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.

Genotype-first approach to the detection of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk, and effects of risk disclosure to biobank participants.

Genotype-first approach allows to systematically identify carriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 genes conferring a high risk of familial breast and ovarian cancer. Participants of the Estonian biobank have expressed support for the disclosure of clinically significant findings. With an Estonian biobank cohort, we applied a genotype-first approach, contacted carriers, and offered return of results with genetic counseling. We evaluated participants' responses to and the clinical utility of the reporting of actionable genetic findings. Twenty-two of 40 contacted carriers of 17 pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants responded and chose to receive results. Eight of these 22 participants qualified for high-risk assessment based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Twenty of 21 counseled participants appreciated being contacted. Relatives of 10 participants underwent cascade screening. Five of 16 eligible female BRCA1/2 variant carriers chose to undergo risk-reducing surgery, and 10 adhered to surveillance recommendations over the 30-month follow-up period. We recommend the return of results to population-based biobank participants; this approach could be viewed as a model for population-wide genetic testing. The genotype-first approach permits the identification of individuals at high risk who would not be identified by application of an approach based on personal and family histories only.

Experience with Parent Follow-Up for Communication Outcomes after Newborn Screening Identifies Carrier Status.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct interviews with a multiyear sample of parents of infants found to have heterozygous status for sickle cell hemoglobinopathy or cystic fibrosis during newborn blood screening (NBS). STUDY DESIGN: Interviewers with clinical backgrounds telephoned parents, and followed a structured script that blended follow-up and research purposes. Recruiting followed several steps to minimize recruiting bias as much as possible for a NBS study. RESULTS: Follow-up calls were conducted with parents of 426 infant carriers of sickle cell hemoglobinopathy, and 288 parents of cystic fibrosis carriers (34.8% and 49.6% of those eligible). Among these, 27.5% and 7.8% had no recollection of being informed of NBS results. Of those who recalled a provider explanation, 8.6% and 13.0% appraised the explanation negatively. Overall, 7.4% and 13.2% were dissatisfied with the experience of learning about the NSB result. Mean anxiety levels were low but higher in the sickle cell hemoglobinopathy group (P < .001). Misconceptions that the infant might get the disease were present in 27.5% and 7.8% of parents (despite zero actual risk for disease). Several of these data were significantly predicted by NBS result, health literacy, parental age, and race/ethnicity factors. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered public health follow-up can be effective after NBS identifies carrier status. Psychosocial complications were uncommon, but harms were substantial enough to justify mitigation.

Prenatal genetic testing for cystic fibrosis: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and an ethics review.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess the clinical value of prenatal testing for cystic fibrosis (CF) and whether ethical considerations would affect endpoint selection. METHODS: To determine effectiveness, we conducted a systematic literature review whose protocol outlined search strategies across eight databases, study inclusion criteria, and prespecified literature screening, data extraction, and synthesis processes. We conducted a scoping search on ethical considerations. RESULTS: The genetic test showed good diagnostic performance. A change in clinical management was observed: termination of pregnancy (TOP) occurred in most cases where two pathogenic variants were identified in a fetus of carrier parents (158/167; 94.6%). The TOP rate was lower in pregnancies where CF was diagnosed after fetal echogenic bowel detection (~65%). TOP and caring for a child with CF were both associated with poor short-term parental psychological outcomes. Ethical analyses indicated that informed decisions should have been the main endpoint, rather than CF-affected births prevented. CONCLUSION: CF testing leads to fewer CF-affected births. It is difficult to assess whether this means the test is valuable, since patients may not value TOP primarily in terms of maternal or fetal health outcomes, psychological or otherwise. The value of testing should arguably be measured in terms of improving patient autonomy rather than health.

Implementing carrier screening for cystic fibrosis outside the clinic: ethical analysis in the light of the personalist view.

BACKGROUND: Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive genetic disease. Two models for screening CF are normally used: newborn screening and population-based CF carrier screening. In turn, there are three main models of population-based CF carrier screening: prenatal carrier screening, preconception carrier screening, and carrier screening outside clinical settings. AIM: To evaluate, in the light of the personalist view, the use of carrier screenings for CF outside the clinic, i.e. in non-clinical settings, such as school and workplaces. METHODS: Analysis has been carried out according to the "Personalist approach" (also called "Triangular model"), an ethical method for performing ethical analysis within HTA process. It includes factual, anthropological and ethical data in a ''triangular'' normative reflection process. FINDINGS: Implementing carrier screening for cystic fibrosis outside the clinical settings allows acquisition of knowledge for informing reproductive choices, that can be considered as valuable; benefit-risk ratio seems to be not much favorable; autonomous and responsible decisions can be taken only under certain conditions; economic advantage is difficult to determine; therefore, from a personalist view, implementing carrier screenings outside the clinic seems not to be ethically justified. CONCLUSIONS: In accordance with the personalist perspective, public health programs providing carrier screenings outside the clinic should not be implemented.

A systematic analysis of online marketing materials used by providers of expanded carrier screening.

PURPOSE: Expanded carrier screening (ECS) for a large number of recessive disorders is available to prospective parents through commercial providers. This study aimed to analyze the content of marketing materials on ECS providers' websites. METHODS: To identify providers of ECS tests, we undertook a comprehensive online search, reviewed recent academic literature on commercial carrier screening, and consulted with colleagues familiar with the current ECS landscape. The identified websites were archived in April 2017, and inductive content analysis was performed on website text, brochures and educational materials, and video transcripts. RESULTS: We identified 18 ECS providers, including 16 commercial genetic testing companies. Providers typically described ECS as an important family planning tool. The content differed in both the tone used to promote ECS and the accuracy and completeness of the test information provided. We found that most providers offered complimentary genetic counseling to their consumers, although this was often optional, limited to the posttest context, and, in some cases, appeared to be available only to test-positive individuals. CONCLUSION: The quality of ECS providers' websites could be improved by offering more complete and accurate information about ECS and their tests. Providers should also ensure that all carrier couples receive posttest genetic counseling to inform their subsequent reproductive decision making.

Pre- and post-testing counseling considerations for the provision of expanded carrier screening: exploration of European geneticists' views.

BACKGROUND: Carrier screening is generally performed with the aim of identifying healthy couples at risk of having a child affected with a monogenic disorder to provide them with reproductive options. Expanded carrier screening (ECS), which provides the opportunity for multiple conditions to be screened in one test, offers a more cost-effective and comprehensive option than screening for single disorders. However, implementation of ECS at a population level would have implications for genetic counseling practice. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with sixteen European clinical and molecular geneticists with expertise in carrier screening to explore their views on the implementation of ECS in the clinical setting. RESULTS: Using inductive content analysis, we identified content categories relevant to the pre- and post-test settings. Participants believed ECS would ideally be targeted at couples before pregnancy. There was some disagreement regarding the acceptability of performing ECS in individuals, with several participants actively opposing individual-based screening. In addition, participants discussed the importance of ensuring informed and voluntary participation in ECS, recommending measures to minimize external pressure on prospective parents to undergo testing. A need for adequate counseling to foster informed, autonomous reproductive decision-making and provide support for couples found to be at risk was emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: Practical challenges in optimizing pre-test education and post-test counseling should not be underestimated and they should be carefully addressed before implementing ECS in the clinical setting.