Racial disparities in cancer genetic counseling encounters: study protocol for investigating patient-genetic counselor communication in the naturalistic clinical setting using a convergent mixed methods design.

BACKGROUND: Despite decades of effort to reduce racial cancer disparities, Black people continue to die at higher rates from cancer than any other U.S. racial group. Because prevention is a key to the cost-effective and long-term control of cancer, the potential for cancer genetic counseling to play a central role in reducing racial cancer disparities is high. However, the benefits of genetic counseling are not equitable across race. Only 2% of genetic counselors self-identify as Black/African American, so most genetic counseling encounters with Black patients are racially discordant. Patients in racially discordant medical interactions tend to have poorer quality patient-provider communication and receive suboptimal clinical recommendations. One major factor that contributes to these healthcare disparities is racial bias. Drawing on findings from prior research, we hypothesize that genetic counselor providers' implicit racial prejudice will be associated negatively with the quality of patient-provider communication, while providers' explicit negative racial stereotypes will be associated negatively with the comprehensiveness of clinical discussions of cancer risk and genetic testing for Black (vs. White) patients. METHODS: Using a convergent mixed methods research design, we will collect data from at least 15 genetic counseling providers, from two different institutions, and their 220 patients (approximately equal number of Black and White patients per provider) whose appointments are for a hereditary cancer condition. The data sources will include two provider surveys, two patient surveys, video- and/or audio-recordings of genetic counseling encounters, and medical chart reviews. The recorded cancer genetic counseling in-person and telehealth encounters will be analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively to assess the quality of patient-provider communication and the comprehensiveness of clinical discussion. Those data will be linked to pre- and post-encounter survey data and data from medical chart reviews to test our hypotheses. DISCUSSION: Findings from this multi-site study will highlight specific aspects of cancer genetic counseling encounters (patient-provider communication and clinical recommendations) that are directly associated with patient-centered outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, trust, genetic testing completion). Patient-provider communication and clinical recommendations are modifiable factors that can be integrated into current genetic counseling training curricula and thus can have immediate impact on genetic counseling training and practice.

Germline heterozygous exons 8-11 pathogenic BARD1 gene deletion reported for the first time in a family with suspicion of a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome: more than an incidental finding?

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a highly prevalent disease in developed countries. Inherited Mendelian causes account for approximately 5% of CRC cases, with Lynch syndrome and familial adenomatous polyposis being the most prevalent forms. Scientific efforts are focused on the discovery of new candidate genes associated with CRC and new associations of phenotypes with well-established cancer-related genes. BRCA1-associated ring domain (BARD1) gene deleterious germline variants are associated with a moderate increase in the relative risk of breast cancer, but their association with other neoplasms, such as CRC, remains unclear. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a 49-year-old male diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma whose maternal family fulfilled Amsterdam clinical criteria for Lynch syndrome. Genetic test confirmed the presence in heterozygosis of a germline pathogenic deletion of exons 8-11 in BARD1 gene. The predictive genetic study of the family revealed the presence of this pathogenic variant in his deceased cancer affected relatives, confirming co-segregation of the deletion with the disease. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first published work in which this BARD1 deletion is detected in a family with familial colorectal cancer type X (FCCTX) syndrome, in which the clinical criteria for Lynch syndrome without alteration of the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) system are fulfilled. Whether this incidental germline finding is the cause of familial colorectal aggregation remains to be elucidated in scientific forums. Patients should be carefully assessed in specific cancer genetic counseling units to account for hypothetical casual findings in other genes, in principle unrelated to the initial clinical suspicion, but with potential impact on their health.

Informing models of cancer genetics care in the era of multigene panel testing with patient-led recommendations.

The study describes patient-reported experiences and recommendations to improve the genetic counseling and multigene panel testing (MGPT) process. A descriptive mixed-method study with concurrently collected and integrated qualitative and quantitative data was conducted. Eligible participants were English-speaking adults with a breast or gynecologic cancer diagnosis who had received genetic counseling and testing with a MGPT from one Comprehensive Cancer Center. Satisfaction with the genetic counseling, genetic knowledge using a recently validated scale (KnowGene), the multidimensional impact of cancer risk assessment (MICRA), family communication, and the association with demographic factors were evaluated. To supplement the large quantitative data set, qualitative focus group responses and open-ended text items were collected. Univariate and multivariable associations between each outcome of interest and personal characteristics were assessed. Qualitative data were content-analyzed. 603 participants completed the survey (48% response rate) and 10 individuals participated in the focus groups. Participants were mostly Caucasian, educated with a college degree or more, and female with median age 58 (24-91), and 78% of participants had a breast cancer diagnosis. Of all individuals undergoing genetic testing using a MGPT, 13% had a pathogenic variant identified, and 30% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Overall, participants reported satisfaction with the genetic counseling and testing process (mean 36.9 [SD 4.7]). On average, participants had 7 incorrect answers out of 19 on the genetic knowledge scale (mean 12.3 [SD 3.4]). MICRA scores showed overall low levels of distress and uncertainty, as well as positive experiences, with wide variability (median 17 [0-84]). Age, marital status, education level, type of cancer diagnosis, and genetic testing results were significantly associated with outcomes. Most participants communicated genetic testing results to mainly female first-degree relatives. A wide range of individual preferences affecting overall satisfaction, or suggestions for improvement were shared. As new models of streamlined cancer genetic services are being clinically implemented, approaches should continue to assess and tailor the process based on patients' informational and emotional needs.

A thematic analysis of health information technology use among cancer genetic counselors.

As precision medicine becomes a mainstay in health care, the use of health information technology (IT) platforms will play an important role in the delivery of services across the cancer care continuum. Currently, there is both limited understanding about perceptions of health IT tools and barriers to their use among cancer genetic counselors. We assessed open-ended responses from a survey conducted among 128 board-certified cancer genetic counselors in the United States. We evaluated the utility of ten health IT tools and perceived barriers to adoption. Responses about characteristics of health IT tools that influence current use (i.e., technology-specific challenges) were deductively analyzed using the diffusion of innovations (DOI) characteristics. Responses about cancer genetic counselors' perceived challenges to adopting health IT tools (i.e., discipline-specific challenges) were inductively coded using a thematic approach. DOI innovation characteristics included mixed perceptions about the relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, trialability, and observability of tools based on the type of tool and perceived end-user. One-third of participants indicated that they were considering adopting or switching health IT tools. Common barriers to adoption included no perceived need for change, lack of organizational infrastructure, cost, and lack of decision-making power. Our findings indicate that addressing barriers to use and adoption of health IT may allow for expansion of these tools among cancer genetic counselors. Integrating health IT is critical for enhancing cancer genetic counselors' capacity to address patient needs and realizing the potential of precision medicine.

Effects of monitoring versus blunting on the public's preferences for information in a hypothetical cancer diagnosis scenario.

Monitoring and blunting are coping styles that characterize how people respond when faced with personally threatening situations. High monitors tend to pay more attention to, scan for, and amplify threatening cues; high blunters tend to avoid information and seek distractions when faced with a threatening event. This study sought to investigate possible differential effects of monitoring and blunting coping styles on information preferences in a hypothetical cancer diagnosis scenario in the adult general public of Minnesota. In a survey administered at a large public venue (2016 Minnesota State Fair), participants were asked to imagine they carried a gene mutation and were diagnosed with colon cancer. They indicated their information preference [modified Cassileth Information Styles Questionnaire (MCISQ)], completed two coping style measures [Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS) and Threatening Medical Situations Inventory (TMSI)], rated their perceived severity of colon cancer (low, moderate, high), and answered demographic questions. Eight hundred fifty-five individuals provided usable data. Participants classified as monitors on the TMSI had significantly higher MCISQ scores (i.e., preferred more information) than those classified as blunters (p = .004). Those scoring high on monitoring and low on blunting on the MBSS preferred significantly more information than those scoring high on both monitoring and blunting (p = .04). Linear regression analysis revealed being a monitor (TMSI), scoring high on monitoring (MBSS), rating colon cancer as more severe, and having a higher education level were significant positive predictors of MCISQ scores. Results suggest individual differences in coping style, perceived severity, and education level affect desire for information. Genetic counselors should consider these patient characteristics (e.g., asking patients about their information preferences) and tailor their approaches accordingly.

Positive impact of genetic counseling assistants on genetic counseling efficiency, patient volume, and cost in a cancer genetics clinic.

PURPOSE: Cancer genetics clinics have seen increasing demand, challenging genetic counselors (GCs) to increase efficiency and prompting some clinics to implement genetic counseling assistants (GCAs). To evaluate the impact of GCAs on Geisinger's cancer genetics clinic, we tracked GC time utilization, new patient volume, and clinic cost per patient before and after implementing a GCA program. METHODS: GCs used time-tracking software while completing preappointment activities. Electronic health records were reviewed for appointment length and number of patients per week. Internal salary data for GCs and GCAs were used to calculate clinic costs per patient. RESULTS: Time spent by GCs completing each preappointment activity (21.8 vs. 15.1 minutes) and appointment length (51.6 vs. 44.5 minutes) significantly decreased after GCA program implementation (p values < 0.001). New patients per week per GC significantly increased (7.9 vs. 11.4, p < 0.001). Weekly clinic cost per patient significantly decreased ($233 vs. $176, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Implementing a GCA program increased GC efficiency in preappointment activities and clinic appointments, increased patient volume, and decreased clinic cost per patient. Such a program can improve access to GC services and assist GCs in focusing on the direct patient care for which they are specially trained.

Exploring the barriers preventing Indigenous Australians from accessing cancer genetic counseling.

In Australia, individuals of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent (Indigenous Australians) have poorer health outcomes than the general population, including higher incidence of cancer and reduced life expectancy up to 14 years compared to non-Indigenous Australians. Although differences in engagement with healthcare and beliefs about disease/cancer exist between Indigenous communities, a number of common barriers have been identified hindering attendance at mainstream health services. To inform exploration of barriers that may impact access to a cancer genetic counseling service, consultations with Aboriginal stakeholders were undertaken. Ethical principles for studies that engage Indigenous communities were followed throughout the research endeavor. Using a stakeholder-endorsed focus group approach, the views of an Aboriginal Elders group (n = 9) were sought with additional semi-structured interviews with social science and genetics researchers working with Indigenous communities in Australia (n = 7). Thematic analysis of the results identified three themes: explanatory models of illness, barriers to keeping well and attending services, and recommendations for improvements to access/attendance. Barriers common to accessing both mainstream health services and clinical genetic services were identified, including attributions of illness and cancer. Specific genetic counseling barriers included the cultural inclusivity and accessibility of services, and a lack of awareness of genetic counseling both in the community and by clinicians unfamiliar with genetics. Recommendations included developing flexible service delivery models and culturally appropriate resources for Indigenous patients. These findings may inform future studies to improve Indigenous health outcomes and promote a more accessible, culturally appropriate approach to provision of cancer genetics services for Australia's First Peoples.

Germline c.1A>C heterozygous pathogenic variant in SDHA reported for the first time in a young adult with a gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST): a case report.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) represent the most frequent mesenchymal tumor of the gastrointestinal tract. Less than 5% of them seem to be hereditary, being succinate dehydrogenase complex (SDHx) deficient disorders and neurofibromatosis type 1 the more related inherited conditions. Wild type (WT) KIT and PDGFRα GISTs constitute a clue for a hypothetical underlying germline condition. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of a 20 years old female diagnosed of a gastric WT GIST who developed hepatic metastases during her clinical course. No significant or typical phenotypic features suggestive of a specific syndrome were detected by physical examination. Also, her family history seemed to be irrelevant, since no other cases of GISTs, paragangliomas or pheochromocytomas were reported. Her paternal grandfather died as a consequence of a pituitary adenoma. In light of the age of tumor presentation and somatic features of gastric GIST, we performed genetic testing of SDHx genes. Analysis obtained from peripheral blood sample revealed the presence, in heterozygous state, of the c.1A > C; p.(Met1?) pathogenic variant in the SDHA. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first published report in which the c.1A > C; p.(Met1?) pathogenic variant in the SDHA is associated with a GIST. SDHA pathogenic variants increase the risk of paraganglioma, pheochromocytoma, GIST, pituitary adenoma and renal cancer in an autosomal dominant inherited condition named paraganglioma syndrome type 5. The absence of family history of tumors in SDHA pathogenic variants carriers could be related to its low penetrance. All patients diagnosed with WT GISTs should be referred to a hereditary cancer genetic counseling unit regardless of the age at presentation or the absence of a suspicious family history.

Finding a Balance: Reconciling the Needs of the Institution, Patient, and Genetic Counselor for Optimal Resource Utilization.

The current practice of cancer genetic counseling is undergoing widespread change and scrutiny. While there are clinical resources for genetic counselors (GCs) regarding the delivery of cancer genetic services, there is limited literature regarding effective management of a genetic counseling clinical program. We have developed administrative tools to manage a large team of GCs at a single academic medical center over a period of increasing demand for genetics services, with the initial aim of decreasing wait time for urgent genetic counseling visits. Here, we describe the three main elements of the clinical operations: Balancing patient volume between GCs, scheduling tracks for both routine and urgent appointments, and a team of triaging GCs to ensure appropriate patient referrals. For each of these elements, we describe how they have been modified over time and present data to support the utility of these strategies. The preliminary evidence offered here suggests that these tools allow for an equitable distribution of patient volume between team members, as well as the timely and accurate scheduling of urgent patients. As a result of the experiences presented here, other genetic counseling programs grappling with similar issues should be aware that it is possible to shift clinical operations to serve certain patient populations in a more timely fashion while keeping both providers and GC staff satisfied.

Genesurance Counseling: Patient Perspectives.

Genetic counselors (GCs) have reported an increase in discussion of insurance-related, or "genesurance," topics during genetic counseling sessions. Despite increasing frequency, there have been no studies examining patient expectations of GCs in these discussions. This study aimed to explore patient expectations of GCs in these discussions, as well as examine factors that may impact expectations. A 38-item survey was administered prior to patients receiving prenatal or cancer genetic counseling at 11 clinic sites across UTHealth, Baylor College of Medicine, and Sanford Health, with 360 responses analyzed. Key variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and multivariate logistic regression to assess associations between factors and control for potential confounders. Over 75% of patients expected GCs to discuss genesurance topics during a genetic counseling session. The majority of patients (78%) expected GCs to provide an estimated out-of-pocket cost, know if a test is a covered benefit (77%), and provide referral information for further questions (76%). Two additional expectations, considered to be unrealistic in most clinical settings, included expecting GCs to know the patient's specific insurance plan and coverage information (57%) and provide an exact out-of-pocket cost (41%). Ethnicity was the only significant predictor of response for these two expectations, as African Americans and Hispanics were more likely than Caucasians to have these beliefs. While the patient participants felt that GCs were primarily responsible for initiating these conversations, they also reported a personal sense of responsibility for raising questions. This study demonstrates that patients may expect GCs to address genesurance topics in a genetic counseling session, with specific expectations about the cost and coverage of genetic tests. Further studies will establish the most effective way to communicate this information to patients and examine whether and where within the scope of GC practice, genesurance discussions fall.

Talking with Children About Adult-Onset Hereditary Cancer Risk: A Developmental Approach for Parents.

Families often express difficulty to their providers and request guidance regarding the task of communicating with children about potential adult-onset inherited cancer risks. This disclosure is often complicated by the parent's ongoing adjustment to their mutation status, guilt at potential transmission of the mutation to the child, concern over inciting distress in children, and the varied capacities of children in the home to understand genetic information. Providers often do not have adequate resources to support or facilitate disclosure of genetic test results to children. Optimally, communication about inherited cancer risk is an open, ongoing process within the family. We recommend that parents tailor conversations to the child's developmental, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral abilities to support comprehension. Based on well-established theories of child development, empirical research on family communication of hereditary cancer risk, and clinical counseling experience, we offer recommendations for parental disclosure of genetic risk to children, case examples with critical discussion of relevant topics, common child questions with sample scripted responses, and additional printed and online resources.

Cancer Counseling of Low-Income Limited English Proficient Latina Women Using Medical Interpreters: Implications for Shared Decision-Making.

In cancer genetic counseling (CGC), communication across language and culture challenges the model of practice based on shared decision-making. To date, little research has examined the decision-making process of low-income, limited English proficiency (LEP) patients in CGC. This study identified communication patterns in CGC sessions with this population and assessed how these patterns facilitate or inhibit the decision-making process during the sessions. We analyzed 24 audio recordings of CGC sessions conducted in Spanish via telephone interpreters at two public hospitals. Patients were referred for risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer; all were offered genetic testing. Audio files were coded by two bilingual English-Spanish researchers and analyzed using conventional content analysis through an iterative process. The 24 sessions included 13 patients, 6 counselors, and 18 interpreters. Qualitative data analyses identified three key domains - Challenges Posed by Hypothetical Explanations, Misinterpretation by the Medical Interpreter, and Communication Facilitators - that reflect communication patterns and their impact on the counselor's ability to facilitate shared decision-making. Overall, we found an absence of patient participation in the decision-making process. Our data suggest that when counseling LEP Latina patients via medical interpreter, prioritizing information with direct utility for the patient and organizing information into short- and long-term goals may reduce information overload and improve comprehension for patient and interpreter. Further research is needed to test the proposed counseling strategies with this population and to assess how applicable our findings are to other populations.

Examination of the Patient-Focused Impact of Cancer Telegenetics Among a Rural Population: Comparison with Traditional In-Person Services.

BACKGROUND: Telecommunication models promise to improve access to cancer genetic counseling. Little is known about their impact among the geographically underserved. This work examined knowledge and emotional outcomes and attitudes/beliefs regarding cancer telegenetic services (via live-interactive videoconferencing) in Maine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer telegenetic patients seen at two remote sites and control (in-person) patients responded to pre-/postsurveys assessing care impact on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) knowledge and emotional health, ease of access to services, and telegenetics satisfaction/acceptability. RESULTS: 158/174 (90%) participants returned pre- and immediate postcounseling surveys (90 remote and 68 in-person). Fewer returned 1-month postsurveys. Remote patients were older with lower education levels, more likely to live in rural counties and to have cancer histories. The two groups were matched relative to gender, race, and health insurance status. HBOC knowledge improved equally in both groups pre- versus immediately postcounseling and was maintained at 1 month in both groups. Decreased anxiety was evident postcounseling with no significant difference between groups. Depression improved significantly in remote patients immediately postcounseling; 1-month depression measures were lower in both groups. The availability of telegenetics eased transportation needs/work absences, and patients reported satisfaction with telecommunication quality. Despite overall acceptance of telegenetics, 32% of remote patients noted preference for in-person care. CONCLUSIONS: There were few differences in HBOC knowledge and emotional outcomes comparing traditional in-person cancer genetic services with telegenetics, and satisfaction with/acceptance of this model was high. These data relate to scalability of cancer telegenetics in rural regions regionally and nationally.

Why Is Cancer Genetic Counseling Underutilized by Women Identified as at Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer? Patient Perceptions of Barriers Following a Referral Letter.

Family history information comprises an important tool in identifying and referring patients at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) to cancer genetic counseling. Despite recommendations and support provided by numerous professional organizations, cancer genetic counseling services are underutilized by atrisk patients. This study aimed to: (1) determine the rate of genetic counseling utilization following a referral letter, (2) characterize factors (barriers and supports) which influenced uptake of services, and (3) identify potential strategies for increasing utilization. This study evaluated the uptake of cancer genetic counseling among 603 screening mammography patients identified as having an increased risk for HBOC based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. At risk individuals and their primary care providers were mailed a referral letter recommending genetic counseling. Three focus groups (N = 24) were conducted to identify responses to receiving a letter recommending genetic counseling, barriers to seeking genetic counseling, and facilitating factors to utilizing these services. Participant responses were qualitatively analyzed using thematic and cross case analysis. Within one year, 50/603 (8 %) of the identified at-risk women completed a genetic counseling appointment. Participant-perceived barriers which influenced their decision not to seek genetic counseling included lack of relevance and utility, limited knowledge about genetic counseling, concerns about the genetic counseling process, and concerns about cost and insurance coverage. Participant-perceived facilitating factors which would support a decision to seek genetic counseling included greater awareness and education about genetic counseling services when receiving a referral, and improved follow up and guidance from their provider. Findings from this study support the need for patient and primary care provider education, and improved provider-patient communication to increase uptake of genetic counseling services.

Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing in an Era of Rapid Change.

The impacts of the Association for Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad Supreme Court decision regarding patenting DNA segments and multi-gene testing on cancer genetic counseling practice have not been well described. We aimed to assess genetic counselors' perceptions of how their genetic testing-related practices for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) changed after these events. One-hundred fifty-two genetic counselors from the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group completed an anonymous, online, mixed-methods survey in November 2013. The survey presented four hypothetical patients and asked about changes in testing practice. Across the vignettes, a majority of participants reported specific changes in testing decisions following Association for Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad and availability of multi-gene testing. Ninety-three percent of participants reported changing the types of first- and second-line tests they order for HBOC; the degree of change varied geographically. Qualitative analysis indicated that some counselors have altered the counseling session content, trading depth of information for breadth and spending more time counseling about uncertainty. This study shows that cancer genetic counselors are adapting quickly to genetic testing changes, but with wide variability. Findings suggest future research to elucidate clinicians' and patients' preferences for guidance on the clinical implementation of next-generation sequencing.

Evaluation of psychosocial aspects in participants of cancer genetic counseling.

BACKGROUND: The instrument called "Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale" (HADS) is frequently used to evaluate anxious and depressive symptomatology in patients who receive Cancer Genetic Counseling (CGC). However, this instrument cannot identify all of the psychosocial factors, such as the antecedents of the patients' emotional states or their concerns. The objective of the present research was to compare cases detected with psychosocial alterations by means of HADS and a Psychological Health Interview (PHI). METHODS: A transversal analytical design was used. One hundred ten participants were included (97.3% females and 2.7% males). The average age was 45 years ±10 years. RESULTS: The PHI identified twice the amount of participants with psychosocial alterations than did HADS, which only detected 43% of these participants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study suggest that the PHI should be applied in addition to HADS to identify participants who would require psychological support due to recurrent concerns.

Time to incorporate germline multigene panel testing into breast and ovarian cancer patient care.

PURPOSE: Genetic evaluation is increasingly becoming an integral part of the management of women with newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer (OC), and of individuals at high risk for these diseases. Genetic counseling and testing have been incorporated into oncological care to help and complete management and treatment strategies. Risk assessment and early detection strategies in individuals with BRCA1/2 mutations and with Lynch syndrome have been quite extensively studied, whereas much less is known about the management of mutation carriers with less common high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes (PTEN, TP53, STK11, CDH1), and particularly those who carry mutations in moderate-penetrance genes (e.g., PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, NF1, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1). METHODS: The latter patient groups represent important ongoing research opportunities to enable informed counseling about appropriate clinical management. CONCLUSION: We summarize the current guidelines for the management of high and moderate-penetrance mutations for breast and OC susceptibility. Continuous updating of guidelines for proper clinical management of these individuals is ongoing because of rapid advances in technology and knowledge in this field. Thus, we exhort the use of multigene panels for the assessment of cancer risk beyond the classic predisposition syndromes as a new standard of care in cancer genetics. We further support an increase of genetic counselors in Europe and use of their expertise to support genetic testing in specialist multidisciplinary teams.

Design and Feasibility of an Intervention to Support Cancer Genetic Counselees in Informing their At-Risk Relatives.

Cancer genetic counselees receive individualized information regarding heightened risks and medical recommendations which is also relevant for their at-risk relatives. Unfortunately, counselees often insufficiently inform these relatives. We designed an intervention aimed at improving counselees' knowledge regarding which at-risk relatives to inform and what information to disclose, their motivation to disclose, and their self-efficacy. The intervention, offered by telephone by trained psychosocial workers, is based on the principles of Motivational Interviewing. Phase 1 of the intervention covers agenda setting, exploration, and evaluation, and phase 2 includes information provision, enhancing motivation and self-efficacy, and brainstorming for solutions to disseminate information within the family. Fidelity and acceptability of the intervention were assessed using recordings of intervention sessions and by counselee self-report. A total of 144 counselees participated. Psychosocial workers (n = 5) delivered the intervention largely as intended. Counselees highly appreciated the content of the intervention and the psychosocial workers who delivered the intervention. In the sessions, psychosocial workers provided additional and/or corrective information, and brainstorming for solutions was performed in 70 %. These results indicate that this intervention is feasible and warrants testing in clinical practice. For this, a randomized controlled trial is currently in progress to test the intervention's efficacy.

Genetic Counselors' Experiences Regarding Communication of Reproductive Risks with Autosomal Recessive Conditions found on Cancer Panels.

The development of hereditary cancer genetic testing panels has altered genetic counseling practice. Mutations within certain genes on cancer panels pose not only a cancer risk, but also a reproductive risk for autosomal recessive conditions such as Fanconi anemia, constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome, and ataxia telangiectasia. This study aimed to determine if genetic counselors discuss reproductive risks for autosomal recessive conditions associated with genes included on cancer panels, and if so, under what circumstances these risks are discussed. An on-line survey was emailed through the NSGC list-serv. The survey assessed 189 cancer genetic counselors' experiences discussing reproductive risks with patients at risk to carry a mutation or variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in a gene associated with both an autosomal dominant cancer risk and an autosomal recessive syndrome. Over half (n = 82, 55 %) reported having discussed reproductive risks; the remainder (n = 66, 45 %) had not. Genetic counselors who reported discussing reproductive risks primarily did so when patients had a positive result and were of reproductive age. Reasons for not discussing these risks included when a patient had completed childbearing or when a VUS was identified. Most counselors discussed reproductive risk after obtaining results and not during the informed consent process. There is inconsistency as to if and when the discussion of reproductive risks is taking place. The wide variation in responses suggests a need to develop professional guidelines for when and how discussions of reproductive risk for autosomal recessive conditions identified through cancer panels should occur with patients.

Two novel sequence variants in MSH2 gene in a patient who underwent cancer genetic counseling for a very early-onset epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early-onset or hereditary ovarian cancer is mostly associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Mismatch repair genes sequence alteration frequently cause colorectal cancer, and, in less extent, other tumors, such as ovarian cancer. Subjects with personal and/or family history suggestive for hereditary cancer should be addressed to cancer genetic counseling, aimed to the identification, definition and management of hereditary cancer syndrome, by a multidisciplinary approach. CASE PRESENTATION: A woman with a very early onset epithelial ovarian cancer underwent to cancer genetic counseling and genetic testing. Pedigree analysis suggested a clinical diagnosis of Lynch II syndrome, according to the Amsterdam criteria. The MMRpro model showed a cumulative risk of mutation of 50.3 %, thus, genetic testing was offered to the patient. Two germ-line mutations have been identified in exon 11 of MSH2 gene: c.1706A > T (p.Glu569Val) and c.1711G > T (p.Glu571*). Both DNA alterations were novel mutations not yet described in literature. The first is a missense mutation that is to be considered an unclassified variant; the second is nonsense mutation that created a premature stop codon resulting in a truncated not functioning protein. Both genetic alterations were found in the patients' father DNA. CONCLUSIONS: The present report finds out two unpublished sequence alterations in exon 11 of the MSH2 gene, one on which can be considered causative of Lynch phenotype. Moreover, it stresses the importance of the multidisciplinary onco-genetic counselling in order to correctly frame the hereditary syndrome, suggest the right genetic test, and offer the most appropriate management of the cancer risk for the patients and her family members.