Search

This study explored the experiences of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in the moderate penetrance breast cancer genes, ATM and CHEK2. There were 139 eligible female patients who received genetic counseling at the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Cancer Risk Assessment (MGH CCRA) from 2014 to 2018. They were sent surveys assessing their understanding of the clinical significance of their genetic test results, adherence to medical management recommendations, dissemination of genetic test results to relatives, and informational resource needs. In total, 66 surveys were returned with a response rate of 47.5%. Most participants reported understanding the clinical implications of their genetic test results and adhering to medical management recommendations. Although 20.3% found it upsetting, nearly all participants shared their genetic test results with relatives. When asked about resource needs, 54.5% reported seeking out additional resources. Our ATM/CHEK2 sample appears to have a good understanding of the personal and familial implications of their genetic test results but may benefit from additional resources. It is unclear whether similar results would be found in patients who do not receive genetic counseling from a board-certified genetic counselor, and this should be examined. This study is one of the first to assess the experiences and needs of the moderate risk population., (© 2022 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Genetic medicine is considered a major part of the future of preventative care, offering evidence-based, effective interventions to improve health outcomes and reduce morbidity and mortality, especially regarding hereditary cancer screening. Identification of individuals who would benefit from screening is key to improving their cancer-related healthcare outcomes. However, patients without insurance, of historically underserved races, of lower socioeconomic status, and in rural communities have lower access to such care. Barriers to access lead to populations having higher rates of undetected hereditary cancer, and consequently more severe forms of cancer. With an already-established reach, student-run free clinics can work with genetic counseling training programs to incorporate genetic medicine into their workflow. Such partnerships will (1) make genetic care more accessible with goals of improving patient morbidity, mortality, and health outcomes, (2) offer robust educational experiences for genetic counseling learners, particularly in understanding social determinants of health and barriers to care, and (3) actively combat the growing racial and geographic gaps in genetic care. Our study presents how one student-run free clinic implemented genetic counseling into its primary care workflow to improve access to genetics services. We present two examples of how genetic counseling improved patients' medical care. We also identify obstacles encountered during this program's development, as well as solutions-those we incorporated and possible considerations for other clinics. With the hope that other clinics can use this paper to design similar partnerships, we aim to lessen the gap between sickness and screening., (© 2023 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) are a communication process to inform and prepare patients for genetic test results and the related medical management. An increasing number of healthcare providers are active in the delivery of cancer risk assessment and testing, which can have enormous benefits for enhanced patient care. However, genetics professionals remain key in the multidisciplinary care of at-risk patients and their families, given their training in facilitating patients' understanding of the role of genetics in cancer development, the potential psychological, social, and medical implications associated with cancer risk assessment and genetic testing. A collaborative partnership of non-genetics and genetics experts is the ideal approach to address the growing number of patients at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The goal of this practice resource is to provide allied health professionals an understanding of the key components of risk assessment for HBOC as well as the use of risk models and published guidelines for medical management. We also highlight what patient types are appropriate for genetic testing, what are the most appropriate test(s) to consider, and when to refer individuals to a genetics professional. This practice resource is intended to serve as a resource for allied health professionals in determining their approach to delivering comprehensive care for families and individuals facing HBOC. The cancer risk and prevalence figures in this document are based on cisgender women and men; the risks for transgender or non-binary individuals have not been studied and therefore remain poorly understood., (© 2021 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Germline pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2 cause hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes. The present study investigated the participants' understanding and awareness of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants before genetic counseling, the expectations and obstacles for genetic testing from the perspective of participants and their families, and their attitudes towards genetic testing after counseling. In this single‐country, multicenter, non‐interventional, patient‐reported outcome study, untested cancer patients and their families who visited genetic counseling clinics or who wanted to receive pre‐test genetic counseling were eligible to fill in the questionnaire after pre‐test counseling for germline BRCA1/2 testing. Demographic information, clinical characteristics, and information collected from the questionnaires, including the understanding of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants before genetic counseling, understanding of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and feelings after genetic counseling, willingness to share results of genetic testing with family, and willingness to receive genetic testing, were summarized using descriptive statistics. A total of 88 participants were enrolled. The proportion of slight understanding of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants increased from 11.4% to 67.0%, and the proportion of full understanding increased from 0% to 8.0%. After genetic counseling, most participants were willing to undergo genetic testing (87.5%) and share the results with their families (96.6%). The main factors that may affect participants' willingness to undergo BRCA1/2 testing were management (61.2%) and testing costs (25.9%). After pre‐test counseling, there was a high acceptance of BRCA1/2 testing and in‐family information sharing in Taiwanese patients with cancer and their families, which may serve as a reference for implementing genetic counseling in Taiwan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implementation of genetic testing in healthcare increases, but access to, and number of, genetics providers remain scarce. This study analyzed the impact of genetic counselor (GC) involvement on frequency of documentation of pre‐ and post‐test counseling of genetic testing between GCs and genetics providers (GPs), and GCs and non‐genetics providers (NGPs). A retrospective chart review of 467 charts from patients who had genetic testing ordered between July 2016 and June 2018 at a primarily pediatric institution was conducted. GCs were involved for 223 charts (GC group), and not involved for 244 (non‐GC group). The non‐GC group was further stratified into patient charts with Genetics Providers (GP group) (n = 100) involved and those with Non‐Genetics Providers (NGP group) (n = 144) involved. Categorical, binomial, pre‐test variables (counseling, test description, results possibilities, insurance coverage, and cost) and categorical, binomial, post‐test variables (results disclosure, family testing recommendations, recurrence risk, and provided resources) were collected and compared using Fisher's exact test (p < 0.005). With the exception of test description, documentation for all variables occurred more frequently in the GC group compared to the NGP group (all p < 0.001). Documentation for the majority of variables also occurred more frequently in the GC group compared to the GP group (p < 0.005), with the exceptions of overall pre‐test counseling and family testing recommendations. GC involvement was associated with increased documentation of most pre‐ and post‐test genetic counseling variables. With increased emphasis placed on transparency, accurateness, and access for patients of the EMR, in part due to the passage of the CARES Act, documentation should reflect the content of counseling provided. The cause of the documentation discrepancy identified may have differing effects on patient care and provider education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genomic testing increasingly challenges health care providers and patients to understand, share, and use information. The provision of polygenic risks is anticipated to complicate comprehension, communication, and risk perception further. This manuscript aims to illuminate the challenges confronting families with multiple genetic risks for Parkinson's disease. Identifying and planning for such issues may prove valuable to family members now and in the future, should neuroprotective or genotype‐specific therapies become available. We present qualitative data from interviews with a multi‐generational family carrying pathogenic variants in the glucocerebrosidase (GBA1) and leucine‐rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) genes which are associated with an increased risk for developing Parkinson's disease (PD). The family includes two brothers (heterozygous for LRRK2 p.G2019S and homozygous for GBA1 p.N409S) and their four descendants. The brothers were concordant for GD and discordant for PD. Genetic counseling and testing were provided to four of the six participants. Two years later, semi‐structured interviews were conducted with the initial participants (n = 4) and two additional first‐degree relatives. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed, providing the basis for this report. Illuminated topics include the perceived risk of developing PD, recall of genetic information, and family communication. With the expanding use of exome and genome sequencing, we anticipate that genetic counselors will increasingly face the challenges demonstrated by this case involving multiple genetic risks for PD, limited data to clarify risk, and the inherent variability of family communication, genetic knowledge, and risk perception. This clinical case report provides a compelling narrative demonstrating the need for additional research exploring these multifaceted topics relevant to both families facing these challenges and providers striving to assist, support and guide their journey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) is well‐established in the field of medicine, family members' uptake of cascade genetic testing for known familial pathogenic variants remains low. Probands often become responsible for initiating familial communication about their testing results, and barriers to communication may include difficulty in conveying information to relatives and a lack of communication resources for probands' use. In this study, we tested a two‐minute animated digital message (ADM) intervention guided by the Health Belief Model (HBM) in an unselected sample to determine hypothetical individual perceptions of susceptibility and severity and behavioral intention to act on the information provided in the ADM. We recruited genetic testing naïve adults from the United States with no personal history of cancer through Amazon Mechanical Turk to participate in this study. Participants were presented a hypothetical scenario describing a relative's recent HBOC diagnosis, viewed the ADM, and answered a questionnaire assessing participants' perception of the HBM constructs in relation to the hypothetical scenario and participants' intentions to pursue cascade genetic testing, talk to a healthcare professional, or talk to family members after ADM viewing. Participants (n = 373) largely perceived HBOC as serious and believed that they could benefit from the information provided by genetic testing; 76% hypothetically intended to pursue genetic testing at a cost of $100 or less, and 90% intended to either pursue testing or talk to a healthcare provider or family members. This feasibility study in an unaffected population could mimic the experience of distant/less‐engaged relatives in HBOC families after receiving unexpected information about cascade genetic testing. Most participants demonstrated behavioral intention toward cascade testing, at a rate higher than literature would suggest is typical in high‐risk families, indicating that a theory‐supported, simple to use intervention may be useful in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BRCA1/2 genetic testing has become clinically important in breast cancer care, but increasing demand may put a burden on the shortage of healthcare professionals. We performed a single-center, pilot randomized controlled study to assess the effectiveness of employing a video educational tool that included standard pre-test genetic counseling elements related to BRCA1/2. Patients with operable breast cancer who met the criteria for genetic testing based on age, sex, subtype, and family history were recruited. Sixty consenting participants were randomized 1:1 and placed in groups that received either traditional face-to-face pre-test counseling or video-viewing and face-to-face decisional support. To assess decisional conflict in the participants, surveys based on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) were administered two times, once immediately after intervention and again 2-4 weeks later. The time taken for counseling and confirmation of whether the participants had undergone testing were also recorded. The difference in the total DCS scores between the two groups was not significantly different for either of the survey periods, and there was no significant difference in the number of participants who underwent testing (23/30 [76.7%] vs. 26/30 [86.7%]; p = 0.51). However, the "effective decision" subscale score was significantly higher in the video group 2-4 weeks after counseling (31.01 ± 16.82 vs. 21.43 ± 16.09; p = 0.04 [mean ± SD]). The time taken for counseling was significantly shorter in the video group (8.00 ± 4.5 vs. 27.00 ± 7.61 min; p < 0.001 [median ± SD]). Our findings indicate the potential benefit of the video educational tool for providing BRCA1/2-related information. These tools may also enable healthcare professionals to spend more time supporting psychological issues. Notably, after some time, patients may question whether their decision was appropriate. Therefore, it is necessary to identify those in conflict and provide them with proper support., (© 2024 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Young adults have increasing genomic testing opportunities; however, little is known about how equipped they feel about making decisions to learn personal genomic information. We conducted qualitative interviews with 19 young adults, ages 18-21 years old, enrolled in a research study where they made decisions about learning personal genomic risk for developing preventable, treatable, and adult-onset conditions and carrier status for autosomal recessive conditions. Participants had the option to include a parent in their study visit and the decision-making process. The goal of this project was to explore young adults' reasons for involving or not involving a parent in the study and to assess young adults' perspectives about parental roles in their healthcare. Nine participants included a parent in the study and ten did not include a parent. Eleven participants received genomic test results before the interview, while eight participants had not yet received their results at the time of the interview. The study team developed a coding guide and coded interview transcripts inductively and deductively using an interpretive descriptive-analytic approach. Logistical issues dominated solo participants' reasons for not involving a parent in the study, whereas those who involved a parent often cited a close relationship with the parent and the parent's previous involvement in the participant's healthcare as reasons for involving them. Both groups of participants described gradually transitioning to independent healthcare decision-making with age and felt their comfort in medical decision-making depends on the severity of and their familiarity with the situation. Participants recommended that future genomic researchers or clinicians give young adults the option to involve a parent or friend as a support person in research or clinical visits. Although young adults may have different journeys toward independent healthcare decision-making, some may benefit from continued parental or peer involvement after reaching the age of legal adulthood., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Genetic Counseling published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Germline genetic evaluation is indicated for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). For testing to have clinical utility, results must be documented within the electronic medical record (EMR) and accessible to providers at the point of care, which can be challenging in the context of current EMR limitations and genetic testing processes. We examined the receipt of genetics services and EMR capture of genetic testing results in patients with EOC. We conducted a retrospective chart review to examine germline genetic evaluations among patients with EOC seen by a gynecologic or medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania in 2016. EMRs were reviewed to determine: (1) if patients were referred for genetic evaluation; (2) if genetic testing was performed; (3) if results were documented in office notes, scanned third-party test reports, and/or the EMR problem list; (4) if provider notes correctly listed the variant classification. Overall, 413 (62%) of patients had documented genetic testing. Genetic testing was documented in almost all provider notes (96%) and the majority of scanned EMR reports (64%). Pathogenic variants were found in 119 (29%) individuals; the majority (70%) had genetic testing documented within EMR problem lists. Provider notes were highly accurate in describing variant classification. In this study, genetic testing was performed and documented in the EMR for most EOC patients. Approximately one-third of those tested did not have scanned test reports specifying variant found, limiting the utility of test results for cascade testing and therapeutic decisions., (© 2023 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identification of a hereditary prostate cancer in an affected individual can guide treatment and may also impact cancer screening and surveillance for patients and their relatives. This study aimed to determine the factors that are associated with the decision‐making process of individuals with prostate cancer regarding whether to pursue genetic testing as well as how, why, and with whom genetic test results are shared. We surveyed 113 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who received cancer genetic counseling through a United States tertiary medical center, inquiring about genetic testing motivations and family communication about results. Among those who pursued genetic testing, (1) learning about my family's possible cancer risk (98%), (2) learning information that may guide cancer treatment (93%), and (3) learning if I am at risk for future cancers (92%) were most frequently identified as slightly or very important factors in their decision. Participants shared their genetic test results in a higher proportion to male first‐degree relatives than female first‐degree relatives; however, no significant difference was found (p = 0.103). Our study may suggest sex differences related to family communication about genetic testing results. Such findings indicate a critical need for genetic counselors to clearly communicate the impact of genetic test results on both male and female relatives. Further research on motivation and family communication about genetic test results in diverse cohorts is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multi‐cancer gene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (hereditary cancer panels, HCPs) are widely available, and some laboratories have programs that limit patients' out‐of‐pocket (OOP) cost share. However, little is known about practices by cancer genetic counselors for discussing and ordering an HCP and how insurance reimbursement and patient out‐of‐pocket share impact these practices. We conducted a survey of cancer genetic counselors based in the United States through the National Society of Genetic Counselors to assess the impact of reimbursement and patient OOP share on ordering of an HCP and hereditary cancer genetic counseling. Data analyses were conducted using chi‐square and t tests. We received 135 responses (16% response rate). We found that the vast majority of respondents (94%, 127/135) ordered an HCP for patients rather than single‐gene tests to assess hereditary cancer predisposition. Two‐thirds of respondents reported that their institution had no protocol related to discussing HCPs with patients. Most respondents (84%, 114/135) indicated clinical indications and patients' requests as important in selecting and ordering HCPs, while 42%, 57/135, considered reimbursement and patient OOP share factors important. We found statistically significant differences in reporting of insurance as a frequently used payment method for HCPs and in‐person genetic counseling (84% versus 59%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Perceived patient willingness to pay more than $100 was significantly higher for HCPs than for genetic counseling(41% versus 22%, respectively, p < 0.01). In sum, genetic counselors' widespread selection and ordering of HCPs is driven more by clinical indications and patient preferences than payment considerations. Respondents perceived that testing is more often reimbursed by insurance than genetic counseling, and patients are more willing to pay for an HCP than for genetic counseling. Policy efforts should address this incongruence in reimbursement and patient OOP share. Patient‐centered communication should educate patients on the benefit of genetic counseling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prenatal and preconception genetic counselors are trained to take patient pedigrees to evaluate for potential risks for genetic conditions, including hereditary cancer syndromes. However, little research has been published on how often prenatal/preconception genetic counselors provide recommendations for cancer genetic counseling solely based on a family history of cancer. Therefore, this study sought to (a) characterize the types of cancers recognized for a cancer genetic counseling recommendation, (b) analyze appointment indications associated with discussion documentation, and (c) investigate how often National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCN) genetic testing criteria for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer syndrome (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome were met and how often a recommendation for cancer genetic counseling was made. A retrospective chart review and pedigree analysis were performed for prenatal/preconception genetic counseling patients with a family history of cancer seen at two academic institutions between August 10, 2019, and December 1, 2019. In the 170 charts included, a recommendation for cancer genetic counseling was documented in 40% of all genetic counseling summaries and in 59.2% of summaries when NCCN genetic testing criteria for HBOC and/or Lynch syndrome was met. Using chi‐squared and logistic regression analysis, these data support that individuals were significantly more likely to receive a recommendation when NCCN genetic testing criteria were met (OR = 5.01, p <.001) or when the family history contained two or more types of cancer (OR = 2.24, p =.02). Overall, this study identified the NCCN genetic testing criteria for HBOC and Lynch syndrome for which recommendations for cancer genetic counseling were commonly missed. This characterization suggests that continuing education for prenatal and preconception genetic counselors on updated NCCN guidelines may be helpful for improving rates of cancer genetic counseling referrals, uptake of genetic testing, and cancer screening recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies on the use of Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry (REA) concepts and terms in genetic research are limited. We aimed to describe the collection, reporting, and use of REA data in genetic counseling research. We undertook a focused mapping review and synthesis of the Journal of Genetic Counseling 2021 publications. We used a mapping proforma based on the Race, Ethnicity, And Culture in Health checklist to extract data. Of the 177 screened articles, 132 met our inclusion criteria of reporting primary data about participants. The sample REA characteristics were described in 80 (61%) articles, with 6% providing a definition or conceptualization of the REA term/s used and 23% including a rationale for their study in terms of REA factors. Group labels were most often reported using population descriptors, such as "race," "ethnicity," "race/ethnicity," and "ancestry." Several group labels were used under different population descriptors. For instance, the group labels "White" and "Asian" were used under all population descriptors. Most studies (79%) ascertained REA characteristics by participants' self-report. Three (15%) of the 20 qualitative studies mentioned the relevance of the interviewers' REA characteristics in relation to the participants' REA characteristics. Of the 55 quantitative studies, 19 (35%) used REA factors in the data analysis. Of the 80 articles describing the sample REA characteristics, 20% referred moderately or a great deal to any REA factors in the results interpretation, 46% acknowledged the REA factors in the study limitations, and 15% discussed the implications of REA reporting for genetic counseling practice. Our review documents extensive variation in how sample REA characteristics are described and used in genetic counseling research. Our findings provide a baseline against which to evaluate the effects of guidelines and recommendations for the collection, responsible use, and report of participants' REA characteristics in genetic counseling research., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Genetic Counseling published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Identifying individuals who have Lynch syndrome involves a complex diagnostic workup that includes taking a detailed family history and a combination of various tests such as immunohistochemistry and/or molecular which may be germline and/or somatic. The National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer have come together to publish this practice resource for the evaluation of Lynch syndrome. The purpose of this practice resource was to provide guidance and a testing algorithm for Lynch syndrome as well as recommendations on when to offer testing. This practice resource does not replace a consultation with a genetics professional. This practice resource includes explanations in support of this and a summary of background data. While this practice resource is not intended to serve as a review of Lynch syndrome, it includes a discussion of background information and cites a number of key publications which should be reviewed for a more in‐depth understanding. This practice resource is intended for genetic counselors, geneticists, gastroenterologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, obstetricians and gynecologists, nurses, and other healthcare providers who evaluate patients for Lynch syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women with a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer who previously had BRCA1/2 testing now have the opportunity for additional genetic risk information through multi‐gene panel testing. However, little is known about women's receptivity to further contact and uptake of genetic counseling and updated genetic testing. Utilizing a clinic database to identify potential participants, we prospectively contacted women in the United States with a personal and/or family history of breast or ovarian cancer who had negative BRCA1/2 testing, which was performed primarily between 2011 and 2018. Eligible and interested participants were scheduled for a genetic counseling appointment to discuss updated genetic testing using a multi‐gene panel. We attempted to contact 455 participants, screened 203 (45%), and 103 (23%) completed a pre‐test genetic counseling visit to discuss updated testing. Of these, 88 participants had updated multi‐gene panel testing. Participants had an average age of 59 years, and most (78%) had breast cancer with an average age of 45 at diagnosis. The majority (97%) of participants were white. Of participants who underwent panel testing, 13% (n = 11) had at least one pathogenic variant identified. Most participants (86%) had an out‐of‐pocket cost of $100 or less for their panel. There is a sizable population of women with a personal and/or family history of breast or ovarian cancer and negative BRCA1/2 test results who would qualify for updated multi‐gene panel testing. In our study, 59% of those reached who were eligible completed a pre‐test genetic counseling visit. Clinics could consider an outreach program to offer genetic counseling and updated genetic testing. Supports for this type of effort may include coordinators and genetic counseling assistants and an available database with patients' contact information and prior genetic test results. Updated testing allows women more information about their risk and may expand the value of genetic counseling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network‐3 (eMERGE‐3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE‐3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first‐degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1‐month and/or 6‐month post‐results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first‐degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first‐degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first‐degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non‐genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk assessment in cancer genetic counseling is essential in identifying individuals at high risk for developing breast cancer to recommend appropriate screening and management options. Historically, many breast cancer risk prediction models were developed to calculate an individual's risk to develop breast cancer or to carry a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. However, how or when genetic counselors use these models in clinical settings is currently unknown. We explored genetic counselors' breast cancer risk model usage patterns including frequency of use, reasons for using or not using models, and change in usage since the adoption of multi‐gene panel testing. An online survey was developed and sent to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors; board‐certified genetic counselors whose practice included cancer genetic counseling were eligible to participate in the study. The response rate was estimated at 23% (243/1,058), and respondents were predominantly working in the United States. The results showed that 93% of all respondents use at least one breast cancer risk prediction model in their clinical practice. Among the six risk models selected for the study, the Tyrer‐Cuzick (IBIS) model was used most frequently (95%), and the BOADICEA model was used least (40%). Determining increased or decreased surveillance and breast MRI eligibility were the two most common reasons for most model usage, while time consumption and difficulty in navigation were the two most common reasons for not using models. This study provides insight into perceived benefits and limitations of risk models in clinical use in the United States, which may be useful information for software developers, genetic counseling program curriculum developers, and currently practicing cancer genetic counselors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women with a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2 genes have up to an 87% lifetime risk of breast cancer and up to a 68% lifetime risk for ovarian cancer. Common risk‐reducing measures include prophylactic surgeries or pharmacological approaches, such as chemoprevention. Psycho‐social issues can arise due to this increased risk, often resulting in heightened distress or anxiety. This review examines the efficacy of interventions aimed at improving psychological adjustment in individuals with a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2. A Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) Panel of six individuals with a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant provided input on the terminology used and dissemination of the review. Interventions assessing psychological measures in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, published in English, were considered eligible for inclusion. A systematic search strategy was carried out on OVID, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science Core Collections, and Scopus. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and theory coding. Findings were reported through narrative synthesis. Of the 1,024 results from searches, fifteen interventions were eligible. Nine of these were randomized controlled trials, six were quasi‐experimental. There was heterogeneity in intervention design, with limited evidence of improvement upon psychological outcome measures. No study was rated as being low risk for bias. Five studies obtained the highest level of risk for bias, the majority of issues arising from problematic outcome measurement. No single study met all criteria on the Theory Coding Scheme, with five studies mentioning a theoretical aspect to intervention design, of which three employed a middle‐range theory only. Some studies demonstrated a longitudinal impact on outcomes, however, there is insufficient evidence to draw broad conclusions from this. Further research is needed to better develop interventions to support those with a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2 throughout their coping experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs) are a heterogeneous group of conditions causing substrate accumulation leading to progressive organ damage. Newborn screening (NBS) for several LSDs has become available in recent years due to advances in technology and treatment availability. While early initiation of treatment is lifesaving for those with infantile presentations, controversy continues regarding diagnosis of milder, later‐onset diseases in infancy, including creation of pre‐symptomatic populations of 'patients‐in‐waiting', the potential for medicalization, stigmatization, and/or discrimination. In‐depth interviews were conducted with 36 adults [11 with Fabry disease (FD), 8 with Gaucher disease (GD), and 17 with late‐onset Pompe disease (LOPD)], to determine their perspectives on NBS for their respective conditions. Thirty‐four of 36 participants were in favor of NBS; both participants not in favor had GD1. Emergent themes influencing participants favorably toward NBS included earlier age of onset, a long diagnostic odyssey, less efficacious treatment, and the desire to have made different life decisions (e.g., relationships, career, or lifestyle) with the knowledge of their diagnosis. Concerns about insurance discrimination and psychological or physical burdens were associated with less favorable opinions of NBS. The ability for parents to make future reproductive decisions based their child's NBS result was considered favorably by some participants and unfavorably by others. Participants' specific condition (GD1, FD, or LOPD) contributed to these experiences differently. Participants with LOPD and FD favored NBS to initiate earlier treatment and prevent irreversible organ damage, whereas fewer patients with GD1 mentioned this benefit. Participants with LOPD had the longest diagnostic odyssey, while those with FD were more likely to report feeling misunderstood and experiencing accusations of malingering, both contributing to favorable views of NBS. Results expand prior quantitative findings by illuminating how participants' lived experiences can shape opinions about NBS. By understanding how currently affected individuals perceive the lifelong impact of a NBS result, genetic counselors can provide better anticipatory guidance to the parents of individuals diagnosed with a later‐onset LSD by NBS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identification of inherited breast cancer may guide care. These benefits can be amplified through communication of genetic test results with at‐risk family members and subsequent family testing (FT). Females with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in BRCA1/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and/or ATM were surveyed about family communication (FC) of genetic test results and FT. Comparisons were made across genes. The 235 participants with P/LP variants (186 BRCA1/2, 28 PALB2, 15 CHEK2, and 6 ATM) had a median age of 54 and most were non‐Hispanic whites (89%) with a prior breast cancer diagnosis (61%). When controlling for other variables, FC was higher among younger participants (p<.0001), those with high FC self‐efficacy (p=.019), and those with P/LP variants in BRCA1/2 compared to PALB2 (p =.040) and ATM/CHEK2 (p =.032). Higher rates of FC and FT were also observed among female relatives and relatives of closer kinship. Overall 94% of participants would find one or more resources helpful with FC and 70% reported using FC resources when telling family members about their genetic test result. The three most commonly used resources included the following: (a) a family sharing letter (38%); (b) printed materials (30%); and (c) web‐based information (23%). Among the 86% who spoke with a genetic counselor (GC), 93% were given at least one FC resource and the three most common resources GCs provided to participants overlapped with the resources participants would find helpful and those that were used. Our results suggest lower FC and FT rates among women with P/LP variants in genes other than BRCA1/2, the reasons for which should be evaluated in future studies. As more data to refine cancer risks and management are generated across these other inherited breast cancer genes, strategies to improve FC and FT are needed to amplify the benefits of genetic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous surveys of adults with cancer have revealed increased levels of genetic knowledge, varying levels of worry, and high satisfaction with cancer genetic counseling. We sought to determine the impact of cancer genetic counseling on parental levels of genetic knowledge, worry about cancer, and satisfaction in the context of suspected cancer predisposition in a child. We hypothesized that parents would be satisfied with cancer genetic counseling and that cancer genetic counseling would improve baseline parental genetic knowledge and decrease levels of worry. Parents were recruited from a pediatric cancer predisposition clinic in the United States. A survey was administered to two cohorts: One cohort had received cancer genetic counseling in the past and only completed one survey (post‐only, n = 26), and another cohort completed the survey before and after cancer genetic counseling (pre/post, n = 23). The survey included questions on demographics, knowledge of genetics, worry levels, and satisfaction with the cancer genetic counseling service. The post‐genetic counseling survey also contained a free‐text section for parents to indicate what they took away from the sessions. Parental levels of genetics knowledge increased by an average of 1.9 points (p =.01), with 65.2% of parents demonstrating an increase in genetics knowledge score. Average worry levels did not change significantly (p =.37), with 52.2% of parents indicating decreased worry, and 34.8% indicating increased worry. Overall, 91.8% of parents reported high levels of satisfaction. Our results show that cancer genetic counseling in a pediatric cancer predisposition clinic improves parental levels of genetics knowledge. Satisfaction rates suggest that parents find this service beneficial. These results demonstrate the positive impacts of cancer genetic counseling on parents of children in which a hereditary cancer syndrome is known or suspected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Use of direct‐to‐consumer genetic testing (DTC‐GT) is rapidly growing in the United States. Yet little is known about how specific populations like domestic and intercountry adoptees use DTC‐GT. Adoptees often have little to no biological family history, which may affect how they use DTC‐GT. This study aimed to examine adult adoptees' motivations to pursue DTC‐GT, experiences completing a test, and reasons for not completing one. An online survey consisting of 41 closed‐ended questions was distributed to domestic and intercountry adult adoptees in a snowball convenience method addressing seven areas: (a) demographics and adoption experience, (b) family health history, (c) familiarity with DTC‐GT, (d) actual DTC‐GT experience, (e) hypothetical DTC‐GT experience, (f) health results, and (g) satisfaction with DTC‐GT. Descriptive statistics were performed on participant demographics and adoption characteristics, and chi‐squared and Fisher's exact tests compared demographics and adoption characteristics by familiarity with DTC‐GT and completion of DTC‐GT. A total of 117 adoptees met criteria and completed the survey. Adoptees were motivated to use DTC‐GT to search for biological family (83.0%), verify race and ethnicity (72.3%), and find out where ancestors came from (66.0%). Most participants completed DTC‐GT (80.3%); completion was significantly associated with searching for biological relatives (p < 0.01) and with older age (p = 0.05). For those who received health information (59.6%), 44.4% of participants reported talking with a health provider. Adoptees are using DTC‐GT to search for biological relatives, confirm their ethnicity and ancestry, and gain information about their health. Genetic counselors and health professionals should be prepared to address DTC‐GT with adoptees as nearly half discussed their results with providers; findings from this study provide insight into how this unique population uses DTC‐GT, and the possibility of patient‐centered, tailored care for adopted patients who do not have family health history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective communication of genetic information within families depends on several factors. Few studies explore intra‐familial communication of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results or active collaboration between family members to classify VUS. Our qualitative study aimed to describe the experiences of individuals asked by family members to participate in the FindMyVariant study, a patient‐driven family study which aimed to reclassify a clinically identified familial VUS in a hereditary cancer gene. We collected feedback from 56 individuals from 21 different families through phone interviews and written correspondence, transcribed the interviews, and performed thematic analysis on all text. We describe themes from three main topics: participation, ethical considerations, and study impacts. Participation in the FindMyVariant study, defined as returning a sample for targeted genotyping, was motivated by convenience and a desire to help the family, oneself, and science. Relatives were generally responsive to invitations to participate in FindMyVariant from another family member. Those who declined to participate did so due to concerns about research program confidentiality rather than family dynamics. No major ethical issues arose in response to the patient‐driven study structure, and no major changes in stress and anxiety, medical care, or behavior occurred. Participation in patient‐driven familial VUS classification studies has a neutral or positive impact on family health communication. While it is important to design studies to minimize familial coercion, intra‐familial confidentiality breaches, and misinterpretation of genetic results, these were not major concerns among relatives in this study. Clinicians and laboratories may consider encouraging familial communication about genetic variants using family members as liaisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vascular Ehlers–Danlos syndrome (vEDS) is a rare inherited disorder leading to arterial, digestive, and uterine complications due to pathogenic COL3A1 variants. Identification of causal variants allows family screening, provided that relatives have previously been informed, according to a 2013 French Decree. The aims of our study were to assess the communication of genetic information to at‐risk relatives, the impact of diagnosis disclosure and to highlight a possible link between the experience of vEDS patients and ability to communicate about genetic information. A total of n = 51 vEDS adult probands answered a questionnaire during a clinical visit. Communication to relatives was considered effective if the proband gave information to some or all first‐degree relatives and considered easily achieved if it was disclosed to all relatives less than a month after the diagnosis and without difficulty. Personal and family vEDS experiences of probands were also assessed. Effective communication of information to relatives was remarkably high (98%). Siblings were the most frequently informed relatives (82%). Women informed their at‐risk relatives of genetic family screening faster (p =.006) and easier (p =.004) than men. There was no difference in the disclosure of information to relatives before and after 2013 in our multidisciplinary clinic. Regarding the lived experience of vEDS patients, they felt anxious (78%) at diagnosis disclosure but also considered this diagnosis as an opportunity to start a medical follow‐up (82%) putting an end to diagnosis delay. Our findings highlight for the first time that the ability to easily inform at‐risk first‐degree relatives is related to the relief felt during vEDS‐positive diagnosis disclosure (p =.04). In order to improve the communication of genetic information to relatives, we believe that psychological support should systematically be part of the multidisciplinary monitoring, just as medical follow‐up and genetic counseling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite higher incidence and mortality of breast cancer among younger Black women, genetic testing outcomes remain severely understudied among Blacks. Past research on disclosure of genetic testing results to family members has disproportionately focused on White, educated, high socioeconomic status women. This study addresses this gap in knowledge by assessing (a) to whom Black women disclose genetic test results and (b) if patterns of disclosure vary based on test result (e.g., BRCA1/2 positive, negative, variant of uncertain significance [VUS]). Black women (N = 149) with invasive breast cancer diagnosed age ≤50 years from 2009 to 2012 received free genetic testing through a prospective, population‐based study. At 12 months post‐testing, women reported with whom they shared their genetic test results. The exact test by binomial distribution was used to examine whether disclosure to female relatives was significantly greater than disclosure to male relatives, and logistic regression analyses tested for differences in disclosure to any female relative, any male relative, parents, siblings, children, and spouses by genetic test result. Most (77%) women disclosed their results to at least one family member. Disclosure to female relatives was significantly greater than disclosure to males (p <.001). Compared to those who tested negative or had a VUS, BRCA1/2‐positive women were significantly less likely to disclose results to their daughters (ORBRCA positive = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.07–0.94, p =.041) by 12 months post‐genetic testing. Genetic test result did not predict any other type of disclosure (all ps > 0.12). Results suggest that in Black families, one benefit of genetic testing—to inform patients and their family about cancer risk information—is not being realized. To increase breast cancer preventive care among high‐risk Black women, the oncology care team should prepare Black BRCA1/2‐positive women to share genetic test results with family members and, in particular, their daughters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in genomic knowledge and technology have increased the use of comprehensive clinical sequencing tests. Genome sequencing has established utility for diagnosing patients with rare, undiagnosed diseases as well as interest in an elective context, without a clinical indication for testing. The Smith Family Clinic for Genomic Medicine, LLC in Huntsville, AL is a private practice genomic medicine clinic caring for both diagnostic (79%) and elective (21%) patients. Diagnostic and elective patients are seen on a clinical basis and receive standard care. Genome sequencing is provided on a self‐pay basis, with assistance available for diagnostic patients who have financial need. Here, we describe demographics and motivations of the distinct patient populations and our experiences engaging patients in online education. Diagnostic patients were motivated by the possibility of receiving an explanation for symptoms (96%) while elective patients were motivated by the chance to learn about future disease risk (57%). Elective patients were less likely to engage with online education, with only 28% reading all assigned topics compared to 54% of diagnostic patients. Understanding the needs, interests, and barriers unique to diagnostic and elective patients is critical to inform individualized and scalable best practices in patient education and engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a highly penetrant cancer predisposition syndrome that may present with a first cancer before or during adolescence/young adulthood. Families offered LFS genetic testing for their children can inform our understanding of how the unique developmental context of adolescence influences parental perspectives about genetic testing and discussions of cancer risk. In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 46 parents of children at risk for LFS to capture those perspectives. Analysis utilized summary descriptive statistics and inductive qualitative content coding. Most parents (33/46; 72%) expressed beliefs that adolescence influences the importance of LFS testing and/or discussions about genetic risk. Twenty-six parents related this influence to cognitive, physical, and social changes occurring during adolescence. Aspects of adolescence perceived as promoting LFS testing/discussion included developmental appropriateness, risks of cancer in adolescence, need for medical screening decisions, influence on behaviors, transition to adult health care, and reproductive risks. Aspects of adolescence perceived as complicating LFS testing/discussions included potential negative emotional impact, misunderstanding, added burden, and negative impact on self-image or future planning. Parents recognize the complex influence that adolescence has on LFS testing and conversations surrounding results. Further research is needed to understand the actual impact of genetic testing on young people, and how to best support parents and adolescents within the broader context of heritable diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women with a germline pathogenic variant in the BReast CAncer susceptibility genes (BRCA1 or BRCA2) have an increased risk of early-onset breast and ovarian cancer. In addition to weighing cancer screening and risk-reduction options, healthy BRCA mutation carriers of childbearing age may choose to preclude passing the mutation to the next generation. In the current study, we report on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) practices in BRCA-positive Israeli women who were offered PGD at no cost. Methods: we measured PGD uptake, decision satisfaction or regret, and predictors of uptake. Of the 70 participant female carriers, only 25.7% chose to use PGD to prevent transmission of the mutation, and were not predicted by age or religious affiliation. For those who chose IVF/PGD, satisfaction with the decision regarding IVF and PGD was significantly higher than those who did not have IVF and PGD (p < 0.04). Experiencing previous infertility was the only significant predictor of uptake of IVF/PGD (p < 0.001), which may suggest that BRCA status is secondary to infertility in the decision-making process for PGD in women with a BRCA mutation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic testing for inherited cancer risk has recently improved through the advent of multi-gene panels and the addition of deletion and duplication analysis of the BRCA genes. The primary aim of this study was to determine which factors influence the intent of individuals with a personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer and negative or uncertain BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing to return to a hereditary cancer program for additional genetic risk assessment, counseling, and testing. Surveys were sent to 1197 individuals and 257 were returned. Of those participants who were planning to return to clinic, most cited having family members who could benefit from the test result as the primary motivation to return. Many participants who were not planning to return to clinic cited the cost of testing as a barrier to return. Cost of testing and concerns about insurance coverage were the most commonly cited barriers for the group of participants who were undecided about returning to clinic. Results from this study may be used to guide re-contact efforts by clinicians to increase patient uptake to return to clinic for up-to-date genetic risk assessment, counseling, and testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The identification of patients at risk for breast cancer by genetic testing has proven to reduce breast cancer mortality. In 2010, due to a lack of systematization in hereditary cancer assistance in our center, we implemented a multidisciplinary Heredofamilial Cancer Unit (HFCU). We analyze if the HFCU improved the rates of referrals and preventive management of breast cancer patients with genetic risk. We retrospectively compared family history records, referrals of high-risk patients to genetic counseling, and detection and management of patients with BRCA1/2 mutations in two cohorts of breast cancer patients diagnosed before (first period: 2007-2010) and after the creation of the HFCU (second period: 2010-2013). In the first period, 893 patients were included, and 902 were included in the second. Due to the inability to establish their genetic risk, 142 patients (15.9%) vs. 70 (7.8%) were excluded from analysis (p < 0.001). Among the evaluable patients, 194 (25.8%) vs. 223 (26.8%) fulfilled one or more risk criteria (p = 0.65). Family history documentation in patient’s medical records (92.4 vs. 97.8%, p < 0.001) and referral rate (26.3 vs. 52%, p < 0.0001) significantly increased in the second period. Eight BRCA1/2 mutations were detected among patients referred in the first period and 17 among those referred to the HFCU. The rate of preventive surgeries in patients with BRCA mutations significantly increased in the second period (25 vs. 76.5%, p = 0.03). In conclusion, there was a clear improvement in family history records, referrals, and preventive surgeries in breast cancer patients with genetic risk after the implementation of the HFCU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The amount of information produced by genomic sequencing is vast, technically complicated, and can be difficult to interpret. Appropriately tailoring genomic information for non-geneticists is an essential next step in the clinical use of genomic sequencing. To initiate development of a framework for genomic results communication, we conducted eighteen qualitative interviews with oncologists who had referred adult cancer patients to a matched tumor-normal tissue genomic sequencing study. In our qualitative analysis, we found varied levels of clinician knowledge relating to sequencing technology, the scope of the tumor genomic sequencing study, and incidental germline findings. Clinicians expressed a perceived need for more genetics education. Additionally, they had a variety of suggestions for improving results reports and possible resources to aid in results interpretation. Most clinicians felt genetic counselors were needed when incidental germline findings were identified. Our research suggests that more consistent genetics education is imperative in ensuring the proper utilization of genomic sequencing in cancer care. Clinician suggestions for results interpretation resources and results report modifications could be used to improve communication. Clinicians’ perceived need to involve genetic counselors when incidental germline findings were found suggests genetic specialists could play a critical role in ensuring patients receive appropriate follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tumor profiling (TP) is primarily used to identify driver mutations within a tumor for treatment purposes, but it may also identify germline mutations. Current involvement of cancer genetic counselors (GCs) in the TP process is not clear. Members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group were invited to participate in a confidential, web-based survey to characterize current practices and attitudes related to the use of TP. Of 105 useable responses, 86.7% of GCs reported their institutions were using TP, although only 6.7% did this routinely. Although 63.7% reported personal involvement in the process, largely with result interpretation and follow-up germline testing, 69.7% reported seeing fewer than 5 patients for this reason and 97.9% desired further education on this topic. Work and regional setting were not predictors of involvement with TP; however, GCs in the academic setting were less aware of who obtains consent ( p = 0.001). GCs reported they were not often utilized as a resource regarding TP. Overall, GCs believed TP is beneficial in identifying hereditary cancer syndromes, although most reported finding a germline mutation in <10% of cases. This study provides a snapshot of current GC involvement with TP, and documents the desire by GCs for additional education on tumor profiling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to standard practice following referral to clinical genetics, most high risk breast cancer (BC) patients in many countries receive face-to-face genetic counseling prior to BRCA-mutation testing (DNA-intake). We evaluated a novel format by prospective study: replacing the intake consultation with telephone, written and digital information sent home. Face-to-face counseling then followed BRCA-mutation testing (DNA-direct). One year after BRCA-result disclosure, 108 participants returned long-term follow-up questionnaires, of whom 59 (55 %) had previously chosen DNA-direct (intervention) versus DNA-intake (standard practice i.e., control: 45 %). Questionnaires assessed satisfaction and psychological distress. All participants were satisfied and 85 % of DNA-direct participants would choose this procedure again; 10 % would prefer DNA-intake and 5 % were undecided. In repeated measurements ANOVA, general distress (GHQ-12, p = 0.01) and BC-specific distress (IES-bc, p = 0.03) were lower in DNA-direct than DNA-intake at all time measurements. Heredity-specific distress (IES-her) did not differ significantly between groups. Multivariate regression analyses showed that choice of procedure did not significantly contribute to either general or heredity-specific distress. BC-specific distress (after BC diagnosis) did contribute to both general and heredity-specific distress. This suggests that higher distress scores reflected BC experience, rather than the type of genetic diagnostic procedure. In conclusion, the large majority of BC patients that used DNA-direct reported high satisfaction without increased distress both in the short term, and 1 year after conclusion of genetic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women with BRCA mutations are inundated with decisions about managing cancer risks and childbearing considerations. Decisions become more complicated when women face disclosing their mutation and risk-reduction options to a romantic partner. This study identifies the concerns and perspectives of male romantic partners regarding these unique decisions. Twenty-five male participants completed an online survey posted to cancer support group message boards. Participants reported relationship changes regarding intimacy levels ( n = 9), attraction ( n = 2), and communication ( n = 22) after mutation disclosure. Participants whose partners had not undergone prophylactic mastectomy ( n = 14) reported concerns regarding sexual relations ( n = 5), post-surgical appearance ( n = 2), post-surgical attraction ( n = 5), and health/lifespan ( n = 9). Participants did not express attitude changes toward childbearing. While mutation disclosure conversations and surgical options are concerns for many BRCA mutation carriers in relationships, male partners share these concerns. Aspects of the relationship may change, but male study participants continued to support their partners. This information can benefit female BRCA mutation carriers, their current or future partners, and genetic counselors working with this particular population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Encouraging family communication is an integral component of genetic counseling; therefore, we sought to identify factors impacting communication to family members at risk for Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM). Participants ( N = 383) completed an online survey assessing: 1) demographics (gender, genetic test results, HCM family history, and disease severity); 2) illness representations; 3) family functioning and cohesiveness; 4) coping styles; 5) comprehension of HCM autosomal dominant inheritance; and 6) communication of HCM risk information to at-risk relatives. Participants were a national sample of individuals with HCM, recruited through the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Association. Data from 183 participants were analyzed using a logistic regression analysis, with family communication as a dichotomous dependent variable. We found that female gender and higher comprehension of autosomal dominant inheritance were significant predictors of participants' communication of HCM risk information to all their siblings and children. Our results suggest that utilizing interventions that promote patient comprehension (e.g., a teaching-focused model of genetic counseling) are important and may positively impact family communication within families with HCM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for genetic evaluation and counseling of couples with recurrent miscarriage (RM). The recommendations are the opinions of the multidisciplinary Inherited Pregnancy Loss Working Group (IPLWG), with expertise in genetic counseling, medical genetics, maternal fetal medicine, internal medicine, infectious disease, cytogenetics, and coagulation disorders. The IPLWG defines RM as three or more clinically recognized consecutive or non-consecutive pregnancy losses occurring prior to fetal viability (<24 weeks gestation). These recommendations are provided to assist genetic counselors and other health care providers in clinical decision-making, as well as to promote consistency of patient care, guide the allocation of medical resources, and increase awareness of the psychosocial and cultural issues experienced by couples with RM. The IPLWG was convened with support from the March of Dimes Western Washington State Chapter and the University of Washington Division of Medical Genetics. The recommendations are U.S. Preventive Task Force Class III, and are based on clinical experiences, review of pertinent English-language published articles, and reports of expert committees. This document reviews the suspected causes of RM, provides indications for genetic evaluation and testing, addresses psychosocial and cultural considerations, and provides professional and patient resources. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of medical management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. The professional judgment of a health care provider, familiar with the circumstances of a specific case, should always supersede these recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]