Experience with a nurse-driven genetic counseling pathway of Italian women with uninformative BRCA test result.

Several models of genetic counseling have been proposed to tackle the increasing volume of individuals requiring access to BRCA testing. Few data are available on patient experience and retention of information with nurse-driven genetic counseling. We evaluated the experience and retention of information in women with an uninformative BRCA test result and who were not considered at high risk due to their personal/family history of cancer who underwent geneticist-supervised nurse-driven genetic counseling and who received their test result by phone. Women who received an uninformative BRCA test result between May 2017 and September 2019 were administered a questionnaire exploring experience with genetic counseling and retention of information provided. Of 366 eligible women, 299 (273 breast cancer patients and 26 women without breast cancer) completed the interview. Overall, 280 women (93.6%) positively valued their experience with genetic counseling and 287 (96.0%) considered it helpful with 57.5% of them feeling reassured for themselves and their family. Information on the clinical implications of the test result was correctly retained and women acted accordingly. Overall, 252 women (87.8%) accurately reported their test result as normal/negative. Only 67 (22.4%) recognized that despite a normal BRCA test result, a low probability of a hereditary syndrome remains. Most women showed a poor ability to estimate cancer risk in BRCA mutation carriers and in the general population. Geneticist-supervised nurse-driven genetic counseling process for women with uninformative BRCA test result is associated with a positive patient experience and an adequate retention of information concerning the management of their personal and familial cancer risk. The design and implementation of nurse-driven genetic counseling models may contribute to efficient and timely access to BRCA genetic testing.

Preferences of Italian patients for return of secondary findings from clinical genome/exome sequencing.

Exome/genome sequencing (ES/GS) is increasingly becoming routine in clinical genetic diagnosis, yet issues regarding how to disclose and manage secondary findings (SFs) remain to be addressed, and limited evidence is available on patients' preferences. We carried out semi-structured interviews with 307 individuals undergoing clinical genetic testing to explore their preferences for return of SFs in the hypothetical scenario that their test would be performed using ES/GS. Participants were 254 females (82.7%) and 53 males (17.3%), aged 18-86 years; 73.9% (81.1% of those with lower education levels) reported no prior knowledge of ES/GS. Prior knowledge of ES/GS was more common among patients tested for Mendelian conditions (34.5%), compared to those undergoing cancer genetic testing (22.3%) or carrier screening (7.4%). Despite this reported lack of knowledge, most participants (213, 69.6%) stated they would prefer to be informed of all possible results. Reasons in favor of disclosure included wanting to be aware of any risks (168; 83.6%) and to help relatives (23; 11.4%), but also hope that preventive measures might become available in the future (10, 5%). Conversely, potential negative impact on quality of life was the commonest motivation against disclosure. Among 179 participants seen for cancer genetic counseling who were interviewed again after test disclosure, 81.9% had not heard about ES/GS in the meantime; however, the proportion of participants opting for disclosure of any variants was lower (116; 64.8%), with 36 (20.1%) changing opinion compared to the first interview. Based on these findings, we conclude that genetic counseling for ES/GS should involve enhanced education and decision-making support to enable informed consent to SFs disclosure.

Large scale multifactorial likelihood quantitative analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants: An ENIGMA resource to support clinical variant classification.

The multifactorial likelihood analysis method has demonstrated utility for quantitative assessment of variant pathogenicity for multiple cancer syndrome genes. Independent data types currently incorporated in the model for assessing BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants include clinically calibrated prior probability of pathogenicity based on variant location and bioinformatic prediction of variant effect, co-segregation, family cancer history profile, co-occurrence with a pathogenic variant in the same gene, breast tumor pathology, and case-control information. Research and clinical data for multifactorial likelihood analysis were collated for 1,395 BRCA1/2 predominantly intronic and missense variants, enabling classification based on posterior probability of pathogenicity for 734 variants: 447 variants were classified as (likely) benign, and 94 as (likely) pathogenic; and 248 classifications were new or considerably altered relative to ClinVar submissions. Classifications were compared with information not yet included in the likelihood model, and evidence strengths aligned to those recommended for ACMG/AMP classification codes. Altered mRNA splicing or function relative to known nonpathogenic variant controls were moderately to strongly predictive of variant pathogenicity. Variant absence in population datasets provided supporting evidence for variant pathogenicity. These findings have direct relevance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant evaluation, and justify the need for gene-specific calibration of evidence types used for variant classification.

Identification of women at risk of hereditary breast-ovarian cancer among participants in a population-based breast cancer screening.

Women attending mammography screening may benefit from family history (FH) assessment for the identification of Hereditary Breast Ovarian Cancer (HBOC). Few studies explored the efficacy of tailored educational interventions in driving the attention on FH-associated risk among these women. To compare the efficacy of two educational tools in increasing attention towards FH, 6.802 women with a negative mammography were randomized to receive a note on FH of breast/ovarian cancer (letter A, n = 3.402) or a note with details on possible implication of FH patterns (letter B, n = 3.200). Upon women's request, a brief questionnaire was administered on phone at the Screening Unit (S.U.) to select those eligible for an in-depth FH evaluation at the Genetic Unit (G.U.). Each affected relative was scored 1-3 according to type of cancer, age at diagnosis, gender, position in the family tree. In all, 401 women contacted the S.U.: 244 (6.6%) in group A and 177 (5.2%) in group B (adjOR 1.27; 95%CI 1.03-1.56). FH scored ≥ 3 for 164 women: 177 (47.5%) in group B and 224 (35.7%) in group A, (adjOR 1.59, 95%CI 1.06-2.38). The G.U. traced and interviewed 148 women, 65 (43.9%) were offered an in-person consultation: 38 attended and 30 were eligible for testing. A test was performed for 24 women: no BRCA pathogenic variant was found. Among mammographic screening attendees, educational material with a simple description of FH may improve self-referral of women deserving an in-depth evaluation for HBOC identification. Additional educational efforts are needed to enhance the efficiency of the intervention.

Intrafamilial communication of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic information in Italian women: towards a personalised approach.

Genomic testing expansion is accompanied by an increasing need for genetic counselling and intrafamilial communication. Genetic counselling can play an important role in facilitating intrafamilial communication and relationships. We conducted a cross-sectional, multicenter study including 252 Italian women, using a questionnaire divided in two sections, the first one to be filled after the pre-test counselling and the second after receiving BRCA test results. We assessed the factors influencing intrafamilial disclosure of genetic information for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, family members with whom probands are more prone to share genetic information, and the perceived understanding of information received by counselees during genetic counselling. Women were accompanied to the counselling more often by their husband/partner. Among those with a positive BRCA test result, 49% intended to communicate it to their offspring and 27% to their husband/partner. Younger women, those living with their husband/partner, and those who described family communication as open/profound and spontaneous/sincere had a higher probability of being accompanied during genetic counselling and discuss about it with relatives. Spontaneous/sincere or open/profound family communication and joyful/happy familial relationships were associated with the decision to undergo genetic testing as a responsibility towards relatives. Women had a good understanding of counselling contents (mean score 9.27 in a scale 1-10). Genetic counselling providers should consider that genetic information disclosure does not depend only on the clarity of the information provided, but also on pre-existing intrafamilial communication and relationships, family structure and marital status, indicating the need for a personalised approach accounting for these factors.