Search

Objective Cancer genetic counseling increasingly involves discussing uncertain test results, for example because multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously. This review was performed to provide insight into how counselors’ communication of uncertain test results during genetic counseling for cancer affects counselors and counselees. Methods A systematic mixed studies review was undertaken to review research on the effects of communicating uncertain test results. Four databases were searched using a PICO search strategy. Study findings of articles meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesized narratively. Results Twenty-four articles were included. Uncertain test results encompassed either an inconclusive test result or a variant of unknown significance (VUS). Counselees involved almost exclusively women at risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. None of the articles reported effects on counselor outcomes. Counselee outcomes were categorized as cognitive, affective or behavioral. Interpretation of a VUS was overall reported as difficult, and counselees’ distress and worry were repeatedly found to decrease over time after the discussion of any uncertain test result. For most other outcomes, findings were sparse and/or inconsistent. Conclusion Evidence on effects on counselee outcomes is scant and inconsistent. Future studies are warranted to provide insight into how counselees and counselors are affected. Practice implications Clinical practice could benefit from guidelines on how to address uncertain test results during pre- and posttest genetic consultations.

Pre-test counseling about multigene panel testing involves many uncertainties. Ideally, counselees are informed about uncertainties in a way that enables them to make an informed decision about panel testing. It is presently unknown whether and how uncertainty is discussed during initial cancer genetic counseling. We therefore investigated whether and how counselors discuss and address uncertainty, and the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), and explored associations between counselors’ communication and their characteristics in consultations on panel testing for cancer. For this purpose, consultations of counselors discussing a multigene panel with a simulated patient were videotaped. Simulated patients represented a counselee who had had multiple cancer types, according to a script. Before and afterwards, counselors completed a survey. Counselors’ uncertainty expressions, initiating and the framing of expressions, and their verbal responses to scripted uncertainties of the simulated patient were coded by two researchers independently. Coding was done according to a pre-developed coding scheme using The Observer XT software for observational analysis. Additionally, the degree of SDM was assessed by two observers. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to assess associations of communicated uncertainties, responses and the extent of SDM, with counselors’ background characteristics. In total, twenty-nine counselors, including clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, physician assistants-in-training, residents and interns, participated of whom working experience varied between 0 and 25 years. Counselors expressed uncertainties mainly regarding scientific topics (94%) and on their own initiative (95%). Most expressions were framed directly (77%), e.g. We don’t know, and were emotionally neutral (59%; without a positive/negative value). Counselors mainly responded to uncertainties of the simulated patient by explicitly referring to the uncertainty (69%), without providing space for further disclosure (66%). More experienced counselors provided less space to further disclose uncertainty (p

Uncertainty is increasingly discussed during genetic counseling due to innovative techniques, e.g., multigene panel testing. Discussions about uncertainty may impact counselees variably, depending on counselors’ communication styles. Ideally, the discussion of uncertainty enables counselees to cope with uncertainty and make well-informed decisions about testing. We examined the impact of how counselors convey uncertainty and address counselees’ uncertainty, and explored the role of individual characteristics. Therefore, a randomized controlled experiment using videos was conducted. Former counselees (N = 224) viewed one video depicting a genetic consultation about multigene panel testing. The extent of counselors’ communication of uncertainty (comprehensive vs. the essence) and their response to counselees’ uncertainty expressions (providing information vs. providing space for emotions vs. normalizing and counterbalancing uncertainty) were systematically manipulated. Individual characteristics, e.g., uncertainty tolerance, were assessed, as well as outcome variables (primary outcomes: feelings of uncertainty and information recall). No effects were found on primary outcomes. Participants were most satisfied when the essence was communicated, combined with providing information or providing space responses (p = 0.002). Comprehensive information resulted in less perceived steering toward testing (p = 0.005). Participants with lower uncertainty tolerance or higher trait anxiety were less confident about their understanding when receiving comprehensive information (p = 0.025). Participants seeking information experienced less uncertainty (p = 0.003), and trusted their counselor more (p = 0.028), when the counselor used information providing responses. In sum, the impact of discussing uncertainty primarily depends on individual characteristics. Practical guidelines should address how to tailor the discussion of uncertainty.

Background Although patient-driven second opinions are increasingly sought in oncology, the desirability of this trend remains unknown. Therefore, this systematic review assesses evidence on the motivation for and frequency of requests for second opinions and examines how they evolve and their consequences for oncological practice. Materials and methods Relevant databases were sought using the terms "cancer," "second opinion," and "self-initiated." Included were peer-reviewed articles that reported on patient-initiated second opinions within oncology. Selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed and discussed by two researchers. Results Of the 25 included studies, the methodological designs were qualitative (n = 4), mixed (n = 1), or quantitative (n = 20). Study quality was rated high for 10 studies, moderate for eight, and low for seven studies. Reported rates of second opinion seeking ranged from 1%-88%. Higher education was most consistently related to seeking a second opinion. Patients' primary motivations were a perceived need for certainty or confirmation, a lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Reported rates of diagnostic or therapeutic discrepancies between the first and second opinions ranged from 2%-51%. Discussion Additional studies are required to further examine the medical, practical, and psychological consequences of second opinions for patients and oncologists. Future studies could compare the potential advantages and disadvantages of second opinion seeking, and might offer guidance to patients and physicians to better facilitate the second opinion process. Some practical recommendations are provided for oncologists to optimally discuss and conduct second opinions with their patients. The Oncologist 2017;22:1197-1211 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although cancer patients increasingly seek a second opinion, the benefits of this process remain unclear. Results of this systematic review suggest that the available studies on this topic are highly variable in both methodology and quality. Moreover, reported rates for a second opinion (1%-88%) as well as for disagreement between the first and second opinion (2%-51%) range widely. The primary motivations of patients are a need for certainty, lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Additional research should evaluate how unnecessary second opinions might be avoided. Practical suggestions are provided for oncologists to optimize second opinions.

Objective Persons seeking cancer genetic counseling mainly aim to obtain information and certainty about their medical situation. However, the information that counselees receive often involves many uncertainties. To develop strategies to enable optimal communication about uncertainties, the spectrum of uncertainty expressed within cancer genetic counseling needs to be established. This study aimed to gain insight into the uncertainties verbally expressed by counselors and counselees. Methods Twenty-five consultations were audiotaped, transcribed and qualitatively analyzed. A coding scheme identifying all uncertainties was developed parallel to the coding of the transcripts. Results Several uncertainties were identified varying in their source (i.e. the cause of uncertainty) and the issues involved (i.e. the topic to which uncertainty pertained). The main sources of uncertainty were the unpredictability of the future and a lack of knowledge. Counselees also expressed uncertainty related to the amount and complexity of the information. Counselors expressed uncertainties mainly related to scientific issues, whereas counselees’ uncertainty mainly related to personal and practical issues. Conclusion A wide range of uncertainties was expressed by both groups. Counselors differ from counselees in the degree and types of uncertainty they express. Practice implications Counselors should address scientific uncertainties during genetic counseling to increase awareness and understanding in counselees.

Objective: Cancer patients need information provision to cope with their disease. However, only 20-60% of information provided during consultations is remembered. This study aimed to investigate whether oncologists' use of trust-conveying communication, characterized by communicating competence, honesty and caring, enhances patients' memory. Moreover, we aimed to investigate if this hypothetical relationship is mediated by a reduction in psychophysiological arousal during the consultation. Methods: An experimental design was used, allowing for conclusion about causality. Two versions of a scripted video-taped consultation were used in which the oncologist adopted either a standard or a trustconveying communication style. 97 cancer-naive individuals acted as analogue patients and were randomly assigned to watch one of the consultations. Results: Free recall, assessed 24-28 h after viewing, was higher (p = 0.039) in the trust-conveying condition (65.3% versus 59.5%). Recognition did not differ (p = 0.502). Psychophysiological assessment during watching showed a smaller heart rate response in the trust-conveying condition (p = 0.037). No mediation effect nor an effect on electrodermal activity was found. Conclusion: These results suggest that oncologists' use of trust-conveying communication could increase patients' free recall of information and diminish their cardiovascular response. Practice implications: The underlying mechanisms by which oncologists' communication influences information recall warrants further investigation. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved