Polygenic risk in familial breast cancer: Changing the dynamics of communicating genetic risk.

Hereditary breast cancer is associated with known genetic changes: either variants that affect function in a few rare genes or an ever-increasing number of common genomic risk variants, which combine to produce a cumulative effect, known as a polygenic risk (PR) score. While the clinical validity and utility of PR scores are still being determined, the communication of PR is a new challenge for genetic health professionals. This study investigated how PR scores are discussed in the familial cancer clinic compared with a previous study assessing the communication of monogenic risk (MR) for breast cancer. Sixty-five PR consultations between genetic health professionals and women at familial risk of breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using a methodology adapted from the MR study. Analysis of consultations shows that while there were similarities in communicating MR and PR, the complexity and novelty of the polygenic information influenced the style of counseling used by genetic health professionals toward a teaching model of genetic counseling, rather than a patient-centered approach. In particular, compared to MR consultations, in PR consultations significantly fewer counselees (a) were asked about their reasons for attending genetic counseling; or (b) had their information preferences, decision-making style, medical knowledge, understanding, or concerns checked. In conclusion, it is anticipated that PR scores will become part of standard clinical practice. Thus, it will be important for all genetic health professionals to be appropriately educated so that they can tailor their communication to meet patient needs.

Breast cancer polygenic risk scores: a 12-month prospective study of patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior of women choosing to receive (receivers) or decline (decliners) their breast cancer polygenic risk score (PRS). METHODS: Women either unaffected or affected by breast cancer and from families with no identified pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk gene were invited to receive their PRS. All participants completed a questionnaire at study enrollment. Receivers completed questionnaires at two weeks and 12 months after receiving their PRS, and decliners a second questionnaire at 12 months post study enrollment. RESULTS: Of the 208 participants, 165 (79%) received their PRS. Among receivers, there were no changes in anxiety or distress following testing. However, compared to women with a low PRS, those with a high PRS reported greater genetic testing-specific distress, perceived risk, decisional regret, and less genetic testing-positive response. At 12 months, breast screening and uptake of risk-reducing strategies were consistent with current Australian guidelines of breast cancer risk management. Reasons for declining PRS included being unable to attend the appointment in person and concerns over potential emotional response. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the study provide insight into women's responses to receiving PRS and highlight the issues that need to be addressed in the associated model of genetic counseling.

Communicating polygenic risk scores in the familial breast cancer clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the communication of polygenic risk scores (PRS) in the familial breast cancer setting. METHODS: Consultations between genetic healthcare providers (GHP) and female patients who received their PRS for breast cancer risk were recorded (n = 65). GHPs included genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5) (i.e. clinical geneticists and oncologists). A content analysis was conducted and logistic regression was used to assess differences in communication behaviors between genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5). RESULTS: Of the 65 patients, 31 (47.7 %) had a personal history of breast cancer, 18 of whom received an increased PRS (relative risk >1.2). 25/34 unaffected patients received an increased PRS. Consultations were primarily clinician-driven and focused on biomedical information. There was little difference between the biomedical information provided by genetic counselors and medical practitioners. However, genetic counselors were significantly more likely to utilize strategies to build patient rapport and counseling techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide one of the earliest reports on how breast cancer PRSs are communicated to women. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Key messages for communicating PRSs were identified, namely: discussing differences between polygenic and monogenic testing, the multifactorial nature of breast cancer risk, polygenic inheritance and current limitation of PRSs.

"It wasn't just for me": Motivations and implications of genetic testing for women at a low risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) due to pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 is why most women present to familial cancer centers. Despite being assessed as low risk for HBOC, many women proceed with genetic testing. This study explored the genetic testing experiences of unaffected women at low risk of HBOC to clarify what motivates these women to have testing, and what are the implications of the results. METHODS: A qualitative approach was taken. Participants included women who had genetic testing for HBOC from 2016-2018 at the Parkville Familial Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis was undertaken on transcripts; transcripts were coded, codes were organized into a hierarchical system of categories/subcategories, and key themes were identified. RESULTS: Analysis of 19 transcripts identified five themes: family underpinned all motivators for HBOC genetic testing; health professionals were influential throughout the process; participants were planning for a positive result; results influenced screening-anxiety and frequency; and negative results gave participants relief in many different ways. The three participants with positive results reported feeling shocked at the results and empowered giving this information to family members. CONCLUSIONS: Women at low HBOC risk may be motivated to seek genetic testing, and access to this is increasingly offered through non-genetic health professionals. Professionals can support clients through genetic testing by recognizing familial experiences, providing accurate information, addressing risk perceptions, and understanding cancer anxiety felt by many women.

Uptake of polygenic risk information among women at increased risk of breast cancer.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are increasingly being implemented to assess breast cancer risk. This study aimed to assess and determine factors associated with uptake of PRS among women at increased risk of breast cancer for whom genetic testing to date had been uninformative. Participants were recruited from the Variants in Practice study from which breast cancer PRS had been calculated. Four hundred women were notified by letter of the availability of their PRS and invited to complete a self-administered survey comprising several validated scales. Considering non-participants, uptake of PRS was between 61.8% and 42.1%. Multivariate logistic regression identified that women were more likely to receive their PRS if they reported greater benefits (odds ratio [OR] = 1.17, P = .011) and fewer barriers to receiving their PRS (OR = 0.80, P = .007), had completed higher level education (OR = 3.32, P = .004), and did not have daughters (0.29, P = .006). Uptake of breast cancer PRS varied according to several testing- and patient-related factors. Knowledge of these factors will facilitate the implementation of polygenic testing in clinical practice and support informed decision making by patients.