Understanding Social, Cultural, and Religious Factors Influencing Medical Decision-Making on BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing in the Orthodox Jewish Community.

INTRODUCTION: Although the prevalence of a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is about 1:400 (0.25%) in the general population, the prevalence is as high as 1:40 (2.5%) among the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Despite cost-effective preventive measures for mutation carriers, Orthodox Jews constitute a cultural and religious group that requires different approaches to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing relative to other groups. This study analyzed a dialog of key stakeholders and community members to explore factors that influence decision-making about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing in the New York Orthodox Jewish community. METHODS: Qualitative research methods, based on Grounded Theory and Narrative Research, were utilized to analyze the narrative data collected from 49 key stakeholders and community members. A content analysis was conducted to identify themes; inter-rater reliability was 71%. RESULTS: Facilitators of genetic testing were a desire for preventive interventions and education, while barriers to genetic testing included negative emotions, feared impact on family/romantic relationships, cost, and stigma. Views differed on the role of religious leaders and healthcare professionals in medical decision-making. Education, health, and community were discussed as influential factors, and concerns were expressed about disclosure, implementation, and information needs. CONCLUSION: This study elicited the opinions of Orthodox Jewish women (decision-makers) and key stakeholders (influencers) who play critical roles in the medical decision-making process. The findings have broad implications for engaging community stakeholders within faith-based or culturally distinct groups to ensure better utilization of healthcare services for cancer screening and prevention designed to improve population health.

A Randomized Trial of Two Remote Health Care Delivery Models on the Uptake of Genetic Testing and Impact on Patient-Reported Psychological Outcomes in Families With Pancreatic Cancer: The Genetic Education, Risk Assessment, and Testing (GENERATE) Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Genetic testing uptake for cancer susceptibility in family members of patients with cancer is suboptimal. Among relatives of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment, and TEsting (GENERATE) study evaluated 2 online genetic education/testing delivery models and their impact on patient-reported psychological outcomes. METHODS: Eligible participants had ≥1 first-degree relative with PDAC, or ≥1 first-/second-degree relative with PDAC with a known pathogenic germline variant in 1 of 13 PDAC predisposition genes. Participants were randomized by family, between May 8, 2019, and June 1, 2021. Arm 1 participants underwent a remote interactive telemedicine session and online genetic education. Arm 2 participants were offered online genetic education only. All participants were offered germline testing. The primary outcome was genetic testing uptake, compared by permutation tests and mixed-effects logistic regression models. We hypothesized that Arm 1 participants would have a higher genetic testing uptake than Arm 2. Validated surveys were administered to assess patient-reported anxiety, depression, and cancer worry at baseline and 3 months postintervention. RESULTS: A total of 424 families were randomized, including 601 participants (n = 296 Arm 1; n = 305 Arm 2), 90% of whom completed genetic testing (Arm 1 [87%]; Arm 2 [93%], P = .014). Arm 1 participants were significantly less likely to complete genetic testing compared with Arm 2 participants (adjusted ratio [Arm1/Arm2] 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.98). Among participants who completed patient-reported psychological outcomes questionnaires (Arm 1 [n = 194]; Arm 2 [n = 206]), the intervention did not affect mean anxiety, depression, or cancer worry scores. CONCLUSIONS: Remote genetic education and testing can be a successful and complementary option for delivering genetics care. (Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT03762590).

Patient-reported anticipated barriers and benefits to sharing cancer genetic risk information with family members.

While prior studies have largely focused on family communication of diagnostic single-gene test results or specific types of cancer testing results, far less work has investigated family communication of cancer-related genetic results that include multi-gene panels, a broad array of cancer types/stages, and participants without family history of cancer. The study we report here examined individuals' anticipated barriers and benefits to sharing genetic information with family members. An 80+ gene panel was performed on participants recruited from Mayo Clinic, diagnosed with different cancer types, who did not have a family history suggestive of an inherited risk. Participants completed a 49-item survey before receiving genetic test results. Family variant testing was provided to family members at no cost, allowing factors influencing intent to share to be examined in the absence of financial burdens. In all, 1721 of 2984 individuals who received genetic testing completed the survey (57.7% completion rate). Participants' intent to share with parents, siblings, and children was inversely related to the number of anticipated barriers to sharing and directly related to the number of anticipated benefits to sharing. Of those participants who did not intend to share with parents, siblings, and adult children, 64.8%, 30.3%, and 67.6% reported that there were no barriers, while 17.1%, 24.5%, and 40.2.% reported there were no benefits. Findings indicate that barriers to sharing genetic information with family members vary across family member types, and an inability to identify at least one benefit of sharing with family members is a predictor of intent not to share.

Incidental findings in a series of 2500 gene panel tests for a genetic predisposition to cancer: Results and impact on patients.

With next generation sequencing, physicians are faced with more complex and uncertain data, particularly incidental findings (IF). Guidelines for the return of IF have been published by learned societies. However, little is known about how patients are affected by these results in a context of oncogenetic testing. Over 4 years, 2500 patients with an indication for genetic testing underwent a gene cancer panel. If an IF was detected, patients were contacted by a physician/genetic counsellor and invited to take part in a semi-structured interview to assess their understanding of the result, the change in medical care, the psychological impact, and the transmission of results to the family. Fourteen patients (0.56%) were delivered an IF in a cancer predisposition gene (RAD51C, PMS2, SDHC, RET, BRCA2, CHEK2, CDKN2A, CDH1, SUFU). Two patients did not collect the results and another two died before the return of results. Within the 10 patients recontacted, most of them reported surprise at the delivery of IF, but not anxiety. The majority felt they had chosen to obtain the result and enough information to understand it. They all initiated the recommended follow-up and did not regret the procedure. Information regarding the IF was transmitted to their offspring but siblings or second-degree relatives were not consistently informed. No major adverse psychological events were found in our experience. IF will be inherent to the development of sequencing, even for restricted gene panels, so it is important to increase our knowledge on the impact of such results in different contexts.

Influential Factors on Risk-reduction Mastectomy in a High-risk Breast Cancer Population With Genetic Predispositions.

BACKGROUND: Carriers of deleterious mutations in breast cancer predisposition genes are presented with critical choices regarding cancer risk management. Risk-reduction mastectomy is a major preventative strategy in this population. Understanding the decision-making process for prophylactic mastectomy is essential in patient-centered care for high-risk carriers and patients with breast cancer. We sought to provide insight into influential factors underlying preventative surgery decisions among individuals with high breast cancer risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of pathogenic carriers of high-risk breast cancer genes who presented to the Moffitt GeneHome clinic between March 2017 and June 2020. Associations between preventative mastectomy choice and influence variables were analyzed via unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 258 high-risk mutation carriers, 104 (40.3%) underwent risk-reduction mastectomy. A significantly higher proportion of mastectomy patients reported prior history of breast cancer (68.9% vs. 16.5%; P < .001) and history of other risk-reduction or noncancer-related surgeries (61.7% vs. 25.8%; P < .001). Significant predictors affecting surgery decision included previous breast cancer history (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 10.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.59-19.63; P < .0001), other risk-reduction or noncancer-related surgical history (aOR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.28-9.47; P < .0001), and age at presentation to the genetics clinic (< 35 years old: aOR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.04-7.4; P = .042; 35-55 years old: aOR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.19-5.18; P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: Preventive mastectomy decisions are highly personal and complex. In our sample, we observed prior history or concurrent breast cancer, history of other risk-reduction surgery or noncancer-related surgery, and younger age at presentation to the GeneHome clinic to be predictive of mastectomy uptake.

Experiences of BRCA1/2 Gene Mutation-Positive Women With Cancer in Communicating Genetic Risk to Their Relatives.

BACKGROUND: When a woman is diagnosed with hereditary breast or ovarian cancer, family members may be at high risk of cancers associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutation and benefit from disclosure of the genetic test result. This duty of informing relatives may be distressing, or relatives may not be properly informed. OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively describe breast cancer patients' experiences communicating genetic risk of cancer to their relatives. METHODS: Probands with BRCA1/2 gene mutations were recruited from an oncology institute in Istanbul, Turkey, and interviewed by telephone. Qualitative content analysis was conducted to derive central elements of the 30 women's experiences communicating genetic risk to their relatives. RESULTS: Six themes were identified: response to genetic test results, reason for communication, feelings about communication, reflection after communication, results of communication, and needs. CONCLUSION: Women with cancer found to have BRCA1/2 gene mutations tended to share their genetic test results within the family. The main motives for sharing test results were the desire to encourage relatives to get tested and moral and ethical convictions. Women needed explicit information regarding cancer risk and risk-reducing strategies to act upon. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The women's feelings and reflections about the communication process were varied and suggest that personalized genetic risk communication interventions may better support women with BRCA1/2 gene mutations during and after communication with relatives. Long-term follow-up of those women is essential because of the need for informed decision on risk-reducing strategies.

Proof of Concept of a Personalized Genetic Risk Tool to Promote Smoking Cessation: High Acceptability and Reduced Cigarette Smoking.

Relatively little is known about the possible effects of personalized genetic risk information on smoking, the leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. We examined the acceptability and potential behavior change associated with a personalized genetically informed risk tool (RiskProfile) among current smokers. Current smokers (n = 108) were enrolled in a pre-post study with three visits. At visit 1, participants completed a baseline assessment and genetic testing via 23andMe. Participants' raw genetic data (CHRNA5 variants) and smoking heaviness were used to create a tailored RiskProfile tool that communicated personalized risks of smoking-related diseases and evidence-based recommendations to promote cessation. Participants received their personalized RiskProfile intervention at visit 2, approximately 6 weeks later. Visit 3 involved a telephone-based follow-up assessment 30 days after intervention. Of enrolled participants, 83% were retained across the three visits. Immediately following intervention, acceptability of RiskProfile was high (M = 4.4; SD = 0.6 on scale of 1 to 5); at 30-day follow-up, 89% of participants demonstrated accurate recall of key intervention messages. In the full analysis set of this single-arm trial, cigarettes smoked per day decreased from intervention to 30-day follow-up [11.3 vs. 9.8; difference = 1.5; 95% confidence interval (0.6-2.4); P = 0.001]. A personalized genetically informed risk tool was found to be highly acceptable and associated with a reduction in smoking, although the absence of a control group must be addressed in future research. This study demonstrates proof of concept for translating key basic science findings into a genetically informed risk tool that was used to promote progress toward smoking cessation.Prevention Relevance: This study demonstrates that personal genetic information can be incorporated into a risk feedback tool that was highly acceptable to current smokers and associated with reductions in smoking. These findings may pave the way for effectiveness and implementation research on genetically-informed behavior change interventions to enhance cancer prevention efforts.

Priority of Risk (But Not Perceived Magnitude of Risk) Predicts Improved Sun-Protection Behavior Following Genetic Counseling for Familial Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Understanding multiple components of risk perceptions is important because perceived risk predicts engagement in prevention behaviors. PURPOSE: To examine how multiple components of risk perceptions (perceived magnitude of and worry about risk, prioritization of the management of one's risk) changed following genetic counseling with or without test reporting, and to examine which of these components prospectively predicted improvements in sun-protection behavior 1 year later. METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized study design was used. Participants were 114 unaffected members of melanoma-prone families who (i) underwent genetic testing for a CDKN2A/p16 mutation (n = 69) or (ii) were at comparably elevated risk based on family history and underwent genetic counseling but not testing (no-test controls, n = 45). Participants reported risk perception components and sun-protection behavior at baseline, immediately following counseling, and 1 month and 1 year after counseling. RESULTS: Factor analysis indicated three risk components. Carriers reported increased perceived magnitude and priority of risk, but not cancer worry. No-test controls showed no changes in any risk perception. Among noncarriers, priority of risk remained high at all assessments, whereas magnitude of risk and cancer worry decreased. Of the three risk components, greater priority of risk uniquely predicted improved self-reported sun protection 1 year post-counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Priority of risk (i) seems to be a component of risk perceptions distinguishable from magnitude of risk and cancer worry, (ii) may be an important predictor of daily prevention behavior, and (iii) remained elevated 1 year following genetic counseling only for participants who received a positive melanoma genetic test result.

Genetic risk, incident gastric cancer, and healthy lifestyle: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies and prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Genetic variants and lifestyle factors have been associated with gastric cancer risk, but the extent to which an increased genetic risk can be offset by a healthy lifestyle remains unknown. We aimed to establish a genetic risk model for gastric cancer and assess the benefits of adhering to a healthy lifestyle in individuals with a high genetic risk. METHODS: In this meta-analysis and prospective cohort study, we first did a fixed-effects meta-analysis of the association between genetic variants and gastric cancer in six independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) with a case-control study design. These GWAS comprised 21 168 Han Chinese individuals, of whom 10 254 had gastric cancer and 10 914 geographically matched controls did not. Using summary statistics from the meta-analysis, we constructed five polygenic risk scores in a range of thresholds (p=5 × 10-4 p=5 × 10-5 p=5 × 10-6 p=5 × 10-7, and p=5 × 10-8) for gastric cancer. We then applied these scores to an independent, prospective, nationwide cohort of 100 220 individuals from the China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB), with more than 10 years of follow-up. The relative and absolute risk of incident gastric cancer associated with healthy lifestyle factors (defined as not smoking, never consuming alcohol, the low consumption of preserved foods, and the frequent intake of fresh fruits and vegetables), was assessed and stratified by genetic risk (low [quintile 1 of the polygenic risk score], intermediate [quintile 2-4 of the polygenic risk score], and high [quintile 5 of the polygenic risk score]). Individuals with a favourable lifestyle were considered as those who adopted all four healthy lifestyle factors, those with an intermediate lifestyle adopted two or three factors, and those with an unfavourable lifestyle adopted none or one factor. FINDINGS: The polygenic risk score derived from 112 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (p<5 × 10-5) showed the strongest association with gastric cancer risk (p=7·56 × 10-10). When this polygenic risk score was applied to the CKB cohort, we found that there was a significant increase in the relative risk of incident gastric cancer across the quintiles of the polygenic risk score (ptrend<0·0001). Compared with individuals who had a low genetic risk, those with an intermediate genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1·54 [95% CI 1·22-1·94], p=2·67 × 10-4) and a high genetic risk (2·08 [1·61-2·69], p<0·0001) had a greater risk of gastric cancer. A similar increase in the relative risk of incident gastric cancer was observed across the lifestyle categories (ptrend<0·0001), with a higher risk of gastric cancer in those with an unfavourable lifestyle than those with a favourable lifestyle (2·03 [1·46-2·83], p<0·0001). Participants with a high genetic risk and a favourable lifestyle had a lower risk of gastric cancer than those with a high genetic risk and an unfavourable lifestyle (0·53 [0·29-0·99], p=0·048), with an absolute risk reduction of 1·12% (95% CI 0·62-1·56). INTERPRETATION: Chinese individuals at an increased risk of incident gastric cancer could be identified by use of our newly developed polygenic risk score. Compared with individuals at a high genetic risk who adopt an unhealthy lifestyle, those who adopt a healthy lifestyle could substantially reduce their risk of incident gastric cancer. FUNDING: National Key R&D Program of China, National Natural Science Foundation of China, 333 High-Level Talents Cultivation Project of Jiangsu Province, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation.

Integrative Review of Reproductive Decision Making of Women Who Are BRCA Positive.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize research findings about reproductive decision making among women who are BRCA positive. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: Articles published in English between 2000 and June 28, 2020, about the reproductive decision making of women with a confirmed BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data about participants, study design, analysis, follow-up, and results. We used the modified Downs and Black checklist and Kennelly's qualitative data analysis to rate studies for quality and applicability by using. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included five of 257 screened articles in our synthesis. The total sample size of the five studies was 1,468 women. The most prevalent factors related to reproductive decision making were the impending decisions regarding childbearing and family choices, including decisions about biological children, preventive surgery, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, and prenatal diagnosis to prevent further transmission of a BRCA mutation, and family planning. CONCLUSION: A lack of knowledge exists about the reproductive decision-making processes of women who are BRCA positive. A better understanding of this process would provide nurses and other clinicians with the knowledge needed to support these women through their reproductive life choices.

Paving the Way: A Grounded Theory of Discovery and Decision Making for Individuals With the CDH1 Marker.

PURPOSE: To understand the process of discovery and decision making for adults with the CDH1 marker for hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and inherited breast cancer. PARTICIPANTS & SETTING: Purposeful sampling included 20 participants. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Grounded theory with constant comparison was used. FINDINGS: The decision-making process of Paving the Way addresses the challenges for individuals diagnosed with the CDH1 marker. The theory explains the process of learning the risk, discerning testing, choosing iterative individual interventions, and adjusting postoperatively while normalizing to live longer. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The process explains and describes the nine factors for decision making and predicts the timing for nursing interventions for genetic testing and pre- and postoperative assessment and planning.

"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.

Quality of life drives patients' preferences for secondary findings from genomic sequencing.

There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) ( www.GenomicsADvISER.com ). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.

Patient perspectives on variant reclassification after cancer susceptibility testing.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of reclassification on patients' perception of medical uncertainty or trust in genetics-based clinical care. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 patients who had received a reclassified genetic test result related to hereditary cancer. All participants had undergone genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center Hereditary Cancer Clinic within the last six years. RESULTS: Most of the participants did not express distress related to the variant reclassification and only a minority expressed a decrease in trust in medical genetics. However, recall of the new interpretation was limited, even though all participants were recontacted by letter, phone, or clinic visit. CONCLUSION: Reclassification of genetic tests is an important issue in modern healthcare because changes in interpretation have the potential to alter previously recommended management. Participants in this study did not express strong feelings of mistrust or doubt about their genetic evaluation. However, there was a low level of comprehension and information retention related to the updated report. Future research can build on this study to improve communication with patients about their reclassified results.

Illustrating Cancer Risk: Patient Risk Communication Preferences and Interest regarding a Novel BRCA1/2 Genetic Risk Modifier Test.

INTRODUCTION: Genetic risk modifier testing (GRMT), an emerging form of genetic testing based on common single nucleotide polymorphisms and polygenic risk scores, has the potential to refine estimates of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers' breast cancer risks. However, for women to benefit from GRMT, effective approaches for communicating this novel risk information are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient preferences regarding risk communication materials for GRMT. METHODS: We developed four separate presentations (panel of genes, icon array, verbal risk estimate, graphical risk estimate) of hypothetical GRMT results, each using varying risk communication strategies to convey different information elements including number of risk modifier variants present, variant prevalence among BRCA1/2 carriers, and implications and uncertainties of test results for cancer risk. Thirty BRCA1/2 carriers evaluated these materials (randomized to low, moderate, or high breast cancer risk versions). Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained through in-person interviews. RESULTS: Across risk versions, participants preferred the presentation of the graphical risk estimate, often in combination with the verbal risk estimate. Interest in GRMT was high; 76.7% of participants wanted their own GRMT. Participants valued the potential for GRMT to clarify their cancer susceptibility and provide actionable information. Many (65.5%) anticipated that GRMT would make risk management decisions easier. CONCLUSIONS: Women with BRCA1/2 mutations could be highly receptive to GRMT, and the minimal amount of necessary information to be included in result risk communication materials includes graphical and verbal estimates of future cancer risk. Findings will inform clinical translation of GRMT in a manner consistent with patients' preferences.

How the "control-fate continuum" helps explain the genetic testing decision-making process: a grounded theory study.

Genetic testing decision-making for cancer predisposition is inherently complex. Understanding the mechanisms and influencing factors of the decision-making process is essential for genetic counselling and has not yet been investigated in Switzerland. This study's aim is thus to provide a theory about the individual's decision-making process regarding genetic testing for cancer predispositions in order to provide medical geneticists and genetic counsellors with insights into the needs and expectations of counsellees. We interviewed at-risk individuals who underwent genetic counselling in a clinical setting in Switzerland, using a grounded theory approach. Based on the interview data, we propose that a control-fate continuum, which is part of the individuals' life philosophy, importantly influences the decision-making process. Those in need for control decide differently compared with those leaving their future to fate. Several psychosocial factors influence the position on the control-fate continuum: "looking for certainty"; "anticipating consequences"; "being socially influenced"; "simplifying risks"; and "deciding intuitively vs reflectively". The control-fate continuum theory gives insights into the possible reasons behind decision-making regarding genetic testing for cancer predispositions. It includes both acceptors and decliners of genetic testing. Our theory helps healthcare professionals offering genetic counselling to anticipate problems within at-risk families and adapting their services to people's needs.

Factors shaping at-risk individuals' decisions to undergo genetic testing for cancer in Asia.

This study aims to enrich our understanding of factors influencing medically indicated at-risk individuals' decisions to take genetic tests (or not) in the context of cancer treatment and prevention. While previous studies have explored this topic in communities in Europe and the United States, we know relatively little about the situation in Asia. In this study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 24 women who underwent genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes in Singapore. Grounded theory with thematic analysis was applied. Six encouraging and three discouraging factors are identified in the analysis. The six encouraging factors are: desire to create awareness for self and family; perceived benefits for self and family; strong family history of cancer; presence of family support; medical professional recommendation and adequate amount of time to consider undertaking the test. The three discouraging factors are: high costs of tests; perceived lack of ability to cope with test results; and insufficient information about genetic testing. Taken together, the findings in this study add to the current literature by providing empirical evidence regarding the importance of holding family included pre-test counselling and providing adequate time for patients to decide to undergo genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.

Exploring patient and provider perspectives on the intersection between fertility, genetics, and family building.

OBJECTIVE: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients have distinct medical and psychosocial needs and fertility is a key concern. Early age of onset is a risk factor for hereditary cancer and AYAs are more likely to experience reduced fertility. This has implications for future family building decisions and fertility preservation (FP) and genetic testing/counseling (GT/GC) education. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 18 and 39 and health care providers (HCPs) who treat AYA cancer patients were recruited from a single institution. Qualitative interviews explored AYA patients' and HCPs' concerns regarding their experiences discussing genetics and FP. RESULTS: The majority of patients (n = 17) were female (59%), and the majority of HCPs (n = 18) were male (67%). Overall, participants had differing perceptions of FP and GT/GC-related information provided during the clinical visit. Patients indicated initiating the conversation about FP and did not recall HCPs discussing GT/GC with them. HCPs indicated patients were often overwhelmed with too much information and comprehension of this discussion is limited. HCPs also felt patients' emotions/beliefs determined their information-seeking behavior specific to FP and GT/GC. Participants felt educational materials should be developed and delivered in a video format depicting a patient-provider interaction or patient testimonial. CONCLUSION: AYA patients are often overwhelmed by a cancer diagnosis; the complexity/volume of information regarding FP and GT/GC may hinder understanding and decision-making about family building. Educational materials that help patients understand what questions to ask HCPs about FP and GT/GC should be developed to improve knowledge, psychosocial well-being, and future family building decisions.

Self-concept and health anxiety relate to psychological outcomes for BRCA1/2 carriers.

OBJECTIVE: Leventhal's common sense model of self-regulation highlights how specific beliefs about illness influence psychological outcomes. Little is known on how such beliefs relate to BRCA1/2 adjustment. Furthermore, beliefs about one's self-concept may be relevant to genetic conditions and may relate to psychological wellbeing. METHODS: One-hundred and eighteen female BRCA1/2 carriers from an Irish University Hospital completed questionnaires for this cross-sectional study. Outcomes measured were state anxiety and physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Explanatory variables included sociodemographics, health anxiety, illness perceptions, coping and self-concept. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Then, 44% of participants had clinically significant state anxiety and 12% had clinically significant health anxiety. Vulnerability, stigma, mastery and health anxiety explained 42% of the variance in state anxiety. Previous mental health difficulty, vulnerability, stigma, mastery and health anxiety explained 40% of the variance in mental HRQOL. Dysfunctional coping strategies were strongly related to the physical functioning aspect of quality of life. CONCLUSION: BRCA-specific beliefs related to self and health anxiety are important factors to consider in the adjustment to BRCA1/2 confirmation.