Search

Genetic testing advances have enabled the provision of previously unavailable information on the pathogenicity of genetic variants, frequently necessitating the recontact of former patients by clinicians. In Japan, national health insurance coverage was extended to BRCA1/2testing for the diagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer for patients who meet certain criteria in 2020, and conditions necessitating recontact were expected to increase. Studies and discussions regarding recontact have been conducted in the U.S. and Europe; however, in Japan, the national discussion around recontact remains undeveloped. We conducted a cross-sectional study by interviewing 73 facilities accredited by the Japanese Organization of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer regarding the practice of recontacting patients at these facilities. Sixty-six facilities responded that they recontact patients, but only 17 facilities had a protocol for this. The most common reason for recontact was that it could benefit the patient. Facilities that did not recontact stated that they lacked the necessary personnel or services. Most facilities indicated that a recontact system should be implemented in their practice. The increased burden on too few medical personnel, unestablished systems, patient confusion, and the right not to know were cited as barriers to implementing recontact. Although developing recommendations on recontact would be useful for providing equitable healthcare in Japan, there is an urgent need to deepen the discussion on recontacting, as negative opinions about recontacting patients were observed.

The purpose of this study is to summarize the results from a survey on awareness of genetic counseling for pregnant women who wish to receive non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Japan. As a component of a clinical study by the Japan NIPT Consortium, genetic counseling was conducted for women who wished to receive NIPT, and a questionnaire concerning both NIPT and genetic counseling was given twice: once after pre-test counseling and again when test results were reported. The responses of 7292 women were analyzed. They expressed high satisfaction with the genetic counseling system of the NIPT Consortium (94%). The number of respondents who indicated that genetic counseling is necessary for NIPT increased over time. Furthermore, they highly valued genetic counseling provided by skilled clinicians, such as clinical geneticists or genetic counselors. The vast majority (90%) responded that there was sufficient opportunity to consider the test ahead of time. Meanwhile, women who received positive test results had a poor opinion and expressed a low-degree satisfaction. We confirmed that the pre-test genetic counseling that we conducted creates an opportunity for pregnant women to sufficiently consider prenatal testing, promotes its understanding and has possibilities to effectively facilitate informed decision making after adequate consideration. A more careful and thorough approach is considered to be necessary for women who received positive test results.