Breast cancer patient-reported outcome of factors influencing cosmetic satisfaction after breast-conserving therapy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate which factors patients considered to be important for determining the degree of cosmetic satisfaction with regards to perceived body image after previous breast-conserving therapy (BCT). METHODS: Outcomes considered relevant by the patients were first identified using interviews. A questionnaire based on this group input was then devised and added to the physician-based Sneeuw questionnaire. Next, a quantitative study using this questionnaire was conducted in Dutch patients treated at least 6 months earlier for (non-) invasive breast cancer by BCT. Exclusion criteria were: previous mastectomy or BCT of the contralateral breast, BCT with nipple resection, metastatic disease, local recurrence or (previous) plastic breast surgery. Descriptive statistics were used throughout. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients (aged 36-87 years) completed the questionnaire. From this focus group input, the top three factors in overall importance (important or very important) for satisfaction were: 'wearability of bra' (67%), 'breast sensitivity' (59%) and 'asymmetry' (51%). Younger patients (< 55 years) considered 'breast size' to be most important, whereas 'wearability of bra' was most frequently reported by older patients (> 55 years). Time since BCT did not significantly influence the rating of relevant factors. CONCLUSION: Patients consider 'wearability of bra', 'breast sensitivity' and 'asymmetry' as the most important factors when assessing their satisfaction with regards to cosmetic outcome and body image. These factors should be addressed in routine clinical practice during (pre) counseling.

To what extent do decision aids for prenatal screening and diagnosis address involvement of partners in decision-making? - An environmental scan.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous decision aids (DAs) have been developed to inform pregnant people about prenatal screening as the decision whether or not to accept the prenatal screening offer may be difficult. Currently, little is known about the role of the decisional partner of the pregnant people in this decision-making process and to what extent DAs involve and engage the partner. METHODS: A broad search was conducted to identify publicly available DAs in English and/or Dutch regarding prenatal screening and diagnosis. These DAs were analysed on aspects of partner involvement. RESULTS: Ten of the 19 identified DAs (52.6%) contained at least one aspect of partner involvement. Several DAs acknowledged that both partners should be involved in the decision (n = 7). The content that was least likely to contain aspects of partner involvement in the DA was value clarification content (n = 2) and only one DA contained content with plural addressing. CONCLUSION: Just over half of the included DAs included some aspect(s) of partner involvement. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: More research is needed to determine to what extent, and how, the partner should be involved in the decision-making process as expectant people consider the input of their partner as important.

Hereditary diseases and child wish: exploring motives, considerations, and the (joint) decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples.

Couples who are at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to their offspring may face difficult challenges regarding reproductive decision-making. Deciding if, and how, to purse their child wish can be a demanding process. This study aims to describe the reproductive joint decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples. A qualitative study was conducted with 16 couples (N=31) at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to their offspring and who received genetic counseling. Most couples were not aware of all available reproductive options in the Netherlands. A variety of motives was reported with almost all couples expressing a preference towards a reproductive option in which the child is genetically related to both parents. Only a few couples considered other options such as the use of donor gametes, adoption, and foster parenting. All couples indicated that they had multiple conversations to reach a mutually supported reproductive decision. Several carriers reported feelings of guilt and in some couples, the woman appeared to have a greater impact in the decision-making process as she should carry a pregnancy and should undergo medical treatments. This study provides insight in the extensive decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples and the role of both partners in this process. These findings can guide the development of genetic counseling (e.g., increase awareness of available reproductive options) and decision support for these couples.

Motives and considerations regarding PGT in couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality: a qualitative exploration.

PURPOSE: This study aims to describe the motives and considerations of couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality deciding on preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). METHODS: A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured dyadic interviews with 13 couples (N = 26) carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality. All couples had an informative consultation in our PGT centre in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Almost all couples considered PGT or natural conception combined with prenatal diagnosis (PND) as the only two reproductive options. Among several considerations mentioned, the majority indicated that the wish to increase the chance of a successful pregnancy was the most important motive to opt for PGT. All couples who opted for PGT had first tried to conceive spontaneously and entered the PGT programme because of their adverse experiences during these attempts (infertility, recurrent miscarriage, termination of pregnancy, birth of an affected child). Couples that refrained from PGT were of advanced maternal age and expressed the long trajectory of PGT as the main reason to refrain. If conceiving spontaneously would not lead to an ongoing pregnancy, these couples also indicated that they would use PGT. CONCLUSION: This study shows that couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality consider PGT and spontaneous conception with PND as relevant reproductive options. They are looking for the option that is in their opinion the fastest way to establish a successful pregnancy. Information on the perceived pros and cons of PGT or spontaneous conception in these couples can help to optimize counselling and psychological support during the decision-making process.

Support needs of couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer during reproductive decision making.

OBJECTIVE: Reproductive decision making for couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is complex and can result in decisional conflict or regret. This study investigated couples' support needs and aimed to identify vulnerable couples. Ultimately, we should strive to develop a clear standard of care guideline regarding reproductive decision support. METHODS: Mixed methods were used for data collection. A focus group study was conducted among 18 couples (N = 35) with HBOC who had made a reproductive decision after reproductive counselling. Subsequently, 129 similar couples (N = 258) were invited to complete a cross-sectional survey based on the focus group study. RESULTS: Clinical and practical aspects of reproductive counselling were positively evaluated in the focus group study, although couples indicated a need for additional support with emotional and social concerns in which their relationship, social environment, and the way they picture their desired family were key elements. The survey was completed by 86 participants. Making a reproductive choice was experienced as (very) difficult by 43%, and 69% showed a need for additional support during decision making. Younger participants and those who opted for a natural pregnancy experienced more difficulty with reproductive decision making, and partners showed a higher need for psychological support than carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Couples with HBOC who need to make a reproductive decision have specific needs for guidance and support, of which the desired content and methods can vary. It is therefore important to identify vulnerable couples and to attune counselling to couples' needs.

Reproductive Decision Support: Preferences and Needs of Couples at Risk for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Geneticists.

For couples at high risk of transmitting a cancer predisposition to offspring, reproductive decision-making can be challenging. As the choice between available reproductive options is preference-sensitive, the use of a decision aid can support these couples in their decisional process. The present study aims to investigate preferences and needs of involved stakeholders regarding the development and implementation of a patient decision aid. Semi-structured interviews assessing the needs and preferences regarding the content and functionalities of a decision support program were conducted among seven couples at risk for hereditary cancer and among eight clinical geneticists involved in oncogenetic counseling. Many similarities were found between the expressed preferences and needs of both stakeholder groups concerning the content, barriers and facilitating factors regarding the use of the decision aid, and its implementation. Emphasis was placed on the use of simple non-medical language, an extensive explanation of the procedures and techniques used in prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and the role of health care providers to refer couples to the decision aid. Both stakeholder groups were in favor of incorporating narrative stories in the decision aid. Integrating the present findings with knowledge on reproductive decisional motives and considerations is essential in guiding the development of a decision aid that corresponds to the preferences and needs of end-users. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR5467.

Professionals' knowledge, attitude and referral behaviour of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer caused by a BRCA1/2 mutation is the most frequent indication for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in the Netherlands. The extent to which involved professionals are informed about this option, however, is unclear. The few available international studies mostly represent a limited range of professionals, and suggest that their knowledge about PGD for hereditary cancer syndromes is sparse and referral for PGD is based on limited understanding. A cross-sectional survey assessing awareness, knowledge, acceptability and PGD-referral for BRCA was completed by 188 professionals involved in the field of breast and ovarian cancer or reproduction. One-half of professionals were aware of PGD for BRCA, and most had a low to moderate level of knowledge. A total of 86% considered PGD for BRCA acceptable and 48% had referred patients with BRCA for PGD. Awareness and knowledge was higher among professionals who worked at a university hospital (compared with a general hospital). Knowledge of PGD was positively associated with discussing and referring for PGD, and PGD acceptability was associated with previous awareness. Although PGD counselling is the primary responsibility of the geneticist, other involved professionals may be gatekeepers as patients rely on them for raising awareness and referral.

Awareness and attitude regarding reproductive options of persons carrying a BRCA mutation and their partners.

STUDY QUESTION: To what extent are BRCA mutation carriers and their partners in the Netherlands aware about preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and prenatal diagnosis (PND) as reproductive options and what is their attitude towards these options? SUMMARY ANSWER: Awareness of PGD (66%) and PND (61%) among BRCA mutation carriers and their partners is relatively high and 80% and 26%, respectively, of BRCA carriers and their partners find offering PGD and PND for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) acceptable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Internationally, awareness of PGD among persons with a genetic cancer predisposition appears to be relatively low (35%) and although acceptability is generally high (71%), only a small proportion of mutation carriers would consider using PGD (36%). However, for HBOC, there are no studies available that investigated the perspective of individuals with a confirmed BRCA1/2 mutation and their partners about PGD and PND including demographic and medical correlates of awareness and acceptability. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional survey was completed by 191 participants between July 2012 and June 2013. Participants were recruited through patient organizations (88%) and the databases of two Clinical Genetics departments in the Netherlands (12%). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Male and female BRCA carriers and their partners completed an online survey, which assessed demographic and medical characteristics, and awareness, knowledge, acceptability and consideration of PGD and PND as main outcomes. Correlations between demographic and medical characteristics and the main outcomes were investigated. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: The majority of respondents were female (87%), of reproductive age (86%) and about half reported a desire for a child in the future. About two-thirds (66%) were aware of PGD and 61% of PND for HBOC. PGD knowledge was moderate (5.5 on a 9-point scale) and acceptability of PGD and PND for HBOC was 80% and 26%, respectively. A minority would personally consider using PGD (39%) or PND (20%). Individuals with a higher educational level were more likely to be aware of PGD (P < 0.001) and PND (P < 0.001) and persons with a more immediate child wish were more often aware of PGD (P = 0.044) and had more knowledge about PGD (P = 0.001). PGD acceptability was positively associated with knowledge about PGD (P = 0.047), and PND acceptability was higher among partners in comparison to carriers (P = 0.001). Participants with a history of cancer and with a higher perceived seriousness of breast and ovarian cancer were more likely to consider using PGD (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001 respectively) or PND (P = 0.021 and P = 0.017 respectively). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The response rate (23%) of participants invited by the clinical genetics departments was low, probably related to a simultaneous study that used a similar recruitment strategy within the same target group, which may have resulted in selection bias. Moreover, PGD knowledge was measured with an instrument that is not yet validated since to date such an instrument is not available in the literature. Finally, the cross-sectional design of this study limits us from drawing any causal conclusions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Improvement of information provision remains needed, in order to timely inform all couples with HBOC about the available reproductive options and enable them to make a balanced reproductive decision. This may limit the risk of negative psychological impact due to decisional conflict and possible regret. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Dutch breast cancer foundation Stichting Pink Ribbon (grant number 2010.PS11.C74). None of the authors have competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Decision-making on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and prenatal diagnosis: a challenge for couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

STUDY QUESTION: How do couples with a BRCA1/2 mutation decide on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and prenatal diagnosis (PND) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC)? SUMMARY ANSWER: BRCA couples primarily classify PGD and/or PND as reproductive options based on the perceived severity of HBOC and moral considerations, and consequently weigh the few important advantages of PGD against numerous smaller disadvantages. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Awareness of PGD is generally low among persons at high risk for hereditary cancers. Most persons with HBOC are in favour of offering PGD for BRCA1/2 mutations, although only a minority would consider this option for themselves. Studies exploring the motivations for using or refraining from PGD among well-informed BRCA carriers of reproductive age are lacking. We studied the reproductive decision-making process by interviewing a group of well-informed, reproductive aged couples carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, regarding their decisional motives and considerations. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This exploratory, qualitative study investigated the motives and considerations taken into account by couples with a BRCA1/2 mutation and who have received extensive counselling on PGD and PND and have made a well-informed decision regarding this option. Eighteen couples took part in focus group and dyadic interviews between January and September 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Semi-structured focus groups were conducted containing two to four couples, assembled based on the reproductive method the couple had chosen: PGD (n = 6 couples) or conception without testing (n = 8 couples). Couples who had chosen PND for BRCA (n = 4) were interviewed dyadically. Two of the women, of whom one had chosen PND and the other had chosen no testing, had a history of breast cancer. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: None of the couples who opted for PGD or conception without testing found the use of PND, with possible pregnancy termination, acceptable. PND users chose this method because of decisive, mainly practical reasons (natural conception, high chance of favourable outcome). Motives and considerations regarding PGD largely overlapped between PGD users, PND users and non-users, all mentioning some significant advantages (e.g. protecting the child and family from the mutation) and many smaller disadvantages (e.g. the necessity of in vitro fertilization (IVF), low chance of pregnancy by IVF/PGD). For female carriers, the safety of hormonal stimulation and the time required for PGD before undergoing preventive surgeries were important factors in the decision. Non-users expressed doubts about the moral justness of their decision afterwards and emphasized the impact the decision still had on their lives. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: The interviewed couples were at different stages in their chosen trajectory, up to 3 years after completion. This may have led to recall bias of original motives and considerations. Couples who did not actively seek information about PGD were excluded. Therefore the results may not be readily generalizable to all BRCA couples. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The perceived severity of HBOC and, for female carriers, the safety of hormonal stimulation and the time frames for PGD planning before preventive surgeries are essential items BRCA couples consider in reproductive decision-making. The emotional impact of this decision should not be underestimated; especially non-users may experience feelings of doubt or guilt up to several years afterwards. PGD counselling with tailored information addressing these items and decisional support in order to guarantee well-informed decision-making is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by the Dutch breast cancer foundation Stichting Pink Ribbon, grant number 2010.PS11.C74. None of the authors have competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.