Rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer: Patients' and health professionals' attitudes, experiences, and evaluation of effects on treatment decision making.

BACKGROUND: Rapid genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) in newly diagnosed high-risk breast cancer (BC) patients may influence surgical treatment decisions. To successfully integrate RGCT in practice, knowledge of professionals', and patients' attitudes toward RGCT is essential. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2010, we performed a randomized clinical trial evaluating the impact of RGCT. Attitudes toward and experience with RGCT were assessed in 265 patients (at diagnosis, 6- and 12-month follow-up) and 29 medical professionals (before and after the recruitment period). RESULTS: At 6-month follow-up, more patients who had been offered RGCT felt they had been actively involved in treatment decision-making than patients who had been offered usual care (67% vs 48%, P = 0.06). Patients who received DNA-test results before primary surgery reported more often that RGCT influenced treatment decisions than those who received results afterwards (P < 0.01). Eighty-seven percent felt that genetic counseling and testing (GCT) should preferably take place between diagnosis and surgery. Most professionals (72%) agreed that RGCT should be routinely offered to eligible patients. Most patients (74%) and professionals (85%) considered surgeons the most appropriate source for referral. CONCLUSIONS: RGCT is viewed as helpful for newly diagnosed high-risk BC patients in choosing their primary surgery and should be offered routinely by surgeons.

Does rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients cause additional psychosocial distress? results from a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Female breast cancer patients carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation have an increased risk of second primary breast cancer. Rapid genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) before surgery may influence choice of primary surgical treatment. In this article, we report on the psychosocial impact of RGCT. METHODS: Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients at risk for carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation were randomized to an intervention group (offer of RGCT) or a usual care control group (ratio 2:1). Psychosocial impact and quality of life were assessed with the Impact of Events Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Cancer Worry Scale, and the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23. Assessments took place at study entry and at 6- and 12-month follow-up visits. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2010, 265 patients were recruited into the study. Completeness of follow-up data was more than 90%. Of the 178 women in the intervention group, 177 had genetic counseling, of whom 71 (40%) had rapid DNA testing and 59 (33%) received test results before surgery. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses showed no statistically significant differences between groups over time in any of the psychosocial outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, RGCT in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients did not have any measurable adverse psychosocial effects.

Prognostic value of lymph node micrometastases in breast cancer: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the prognostic meaning of lymph node micrometastases in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Between January 2000 and January 2003, 1411 patients with a cT(1-2)N(0) invasive breast carcinoma underwent surgery in 7 hospitals in the Netherlands. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was done in all patients. Based on lymph node status, patients were divided into 4 groups: (p)N(0) (n = 922), (p)N(1micro) (n = 103), (p)N(1a) (n = 285), and (p)N(≥1b) (n = 101). Median follow-up was 6.4 years. RESULTS: At the end of follow-up, 1121 women were still alive (79.4%), 184 had died (13.0%), and 106 were lost to follow-up (7.5%). Breast cancer recurred in 244 patients: distant metastasis (n = 165), locoregional relapse (n = 83), and contralateral breast cancer (n = 44). Following adjustment for possible confounding characteristics and for adjuvant systemic treatment, overall survival (OS) remained comparable for (p)N(0) and (p)N(1micro) and was significantly worse for (p)N(1a) and (p)N(≥1b) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.18; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.58-2.39, HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.69-3.63, HR 4.36; 95% CI 2.70-7.04, respectively). Disease-free survival (DFS) was similar too in the (p)N(0) and (p)N(1micro) group, and worse for (p)N(1a) and (p)N(≥1b) (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.56-1.67 vs HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.19-2.27, HR 2.95; CI 1.98-4.42). The distant metastases rate also did not differ significantly between the (p)N(0) and (p)N(1micro) group and was worse for (p)N(1a) and (p)N(≥1b) (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.60-2.49, HR 2.26; 95% CI 1.49-3.40, HR 3.49; CI 2.12-5.77). CONCLUSIONS: In breast cancer patients survival is not affected by the presence of micrometastatic lymph node involvement.