Effects of diet education on empowerment for individuals who have an increased risk of developing breast or colon cancer: A pilot study.

Strong evidence indicates following a healthy diet reduces cancer risk; however, the impact of diet education on empowerment on individuals with an increased cancer risk has not been evaluated. Study participants included patients who had met with a cancer genetic counselor without a history of cancer. Participants received pre- and post-diet education surveys including questions to measure empowerment and feedback for diet education in relation to cancer risk. Empowerment was measured using a ten-question survey adapted from the Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale. The diet education intervention consisted of viewing an infographic created for this study based on recommendations for diets that reduce cancer risk by the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research. Twenty-eight participants completed both surveys and reviewed the diet education intervention. There was no change in empowerment between pre- and post- diet education (mean change = -0.5; p = 0.49). Participants previously learned about the relationship between a healthy diet and cancer risk reduction from several sources including family and friends (25.0%), online (25.0%), and primary care providers (25.0%). Most participants preferred diet education to be delivered online (42.9%), followed by on paper (39.3%), and in-person delivery (17.9%). This pilot study promotes further investigation on the impact of diet or lifestyle education on individuals who have a predisposition to developing cancer. While the results demonstrated no change in empowerment because of diet education, the results established a desire for learning about a healthy diet related to cancer risk and preferences for the modes of delivering education.

Complete Pathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy and Oxaliplatin-Induced Fever Associated With IL-6 Release in a Patient With Locally Advanced Colon Cancer

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is a preferred treatment approach for a number of tumor types due to many potential advantages over upfront surgery, including tumor downstaging, early treatment of micrometastatic disease, and providing an in vivo test of tumor biology. For colon cancer, current standard of care is upfront surgery followed by adjuvant systemic therapy in high-risk patients. Concerns about inaccurate radiological staging and tumor progression during preoperative treatment, as well the lack of randomized data demonstrating benefit, are among the reasons for the limited use of neoadjuvant therapy in this disease. Locally advanced colon cancer, defined as primary colon cancer with direct invasion into the adjacent structures or extensive regional lymph node involvement, is not always amenable to pathological complete resection, and when attempted it comes with high incidence of postoperative morbidity and mortality because of the required multivisceral resection. Clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer to date have been promising with downstaging of disease and higher rates of R0 resection. Here, we report a case of a patient with locally advanced, unresectable, mismatch repair deficient sigmoid colon cancer who was treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy followed by surgical resection leading to a complete pathologic response after preoperative systemic chemoimmunotherapy.

A 64-Year-Old Man With Germline BRCA2-Mutated Breast Cancer: Known and Unknown Aspects of Male Breast Cancer.

Male breast cancer is a rather uncommon and understudied disease. It accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but in recent decades its frequency has been on the rise. Clinical trials of breast cancer have traditionally excluded men. Due to the lack of large-scale prospective studies, most published data come from single-institution, small-cohort studies, and treatment recommendations are based on the extrapolation of data from clinical trials enrolling only women. Although to some extent etiology, diagnosis, and treatment characteristics can be similar, male breast cancer exhibits some distinct features. Men tend to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an older age and at a more advanced stage. A better understanding of the biologic features, clinically relevant differences, effective treatments, and outcomes of male breast cancer is crucial to appropriately manage these patients. We present a male breast cancer case with a germline BRCA2 mutation and discuss the epidemiologic, pathologic, and clinical characteristics along with treatment and follow-up recommendations in view of our recent understanding of this disease.

Identification of genetic counseling service delivery models in practice: a report from the NSGC Service Delivery Model Task Force.

Increasing demand for genetic services has resulted in the need to evaluate current service delivery models (SDMs) and consider approaches that improve access to and efficiency of genetic counseling (GC). This study aimed to describe SDMs currently used by the GC community. The NSGC membership was surveyed regarding the use of four SDMs: in-person GC, telephone GC, group GC, and telegenetics GC. Variables related to access and components of use were also surveyed, including: appointment availability, time-per-patient, number of patients seen, billing, and geographic accessiblity. Seven hundred one usable responses were received. Of these, 54.7 % reported using an in-person SDM exclusively. The remainder (45.3 %) reported using multiple SDMs. Telephone, group and telegenetics GC were used often or always by 8.0 %, 3.2 % and 2.2 % of respondents, respectively. Those using an in-person SDM reported the ability to see the highest number of patients per week (p < 0.0001) and were the most likely to bill in some manner (p < 0.0001). Those using telegenetic and telephone GC served patients who lived the furthest away, with 48.3 % and 35.8 %% respectively providing GC to patients who live >4 h away. This study shows that genetic counselors are incorporating SDMs other than traditional in-person genetic counseling, and are utilizing more than one model. These adaptations show a trend toward shorter wait time and shorter length of appointments. Further study is indicated to analyze benefits and limitations of each individual model and factors influencing the choice to adopt particular models into practice.

Report from the National Society of Genetic Counselors service delivery model task force: a proposal to define models, components, and modes of referral.

The Service Delivery Model Task Force (SDMTF) was appointed in 2009 by the leadership of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) with a charge to research and assess the capacity of all existing service delivery models to improve access to genetic counseling services in the context of increasing demand for genetic testing and counseling. In approaching this charge, the SDMTF found that there were varying interpretations of what was meant by "service delivery models" and the group held extensive discussions about current practices to arrive at consensus of proposed definitions for current genetic service delivery models, modes of referral and components of service delivery. The major goal of these proposed definitions is to allow for conversations to begin to address the charge to the committee. We propose that current models of service delivery can be defined by: 1) the methods in which genetic counseling services are delivered (In-person, Telephone, Group and Telegenetics), 2) the way they are accessed by patients (Traditional referral, Tandem, Triage, Rescue and Self-referral) and 3) the variable components that depend upon multiple factors unique to each service setting. This report by the SDMTF provides a starting point whereby standardized terminology can be used in future studies that assess the effectiveness of these described models to overcome barriers to access to genetic counseling services.

Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Updated from their original publication in 2004, these cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of counseling at-risk individuals through genetic cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provide information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Essential components include the intake, cancer risk assessment, genetic testing for an inherited cancer syndrome, informed consent, disclosure of genetic test results, and psychosocial assessment. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.

Genetic counseling practice analysis.

The American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) performed a genetic counseling practice analysis (PA) to determine the content of the certification examination. The ABGC-appointed PA Advisory Committee worked with psychometricians to develop a survey which was distributed to 2,038 genetic counselors in the United States and Canada. The survey was also accessible on the ABGC website. Multiple criteria were used to establish the significance of the tasks included in the survey. A total of 677 responses were used in the analysis, representing a 37.1% corrected response rate. Five major content domains with 143 tasks were identified in the PA. New certification test specifications were developed on the basis of PA results and will be used in developing future examination forms. In keeping with credentialing standards, ABGC plans to conduct a PA on a regular basis so that the content of the examination reflects current practice.

The tumor spectrum in the Lynch syndrome.

Colorectal and endometrial cancer are the characteristic tumors of the Lynch syndrome. We reviewed the available evidence on the occurrence of other types of cancer in the syndrome, aiming to identify those types that can be included in the tumor spectrum, based on this evidence. We chose to define the tumor spectrum as comprising the cancers for which Lynch syndrome patients are at elevated risk. We found sufficiently strong and consistent evidence to include gastric cancer, small bowel cancer, hepatobiliary tract cancer, upper urologic tract cancer, ovarian cancer, and brain tumors in this spectrum, in addition to colorectal and endometrial cancer. We predict that the spectrum will expand as additional studies are reported, especially as prospective studies of mutation carriers are completed.

Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC) and HNPCC-like families: Problems in diagnosis, surveillance, and management.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC) is the most commonly occurring hereditary disorder that predisposes to colorectal carcinoma (CRC), accounting for approximately 2-7% of all CRC cases diagnosed in the U.S each year. Its diagnosis is wholly dependent on a meticulously obtained family history of cancer of all anatomic sites, with particular attention to the pattern of cancer distribution within the family. METHODS: The objective of the current study was to illustrate various vexing problems that can deter the diagnosis of HNPCC and, ultimately, its management. This was an observational cohort study. Sixteen HNPCC and HNPCC-like families were selected from a large resource of highly extended HNPCC families. High-risk patients were selected from these HNPCC families. An ascertainment bias was imposed by the lack of a population-based data set. Personal interviews and questionnaires were used for data collection. RESULTS: There was an array of difficulties highlighted by limitations in compliance, lack of a clinical or molecular basis for an HNPCC diagnosis, ambiguous DNA findings, problems in genetic counseling, failure to meet Amsterdam or Bethesda criteria, small families, lack of medical and pathologic documentation, poor cooperation of family members and/or their physicians, cultural barriers, economic stress, frequent patient fear and anxiety, perception of insurance discrimination, and limited patient and/or physician knowledge regarding hereditary cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis and management of HNPCC is predicated on physician knowledge of its phenotypic and genotypic heterogeneity, in concert with the multifaceted problems that impact on patient compliance.

Hereditary breast-ovarian cancer at the bedside: role of the medical oncologist.

PURPOSE: To provide practical considerations for diagnosing, counseling, and managing patients at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. DESIGN: We have studied 98 extended hereditary breast cancer (HBC)/hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) families with BRCA1/2 germline mutations. From these families, 1,315 individuals were counseled and sampled for DNA testing. Herein, 716 of these individuals received their DNA test results in concert with genetic counseling. Several challenging pedigrees were selected from Creighton University's hereditary cancer family registry, as well as one family from Evanston/Northwestern Healthcare, to be discussed in this present report. RESULTS: Many obstacles were identified in diagnosis, counseling, and managing patients at high risk for HBC/HBOC. These obstacles were early noncancer death of key relatives, perception of insurance or employment discrimination, fear, anxiety, apprehension, reduced gene penetrance, and poor compliance. Other important issues such as physician culpability and malpractice implications for failure to collect or act on the cancer family history were identified. CONCLUSION: When clinical gene testing emerged for BRCA1 and BRCA2, little was known about the efficacy of medical interventions. Potential barriers to uptake of testing were largely unexplored. Identification and referral of high-risk patients and families to genetic counseling can greatly enhance the care of the population at the highest risk for cancer. However, because premonitory physical stigmata are absent in most of these syndromes, an HBOC diagnosis may be missed unless a careful family history of cancer of the breast, ovary, or several integrally associated cancers is obtained.