Implementing mainstream genetic counseling within the area-wide network of the German Consortium Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC): Satisfaction of primary care providers with the provided state-of-the-art training by the Cologne Center.

The German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft DKG) has published a position paper to address the challenges of cancer patient care in the era of genomic medicine. The German Consortium Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) has implemented this recommendation in its care concept for families at risk. Core elements are the outcome-oriented evaluation of structured and standardized clinical measures and reporting recommendations derived therefrom to primary care providers and patients. A cross-sector network with certified breast cancer and gynecological cancer centers was founded in 2015, starting from the Cologne Center of the GC-HBOC. To guarantee the knowledge transfer for mainstream genetic counseling, the Cologne center has established an educational program for physicians and specialized nurses in order to pilot trans-sectoral knowledge transfer on risk assessment and risk-stratified care. It consists of face-to-face lectures with written knowledge test, attending a genetic case conference and genetic counseling sessions with the opportunity to counsel under supervision. The lectures were accompanied by a structured evaluation of the participants' satisfaction and feedback of the needs in mainstream genetic counseling. Thereby, the network ensures that genetic counseling and testing is provided according to state-of-the-art knowledge and allows physicians to participate in knowledge-generating care outside the university setting and patients to receive care close to home. After multiple feedback cycles to improve the educational program, the GC-HBOC, in cooperation with the German Cancer Society, has now adopted this concept and developed a common and uniform online curriculum funded by the Federal Ministry of Health. https://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/fortbildung-familiaerer-krebs.html.

Clinical implications of incorporating genetic and non-genetic risk factors in CanRisk-based breast cancer risk prediction.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models consider cancer family history (FH) and germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in risk genes. It remains elusive to what extent complementation with polygenic risk score (PRS) and non-genetic risk factor (NGRFs) data affects individual intensified breast surveillance (IBS) recommendations according to European guidelines. METHODS: For 425 cancer-free women with cancer FH (mean age 40·6 years, range 21-74), recruited in France, Germany and the Netherlands, germline PV status, NGRFs, and a 306 variant-based PRS (PRS306) were assessed to calculate estimated lifetime risks (eLTR) and estimated 10-year risks (e10YR) using CanRisk. The proportions of women changing country-specific European risk categories for IBS recommendations, i.e. ≥20 % and ≥30 % eLTR, or ≥5 % e10YR were determined. FINDINGS: Of the women with non-informative PV status, including PRS306 and NGRFs changed clinical recommendations for 31·0 %, (57/184, 20 % eLTR), 15·8 % (29/184, 30 % eLTR) and 22·4 % (41/183, 5 % e10YR), respectively whereas of the women tested negative for a PV observed in their family, clinical recommendations changed for 16·7 % (25/150), 1·3 % (2/150) and 9·5 % (14/147). No change was observed for 82 women with PVs in high-risk genes (BRCA1/2, PALB2). Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs identified BRCA1/2 PV carriers benefitting from IBS <30 years, and women tested non-informative/negative for whom IBS may be postponed. INTERPRETATION: For women who tested non-informative/negative, PRS and NGRFs have a considerable impact on IBS recommendations. Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs allows personalizing IBS starting age. FUNDING: Horizon 2020, German Cancer Aid, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Köln Fortune.

Psychological distress and decision-making factors for prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in cancer-unaffected BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers.

OBJECTIVE: Women carrying a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant have an increased risk for breast cancer and may opt for risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. In this study, we examine which demographic, psychosocial, and personality factors are associated with their decision to undergo risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. METHODS: Cancer-unaffected women with a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 were recruited before receiving their genetic test result and completed follow-up including decision to undergo mastectomy over 6-8 months after genetic test result disclosure. Anxiety, depression, breast cancer worry, personality and sociodemographic data were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 125 cancer-unaffected women were included in the analysis. Participants were found to have higher anxiety levels than the general female population regardless of mastectomy decision. Breast cancer worry was higher among women who opted for risk-reducing mastectomy and did not decrease over time. By contrast, women who did not opt for surgery experienced decreasing levels of breast cancer worry. Regression analysis found that women with a pathogenic variant in BRCA1, younger women and women with higher breast cancer worry were more likely to opt for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides valuable insights into the factors that influence women with a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant to undergo risk-reducing mastectomy. These findings may be helpful in understanding individual differences in decision-making concerning preventive options and show the need to address negative anticipatory feelings associated with carrying a pathogenic variant in a high breast cancer risk gene in clinical care.

Psychological factors and the uptake of preventative measures in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers: results of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Women carrying BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants are exposed to elevated risks of developing breast cancer (BC) and are faced by a complex decision-making process on preventative measures, i.e., risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM), and intensified breast surveillance (IBS). In this prospective cohort study we investigated the effect of anxiety, personality factors and coping styles on the decision-making process on risk management options in women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2. METHODS: Breast cancer unaffected and affected women with a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene were psychologically evaluated immediately before (T0), 6 to 8 weeks (T1) and 6 to 8 months (T2) after the disclosure of their genetic test results. Uptake of RRM and IBS was assessed at T2. Psychological data were gathered using questionnaires on risk perception, personality factors, coping styles, decisional conflict, depression and anxiety, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). We performed tests on statistical significance and fitted a logistic regression based on significance level. RESULTS: A total of 98 women were included in the analysis. Baseline anxiety levels in women opting for RRM were high but decreased over time, while they increased in women opting for intensified breast surveillance (IBS). Elevated levels of anxiety after genetic test result disclosure (T1) were associated with the decision to undergo RRM (p < 0.01; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.05-1.42), while personal BC history and personality factors seemed to be less relevant. CONCLUSIONS: Considering psychosocial factors influencing the decision-making process of women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 may help improving their genetic and psychological counselling. When opting for IBS they may profit from additional medical and psychological counselling. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered at the German Clinical Trials Register under DRKS00027566 on January 13, 2022.

Genetic clinicians' confidence in BOADICEA comprehensive breast cancer risk estimates and counselees' psychosocial outcomes: A prospective study.

Counseling for familial breast cancer focuses on communicating the gene test result (GENE) to counselees, but risk prediction models have become more complex by including non-genetic risk factors (NGRF) and polygenic risk scores (PRS). We examined genetic clinicians' confidence in counseling and counselees' psychosocial outcomes, using the BOADICEA risk prediction tool with different categories of risk factors as input. A prospective observational study in Dutch, French and German genetic clinics was performed including 22 clinicians, and 406 of 460 (88.3%) eligible cancer-unaffected women at high breast cancer risk assessed at pre-test and 350 (76.1%) at post-test. We performed multilevel analyses accounting for the clinician, and counselees' characteristics. Overall, risk estimates category by GENE versus GENE+ NGRF, or GENE+NGRF+PRS differed in 11% and 25% of counselees, respectively. In multilevel analyses, clinicians felt less confident in counseling when the full model provided lower breast cancer risks than GENE (i.e., in 8% of cases). Older counselees expressed higher breast cancer risk perception and worries about the hereditary predisposition when the full model provided higher breast cancer risks than GENE only. Genetic clinicians appear confident with breast cancer risk comprehensive models, which seem only to affect perceptions of older counselees.

Assessment of psychosocial difficulties by genetic clinicians and distress in women at high risk of breast cancer: a prospective study.

We examined how often genetic clinicians correctly identify psychosocial difficulties in women at high breast cancer risk and explored effects of this assessment and the genetic test result on counselees' distress. A prospective observational study of counselee-clinician dyads was performed in three French, German and Spanish genetic clinics, involving 709 counselees (participation rate, 83.4%) and 31 clinicians (participation rate, 100%). Counselee-clinician agreement in perceived psychosocial difficulties was measured after the pre-test genetic consultation. Multivariate mixed linear models accounting for clinicians were tested. Predicted distress levels were assessed after the pre- (T1) and post-test result disclosure consultations (T2). Depending on the difficulty domain, clinicians adequately assessed the presence or absence of difficulties in 51% ("familial issues") to 59% ("emotions") of counselees. When counselees' and clinicians' perceptions disagreed, difficulties were generally underestimated by clinicians. Counselees' distress levels remained stable from T1 to T2, irrespective of clinicians' appraisal adequacy, and the genetic test result disclosure. Psychological referral need were found in 20-42% of counselees, more frequently observed for difficulties in the "emotions" domain. Our findings suggest that the genetic test result is a suboptimal indicator for psychological referral. Instead, clinicians should focus on emotions expressed by counselees to appraise their needs for psychological support.

Information needs on breast cancer genetic and non-genetic risk factors in relatives of women with a BRCA1/2 or PALB2 pathogenic variant.

OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive breast cancer (BC) risk models integrating effects of genetic (GRF) and non-genetic risk factors (NGRF) may refine BC prevention recommendations. We explored the perceived information received on BC risk factors, and related characteristics, in female relatives of women with a BRCA1/2 or PALB2 pathogenic variant, undergoing BC risk assessment using the CanRisk© prediction tool. METHODS: Of 200 consecutive cancer-free women approached after the initial genetic consultation, 161 (80.5%) filled in questionnaires on their perception of information received and wished further information on BC risk factors (e.g., being a carrier of a moderate risk altered gene, personal genetic profile, lifestyles). Multilevel multivariate linear models were performed accounting for the clinician who met the counselee and exploring the effect of counselees' socio-demographic, familial and psychological characteristics on the perceived extent of information received. RESULTS: Perceived no/little information received and wish for further information were more frequent for NGRF (>50%) than for GRF, especially high-risk genes (<20%). Perceived amount of information received and desire for further information were inversely correlated (p=<0.0001). Higher education level related to lower perceived levels of information received on GRF. Younger counselees' age (ß = 0.13, p = 0.02) and less frequent engagement coping (e.g., inclination to solicit information) (ß = 0.24, p = 0.02) related to lower perceived information received about NGRF. Other assessed counselees' features were not found to be associated to GRF and NGRF information perception. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of counselees' perceived lack of information on BC risk factors indicates a need to enhance evidence-based information on BC NGRF especially.