for individuals with a family history of CRC and describe the current state of the research. METHODS: An extensive electronic search was conducted to investigate the literature published until June 2020. Inclusion criteria consisted of quantitative studies published in English that explored the impact of psychosocial interventions for familial CRC, clearly defined the psychosocial intervention offered and included participants with a family history of CRC. RESULTS: The analysis included 52 articles. Genetic counselling, educational interventions, psychological interventions and multimodal interventions were identified across the studies. In terms of diagnoses, Lynch Syndrome, Familial Adenomatous Polyposis, Familial Colorectal Cancer were the main conditions included in the studies. Affective, cognitive, behavioural aspects and quality of life emerged as the most frequently explored outcomes. The studies included individuals with both personal and familial history of CRC or family history alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our rapid review provides an overview of the literature exploring the impact of psychosocial interventions for familial CRC. The psychosocial interventions identified had an overwhelmingly positive impact across all types of outcomes measured. Genetic counselling appeared to be most beneficial, and this is expected as it is purposively designed to address genetic conditions. Further quantitative analysis of primary empirical research is needed to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of psychosocial interventions as well as the mechanisms through which they exert their effect.

Patient reported outcomes after risk-reducing surgery in patients at increased risk of ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the quality of life of women at an increased risk of ovarian cancer undergoing risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO). METHODS: Patients evaluated in our gynecologic oncology ambulatory practice between January 2018-December 2019 for an increased risk of ovarian cancer were included. Patients received the EORTC QLQ-C30 and PROMIS emotional and instrumental support questionnaires along with a disease-specific measure (PROM). First and last and pre- and post-surgical PROM responses in each group were compared as were PROMs between at-risk patients and patients with other ovarian diseases. RESULTS: 195 patients with an increased risk of ovarian cancer were identified, 155 completed PROMs (79.5%). BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were noted in 52.8%. Also included were 469 patients with benign ovarian disease and 455 with ovarian neoplasms. Seventy-two at-risk patients (46.5%) had surgery and 36 had both pre- and post-operative PROMs. Post-operatively, these patients reported significantly less tension (p = 0.011) and health-related worry (p = 0.021) but also decreased levels of health (p = 0.018) and quality of life <7d (0.001), less interest in sex (p = 0.014) and feeling less physically attractive (p = 0.046). No differences in body image or physical/sexual health were noted in at-risk patients who did not have surgery. When compared to patients with ovarian neoplasms, at-risk patients reported lower levels of disease-related life interference and treatment burden, less worry, and better overall health. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an increased risk of ovarian cancer, RRBSO is associated with decreased health-related worry and tension, increased sexual dysfunction and poorer short-term quality of life. Patients with ovarian neoplasms suffer to a greater extent than at-risk patients and report higher levels of treatment burden and disease-related anxiety.

Genetic discrimination by Australian insurance companies: a survey of consumer experiences.

We report previously undocumented evidence of genetic discrimination by Australian insurance companies, obtained through direct consumer reports. We surveyed 174 consumers with cancer-predisposing variants, recruited by cancer organisations Lynch Syndrome Australia and Pink Hope. Questions related to experiences accessing risk-rated insurance after genetic testing. Results indicate that both legal (permitted under current regulation) and illegal discrimination is occurring. Although some respondents had not applied for risk-rated insurance, or had insurance in place before genetic testing (n = 100), those seeking new policies (n = 74) commonly experienced difficulties obtaining insurance (86%, 64/74). Of those experiencing difficulties, 50% (32/64) had no prior history or symptoms of cancer, and had undertaken risk reduction through surveillance and/or preventative surgery. Seventy-seven percent (49/64) reported difficulties related to life insurance. Follow-up telephone interviews with four respondents further described cases of apparent illegal breaches. All reports of discrimination identified were, to our knowledge, previously unreported in the literature. The number of cases suggests a systemic problem with the Australian life insurance industry. We support calls for government oversight of the inherently conflicted model of industry self-regulation in Australia, and an immediate ban on the use of genetic test results in insurance underwriting.

For Women, Lynch Syndrome Is About More than Colon Cancer.

Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, has historically been characterized by a predisposition to colorectal cancer; however, for women with Lynch syndrome, the risks for gynecologic cancers pose an equal or greater risk than colorectal cancer. In addition, the gynecologic cancer is often the first cancer that presents in these patients. Also of importance to women with Lynch syndrome is the efficacy of gynecologic cancer screening being significantly lower than colorectal cancer screening, leading to inconsistency in provider recommendations for gynecologic screening and surveillance. We had the chance to listen to women with Lynch syndrome, in their own words, discuss their health care experiences as they relate to gynecologic cancer risk, and identified several important themes. They describe feeling confused about their screening and surveillance options while also being heavily reliant on their health care providers for guidance. In addition, women with Lynch syndrome discuss attempting to balance medical management of Lynch syndrome with their reproductive choices. Finally, they believe that increased awareness by women and their providers about the gynecologic cancer risks associated with Lynch syndrome should be a higher priority. We view the words of these women as a call to action for Lynch syndrome patients, clinicians, researchers, and advocates.

Men's experiences of recontact about a potential increased risk of prostate cancer due to Lynch Syndrome: "Just another straw on the stack".

The practice of recontacting patients to provide new health information is becoming increasingly common in clinical genetics, despite the limited research to evidence the patient experience. We explored how men with Lynch Syndrome (LS) understand and experience being recontacted about a potential increased risk of prostate cancer. Sixteen men with LS (Meanage 51 years) were recruited from an Australian screening study to undergo a semi-structured interview. A modified grounded theory approach was used to guide data collection and thematic analysis. Qualitative coding was shared by the research team to triangulate analysis. The practice of recontact was viewed by participants as acceptable and was associated with minimal emotional distress. The majority of men understood that they may be above population risk of prostate cancer, although evidence was still emerging. Men reported high engagement with personal and familial health, including regular screening practices and familial risk communication. Findings suggest that men's carrier status and beliefs about the actionability of the new cancer risk information influence their response to recontact. Recontact practices that include the offer of risk management strategies may lead to improved patient outcomes (e.g., reduced cancer worry and increased health engagement), if perceived as valuable by recipients.

Women's preferences for cancer risk management strategies in Lynch syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed preferences for cancer risk management strategies for Lynch syndrome (LS) in LS-affected women. METHODS: Women with LS aged ≥25 years evaluated 9 cancer risk management strategies using a visual analog scale (VAS) and modified standard gamble (SG). For the VAS, women ranked each strategy ranging from 0 (least preferred) to 100 (most preferred). VAS scores were calculated by dividing the corresponding number by 100. Scores closer to 1.0 reflected more favorable strategies. For the SG, participants were asked to specify their expected threshold of lifetime risk of endometrial or colorectal cancer, ranging from 0 to 100%, at which they would consider undertaking each strategy. Strategies included chemoprevention, cancer screening, and preventive surgery. Cancer worry and perceived cancer risk measures were collected on a subset of participants. RESULTS: Sixty-one women completed preference assessments. By VAS, annual combined screening was the most preferred, followed by annual screenings and chemoprevention with oral contraceptives. By SG, women were the most willing to endorse oral contraceptives and biannual screening strategies at the lowest threshold of lifetime risk followed by annual screening strategies. Surgical interventions were the least preferred strategies using both VAS and SG. Women with a family history of gynecologic or colorectal cancer were less likely to consider prevention or screening options compared to women without a family history. Cancer worry was higher among women with a positive family history of LS cancer. CONCLUSION: Understanding women's preferences may facilitate optimal use and adherence to cancer risk management strategies.

The impact of health anxiety on perceptions of personal and children's health in parents with Lynch syndrome.

This study examined the differences in perceptions of one's health and one's child's health between parents with Lynch syndrome (LS) characterized with high versus low health anxiety. Twenty-one parents completed semistructured telephone interviews about their perceptions of their own health and the health of their children. Qualitative content analysis using a template coding approach examined the differences between parents with high and low health anxiety. Findings revealed that the most prevalent difference emerged on perceptions of personal health, showing individuals with high health anxiety reported more extreme worries, were more hypervigilant about physical symptoms, experienced the emotional and psychological consequences of LS as more negative and severe, and engaged in more dysfunctional coping strategies than those with low health anxiety. Unexpectedly, with regards to perceptions of their children, parents in the high and low health anxiety groups exhibited similar worries. However, high health anxiety parents reported using dysfunctional coping about their children's health more frequently than those with low health anxiety. The findings suggest that health anxiety is of clinical significance for individuals with LS. Accurately identifying and treating health anxiety among this population may be one avenue to reduce the distress experienced by LS carriers.

Clinical verification of genetic results returned to research participants: findings from a Colon Cancer Family Registry.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which participants act to clinically verify research results is largely unknown. This study examined whether participants who received Lynch syndrome (LS)-related findings pursued researchers' recommendation to clinically verify results with testing performed by a CLIA-certified laboratory. METHODS: The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center site of the multinational Colon Cancer Family Registry offered non-CLIA individual genetic research results to select registry participants (cases and their enrolled relatives) from 2011 to 2013. Participants who elected to receive results were counseled on the importance of verifying results at a CLIA-certified laboratory. Twenty-six (76.5%) of the 34 participants who received genetic results completed 2- and 12-month postdisclosure surveys; 42.3% of these (11/26) participated in a semistructured follow-up interview. RESULTS: Within 12 months of result disclosure, only 4 (15.4%) of 26 participants reported having verified their results in a CLIA-certified laboratory; of these four cases, all research and clinical results were concordant. Reasons for pursuing clinical verification included acting on the recommendation of the research team and informing future clinical care. Those who did not verify results cited lack of insurance coverage and limited perceived personal benefit of clinical verification as reasons for inaction. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest researchers will need to address barriers to seeking clinical verification in order to ensure that the intended benefits of returning genetic research results are realized.

A comparison between Lynch syndrome and sporadic colorectal cancer survivors' satisfaction with their healthcare providers.

This study evaluated provider satisfaction in a sample of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors with and without Lynch syndrome (LS). Participants were case-case-matched CRC survivors with (n = 75) or without (n = 75) LS (mean age of 55; range: 27-93). Participants completed a mailed questionnaire assessing demographics, clinical characteristics, healthcare utilization, psychosocial variables, and provider satisfaction. LS CRC survivors reported lower provider satisfaction scores on three subscales of the Primary Care Assessment Survey: communication (78.14 vs. 83.96; P < 0.05), interpersonal treatment (78.58 vs. 85.30; P < 0.05), and knowledge of the patient (60.34 vs. 69.86; P < 0.01). Among LS CRC survivors, predictors for mean communication and trust subscale scores were location of treatment and socioeconomic status. Higher mean depression scores also were associated with trust, while social support predicted higher satisfaction with communication. Sporadic CRC survivor satisfaction is driven largely by age (communication, interpersonal treatment) and patient anxiety (communication), while seeing a provider more often was associated with increased satisfaction with knowledge of the patient. LS CRC survivors reported lower levels of provider satisfaction than sporadic CRC survivors. LS survivors who received care at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, a comprehensive cancer center (CCC), reported higher satisfaction than those receiving care at other institutions. Depressive symptoms and socioeconomic status may impact provider satisfaction ratings. Exploration of other potential predictors of provider satisfaction should be examined in this population. Additionally, further research is needed to examine the potential impact of provider satisfaction on adherence to medical recommendations in LS CRC survivors, particularly those being treated outside of CCCs.

Educational and Psychosocial Support Needs in Lynch Syndrome: Implementation and Assessment of an Educational Workshop and Support Group.

Few reports of educational and counseling support resources exist for Lynch syndrome (LS), a disorder requiring multi-organ cancer screening and specialized medical care throughout adult life. Here we describe the development and efficacy of two resources designed to address this need, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Clinical Genetics Service annual Lynch Syndrome Educational Workshop (LSEW), and a quarterly Lynch Syndrome Patient Advocacy Network (LSPAN) support group. The LSEW and LSPAN were implemented beginning in 2012. Participant survey data evaluating satisfaction, clarity, and unmet needs for each event were retrospectively analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics. Annual LSEW attendance ranged from 53 to 75 total participants. LSEW year 1 participants indicated a need for a support group, and preferred in-person meetings at a frequency of every 3-6 months. For LSEW year 2-5 participants, >96 % reported satisfaction with the LSEW, and >82 % expressed interest in secure online support. Common themes for improvement included increased time for question and answer sessions and additional introductory genetics education. Responding LSPAN participants (n = 57 total survey responses in 11 meetings) found the meetings helpful (100 %), information clear (91 %), and presence of a genetic counselor useful (67 %). Desired discussion topics included coping with stress and anxiety, development of a support network, family communication about LS, genetic testing decisions, and bereavement. Following genetic counseling, a need exists for ongoing educational and emotional support in LS. Implementation of resources such as the LSEW and LSPAN is feasible and perceived as helpful by participants.

The Impact of Receiving Predictive Genetic Information about Lynch Syndrome on Individual Colonoscopy and Smoking Behaviors.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated whether receiving the results of predictive genetic testing for Lynch syndrome, indicating the presence or absence of an inherited predisposition to various cancers, including colorectal cancer, was associated with change in individual colonoscopy and smoking behaviors, which could prevent colorectal cancer. METHODS: The study population included individuals with no previous diagnosis of colorectal cancer, whose families had already identified deleterious mutations in the mismatch repair or EPCAM genes. Hypotheses were generated from a simple health economics model and tested against individual-level panel data from the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry. RESULTS: The empirical analysis revealed evidence consistent with some of the hypotheses, with a higher likelihood of undergoing colonoscopy in those who discovered their genetic predisposition to colorectal cancer and a lower likelihood of quitting smoking in those who discovered their lack thereof. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive genetic information about Lynch syndrome was associated with change in individual colonoscopy and smoking behaviors but not necessarily in ways to improve population health. IMPACT: The study findings suggest that the impact of personalized medicine on disease prevention is intricate, warranting further analyses to determine the net benefits and costs. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(11); 1524-33. ©2016 AACR.

Knowledge and Uptake of Genetic Counseling and Colonoscopic Screening Among Individuals at Increased Risk for Lynch Syndrome and their Endoscopists from the Family Health Promotion Project.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals whose families meet the Amsterdam II clinical criteria for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer are recommended to be referred for genetic counseling and to have colonoscopic screening every 1-2 years. To assess the uptake and knowledge of guideline-based genetic counseling and colonoscopic screening in unaffected members of families who meet Amsterdam II criteria and their treating endoscopists. METHODS: Participants in the Family Health Promotion Project who met the Amsterdam II criteria were surveyed regarding their knowledge of risk-appropriate guidelines for genetic counseling and colonoscopy screening. Endoscopy/pathology reports were obtained from patients screened during the study to determine the follow-up recommendations made by their endoscopists. Survey responses were compared using Fisher's Exact and the χ(2) test. Concordance in participant/provider-reported surveillance interval was assessed using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Of the 165 participants, the majority (98%) agreed that genetics and family history are important predictors of CRC, and 63% had heard of genetic testing for CRC, although only 31% reported being advised to undergo genetic counseling by their doctor, and only 7% had undergone genetic testing. Only 26% of participants reported that they thought they should have colonoscopy every 1-2 years and 30% of endoscopists for these participants recommended 1-2-year follow-up colonoscopy. There was a 65% concordance (weighted kappa 0.42, 95% CI 0.24-0.61) between endoscopist recommendations and participant reports regarding screening intervals. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of individuals meeting Amsterdam II criteria in this series have had genetic testing and reported accurate knowledge of risk-appropriate screening, and only a small percentage of their endoscopists provided them with the appropriate screening recommendations. There was moderate concordance between endoscopist recommendations and participant knowledge suggesting that future educational interventions need to target both health-care providers and their patients.

Evolution of cancer risk assessment and counseling related to psychological, financial and legal implications.

Cancer risk assessment, genetic counseling and genetic testing have experienced advances and changes over the past two decades due to improved technology, legal movements to protect those at an increased risk for cancer due to genetics, as well as advances in detection, prevention and treatment. This brief article will provide a summary of these advances over three eras of cancer genetics: pre-discovery of the more common high impact genes, namely BRCA1/BRCA2 and the mismatch repair genes associated with Lynch syndrome; the time during which the genes were being discovered; and current day.

Physician trust moderates the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and cancer worry interference among women with Lynch syndrome.

This study investigated the extent to which intolerance of uncertainty was associated with cancer worry interference, anxiety and depression among women with Lynch syndrome (LS), and whether having greater trust in one's physician moderated those relationships. Women with confirmed LS (N = 128) were recruited from a high-risk of cancer registry and completed a one-time self-report questionnaire. Women who reported greater intolerance of uncertainty and more trust in their physician reported less cancer worry interference compared to women who had greater intolerance of uncertainty and less trust in their physician, who reported the highest worry interference, b = -1.39, t(99) = -2.27, p = .03. No moderation effect of trust in physician was found for anxiety or depression. Trust in one's physician buffered the impact of high intolerance of uncertainty on cancer worry interference, underscoring the need for supportive provider-patient relationships, particularly for LS patients.

Patients' Attitudes Towards Disclosure of Genetic Test Results to Family Members: The Impact of Patients' Sociodemographic Background and Counseling Experience.

Many factors predict the intention to disclose genetic information to relatives. The article examines the impact of patients' socio-demographic factors on their intention to disclose genetic testing results to their relatives. Data were collected in eight genetic clinics in Israel. Patients were requested to fill in a questionnaire after counseling. A convenience sample of 564 participants who visited these clinics was collected for a response rate of 85 %. Of them, 282 participants came for susceptibility testing for hereditary cancers (cancer group), and 282 for genetic screening tests (prenatal group). In the cancer group, being secular and having more years of education correlated positively with the intention to disclose test results to relatives. In the prenatal group, being married and female correlated positively with the intention to disclose. In the cancer group, being religious and with less years of education correlated positively with the view that the clinician should deliver the results to the family. In the prenatal group, being male and unmarried correlated positively with this belief. In both groups, being of young age correlated with the perception that genetic information is private. Varied sociodemographic factors affect the intention to inform family members. Thus, knowing the social background of patients will shed light on people's attitudes to genetic information and will help clinicians provide effective counseling in discussions with patients about the implications of test results for relatives.

Prognostic Factors for Distress After Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer.

The psychological impact of an unfavorable genetic test result for counselees at risk for hereditary cancer seems to be limited: only 10-20 % of counselees have psychological problems after testing positive for a known familial mutation. The objective of this study was to find prognostic factors that can predict which counselees are most likely to develop psychological problems after presymptomatic genetic testing. Counselees with a 50 % risk of BRCA1/2 or Lynch syndrome completed questionnaires at three time-points: after receiving a written invitation for a genetic counseling intake (T1), 2-3 days after receiving their DNA test result (T2), and 4-6 weeks later (T3). The psychological impact of the genetic test result was examined shortly and 4-6 weeks after learning their test result. Subsequently, the influence of various potentially prognostic factors on psychological impact were examined in the whole group. Data from 165 counselees were analyzed. Counselees with an unfavorable outcome did not have more emotional distress, but showed significantly more cancer worries 4-6 weeks after learning their test result. Prognostic factors for cancer worries after genetic testing were pre-existing cancer worries, being single, a high risk perception of getting cancer, and an unfavorable test result. Emotional distress was best predicted by pre-existing cancer worries and pre-existing emotional distress. The psychological impact of an unfavorable genetic test result appears considerable if it is measured as "worries about cancer." Genetic counselors should provide additional guidance to counselees with many cancer worries, emotional distress, a high risk perception or a weak social network.

Screening adherence and cancer risk perceptions in colorectal cancer survivors with Lynch-like syndrome.

Cancer screening recommendations for patients with Lynch-like syndrome (LLS) are not well defined. We evaluated adherence to Lynch syndrome (LS) screening recommendations, cancer risk perceptions, and communication within the families among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors with LLS. Thirty-four participants with LLS completed a questionnaire about risk perception, adherence to LS screening recommendations, and communication with relatives. Clinical data were obtained from medical records. Most participants (76%) believed they should undergo colonoscopy every 1-2 years. Only 41% correctly interpreted their genetic tests as uninformative negative or as variant of unknown significance for LS. Less than half had had an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for screening purpose. Among female participants, 86% had been screened for endometrial cancer (EC) and 71% for ovarian cancer. Most participants had informed relatives about the CRC diagnosis and advised them to undergo CRC screening, but only 50% advised female relatives to be screened for EC and only one-third advised relatives to have genetic counseling. Most CRC survivors with LLS follow the same cancer screening recommended for LS patients but do not understand the meaning of LLS. Greater care must be devoted to communicating the implications of nondiagnostic germline mutation testing among patients with LLS.