Role of psychological background in cancer susceptibility genetic testing distress: It is not only about a positive result.

Clinical and familial factors predict psychological distress after genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. However, the contribution of an individual's psychological background to such distress is unclear. This study aims to analyze the psychological impact of genetic testing and to identify the profile of individuals at higher risk. This is a longitudinal multicenter study of individuals undergoing genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Demographic, clinical, genetic, familial, and psychological (personality types, cancer worry) characteristics were assessed by validated questionnaires the day of genetic testing. Distress, uncertainty, and positive experience perception (MICRA scale) were evaluated at the results disclosure visit, and 3 and 12 months afterwards. Multivariate analysis was performed. A total of 714 individuals were included. A high neuroticism score, high baseline cancer worry, and a positive genetic test result were independently associated with higher psychological impact (p-value < 0.05). The highest risk profile (10% of the cohort) included women with high level of neuroticism and a positive result. Uncertainty was mainly associated with a high level of neuroticism, regardless of the genetic test result. A holistic approach to personalized germline genetic counseling should include the assessment of personality dimensions.

Clinical and psychological implications of secondary and incidental findings in cancer susceptibility genes after exome sequencing in patients with rare disorders.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Exome sequencing may identify pathogenic variants unrelated with the purpose of the analysis. We investigated the frequency of secondary and incidental findings (SF/IF) in cancer susceptibility genes (CSG), their clinical actionability and the psychological impact in individuals with an SF/IF (cases) compared with individuals tested due to their cancer history (controls). METHODS: This study analysed 533 exomes ordered for non-cancer conditions. Medical records were reviewed for clinical actionability of SF/IF. Psychological impact was analysed using the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale and compared between cases and controls with a propensity score weighting method. RESULTS: The frequency of SF/IF in CSG was 2.1% (95% CI 1.1% to 3.8%): three BRCA2, three PMS2, two SDHB, and one each in BRCA1, MLH1 and RAD51C. Among the relatives, 18 were carriers. Twenty enrolled for surveillance, and a neoplasm was diagnosed in 20%: three paragangliomas and one breast cancer. Cases presented higher MICRA mean scores than controls (21.3 vs 16.2 in MICRA total score, 6.3 vs 4.2 in the distress subscale, and 8.3 vs 6.6 in the uncertainty subscale; all p<0.001). CONCLUSION: SF/IF in CSG were identified in 2.1% of patients. Despite a numerically higher psychological impact, the identification of SF/IF allowed early detection and cancer prevention in families without cancer history.

Patients' and professionals' perspective of non-in-person visits in hereditary cancer: predictors and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To identify predictors of patient acceptance of non-in-person cancer genetic visits before and after the COVID-19 pandemic and assess the preferences of health-care professionals. METHODS: Prospective multicenter cohort study (N = 578, 1 February 2018-20 April 2019) and recontacted during the COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020. Health-care professionals participated in May 2020. Association of personality traits and clinical factors with acceptance was assessed with multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Before COVID-19, videoconference was more accepted than telephone-based visits (28% vs. 16% pretest, 30% vs. 19% post-test). Predictors for telephone visits were age (pretest, odds ratio [OR] 10-year increment = 0.79; post-test OR 10Y = 0.78); disclosure of panel testing (OR = 0.60), positive results (OR = 0.52), low conscientiousness group (OR = 2.87), and post-test level of uncertainty (OR = 0.93). Predictors for videoconference were age (pretest, OR 10Y = 0.73; post-test, OR 10Y = 0.75), educational level (pretest: OR = 1.61), low neuroticism (pretest, OR = 1.72), and post-test level of uncertainty (OR = 0.96). Patients' reported acceptance for non-in-person visits after COVID-19 increased to 92% for the pretest and 85% for the post-test. Health-care professionals only preferred non-in-person visits for disclosure of negative results (83%). CONCLUSION: These new delivery models need to recognize challenges associated with age and the psychological characteristics of the population and embrace health-care professionals' preferences.