Search

Contains fulltext : 293874.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) INTRODUCTION: Height, body mass index (BMI), and weight gain are associated with breast cancer risk in the general population. It is unclear whether these associations also exist for carriers of pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An international pooled cohort of 8091 BRCA1/2 variant carriers was used for retrospective and prospective analyses separately for premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cox regression was used to estimate breast cancer risk associations with height, BMI, and weight change. RESULTS: In the retrospective analysis, taller height was associated with risk of premenopausal breast cancer for BRCA2 variant carriers (HR 1.20 per 10 cm increase, 95% CI 1.04-1.38). Higher young-adult BMI was associated with lower premenopausal breast cancer risk for both BRCA1 (HR 0.75 per 5 kg/m(2), 95% CI 0.66-0.84) and BRCA2 (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.89) variant carriers in the retrospective analysis, with consistent, though not statistically significant, findings from the prospective analysis. In the prospective analysis, higher BMI and adult weight gain were associated with higher postmenopausal breast cancer risk for BRCA1 carriers (HR 1.20 per 5 kg/m(2), 95% CI 1.02-1.42; and HR 1.10 per 5 kg weight gain, 95% CI 1.01-1.19, respectively). CONCLUSION: Anthropometric measures are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant carriers, with relative risk estimates that are generally consistent with those for women from the general population.

Aim BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with primary breast cancer (PBC) are at high risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). In a nationwide cohort, we investigated the effects of chemotherapeutic agents given for PBC on CBC risk separately in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Patients and methods BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with an invasive PBC diagnosis from 1990 to 2017 were selected from a Dutch cohort. We estimated cumulative CBC incidence using competing risks analysis. Hazard ratios (HR) for the effect of neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and different chemotherapeutic agents on CBC risk were estimated using Cox regression. Results We included 1090 BRCA1 and 568 BRCA2 mutation carriers; median follow-up was 8.9 and 8.4 years, respectively. Ten-year cumulative CBC incidence for treatment with and without chemotherapy was 6.7% [95%CI: 5.1–8.6] and 16.7% [95%CI: 10.8–23.7] in BRCA1 and 4.8% [95%CI: 2.7–7.8] and 16.0% [95%CI: 9.3–24.4] in BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. Chemotherapy was associated with reduced CBC risk in BRCA1 (multivariable HR: 0.46, 95%CI: 0.29–0.74); a similar trend was observed in BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.29–1.39). In BRCA1, risk reduction was most pronounced in the first 5 years (HR: 0.32, 95%CI: 0.17–0.61). Anthracyclines and the combination of anthracyclines with taxanes were associated with substantial CBC risk reduction in BRCA1 carriers (HR: 0.34, 95%CI: 0.17–0.68 and HR: 0.22, 95%CI: 0.08–0.62, respectively). Conclusion Risk-reducing effects of chemotherapy are substantial for at least 5 years and may be used in personalised CBC risk prediction in any case for BRCA1 mutation carriers., Highlights • Contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk is high in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. • Chemotherapy for primary breast cancer results in decreased CBC risk in BRCA1. • Anthracyclines with/without taxanes show the largest CBC risk reduction in BRCA1. • For BRCA2 similar trends are observed as in BRCA1 mutation carriers. • Chemotherapy must be considered in personalised CBC risk models.

Purpose Intensive screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers aims to improve breast cancer (BC) prognosis. Our aim is to clarify the prognostic impact of tumor size in BRCA mutation carriers with a pT1 BC, which is currently unclear. We are especially interested in differences between pT1a, pT1b, and pT1c regarding the prognosis of node-negative breast cancer, the effect of chemotherapy, and the prevalence of lymph node involvement. Methods For this study, BRCA1/2-associated BC patients were selected from a nationwide cohort. Primary outcomes were 10-year overall survival (OS) per pT1a-b-c group and the effect of chemotherapy on prognosis of node-negative BC, using Kaplan–Meier and Cox models. Finally, we evaluated lymph node involvement per pT1a-b-c group. Results 963 women with pT1 BRCA1/2-associated BC diagnosed between 1990 and 2017 were included, of which 679 had pN0 BC. After a median follow-up of 10.5 years, 10-year OS in patients without chemotherapy was 77.1% in pT1cN0 and lower than for pT1aN0 (91.4%, p = 0.119) and pT1bN0 (90.8%, p = 0.024). OS was better with than without chemotherapy for pT1cN0 (91.6% vs. 77.1%, p = 0.001; hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.21–1.48). Lymph node involvement was 24.9% in pT1c, 18.8% in pT1b, and 8.6% in pT1a. Conclusion Smaller tumor size is associated with better OS and less lymph node involvement in pT1 BRCA1/2-associated BC patients. The results suggest that early detection in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers of pT1a/b BC may reduce mortality and the need for systemic therapy.

BACKGROUNDGenetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility is widely used, but for many genes,evidence of an association with breast cancer is weak, underlying risk estimatesare imprecise, and reliable subtype-specific risk estimates are lacking.METHODSWe used a panel of 34 putative susceptibility genes to perform sequencing onsamples from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 controls. In separateanalyses for protein-truncating variants and rare missense variants in these genes,we estimated odds ratios for breast cancer overall and tumor subtypes. We evaluatedmissense-variant associations according to domain and classification of pathogenicity.RESULTSProtein-truncating variants in 5 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2)were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than0.0001. Protein-truncating variants in 4 other genes (BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D,and TP53) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value ofless than 0.05 and a Bayesian false-discovery probability of less than 0.05. Forprotein-truncating variants in 19 of the remaining 25 genes, the upper limit ofthe 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for breast cancer overall was lessthan 2.0. For protein-truncating variants in ATM and CHEK2, odds ratios werehigher for estrogen receptor (ER)–positive disease than for ER-negative disease;for protein-truncating variants in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, andRAD51D, odds ratios were higher for ER-negative disease than for ER-positivedisease. Rare missense variants (in aggregate) in ATM, CHEK2, and TP53 wereassociated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.001.For BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53, missense variants (in aggregate) that would be classified as pathogenic according to standard criteria were associated with a riskof breast cancer overall, with the risk being similar to that of protein-truncatingvariants.CONCLUSIONSThe results of this study define the genes that are most clinically useful for inclusion on panels for the prediction of breast cancer risk, as well as provide estimatesof the risks associated with protein-truncating variants, to guide genetic counseling. (Funded by European Union Horizon 2020 programs and others.)

Background Endometrial cancer (EC) risk in BReast CAncer gene 1/2 (BRCA1/2) mutation carriers is uncertain; therefore, we assessed this in a large Dutch nationwide cohort study. Methods We selected 5980 BRCA1/2 (3788 BRCA1, 2151 gBRCA2, 41 both BRCA1/BRCA2) and 8451 non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers from the Hereditary Breast and Ovarian cancer study, the Netherlands cohort. Follow-up started at the date of the nationwide Dutch Pathology Registry coverage (January 1, 1989) or at the age of 25 years (whichever came last) and ended at date of EC diagnosis, last follow-up, or death (whichever came first). EC risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers was compared with 1) the general population, estimating standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) based on Dutch population-based incidence rates; and 2) non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, using Cox-regression analyses, expressed as hazard ratio (HR). Statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Fifty-eight BRCA1/2 and 33 non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers developed EC over 119 296 and 160 841 person-years, respectively (SIR = 2.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.18 to 3.65; and HR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.53 to 3.69, respectively). gBRCA1 mutation carriers showed increased risks for EC overall (SIR = 3.51, 95% CI = 2.61 to 4.72; HR = 2.91, 95% CI = 1.83 to 4.66), serous-like EC (SIR = 12.64, 95% CI = 7.62 to 20.96; HR = 10.48, 95% CI = 2.95 to 37.20), endometrioid EC (SIR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.80 to 3.83; HR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.18 to 3.45), and TP53-mutated EC (HR = 15.71, 95% CI = 4.62 to 53.40). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, overall (SIR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.01 to 2.87) and serous-like EC risks (SIR = 5.11, 95% CI = 1.92 to 13.63) were increased compared with the general population. Absolute risks by 75 years remained low (overall EC = 3.0%; serous-like EC = 1.1%). Conclusions BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have a two- to threefold increased risk for EC, with highest risk observed for the rare subgroups of serous-like and p53-abnormal EC in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Contains fulltext : 206539.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: BRCA1/2 mutations confer high lifetime risk of breast cancer, although other factors may modify this risk. Whether height or body mass index (BMI) modifies breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers remains unclear. METHODS: We used Mendelian randomization approaches to evaluate the association of height and BMI on breast cancer risk, using data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 with 14 676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, including 11 451 cases of breast cancer. We created a height genetic score using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score using 93 BMI-associated variants. We examined both observed and genetically determined height and BMI with breast cancer risk using weighted Cox models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Observed height was positively associated with breast cancer risk (HR = 1.09 per 10 cm increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0 to 1.17; P = 1.17). Height genetic score was positively associated with breast cancer, although this was not statistically significant (per 10 cm increase in genetically predicted height, HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.17; P = .47). Observed BMI was inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase, HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.90 to 0.98; P = .007). BMI genetic score was also inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase in genetically predicted BMI, HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.98; P = .02). BMI was primarily associated with premenopausal breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Height is associated with overall breast cancer and BMI is associated with premenopausal breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Incorporating height and BMI, particularly genetic score, into risk assessment may improve cancer management.

Background & Aims: To successfully implement imaging-based pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance, understanding the timeline and morphologic features of neoplastic progression is key. We aimed to investigate the progression to neoplasia from serial prediagnostic pancreatic imaging tests in high-risk individuals and identify factors associated with successful early detection. Methods: We retrospectively examined the development of pancreatic abnormalities in high-risk individuals who were diagnosed with PC or underwent pancreatic surgery, or both, in 16 international surveillance programs. Results: Of 2552 high-risk individuals under surveillance, 28 (1%) developed neoplastic progression to PC or high-grade dysplasia during a median follow-up of 29 months after baseline (interquartile range [IQR], 40 months). Of these, 13 of 28 (46%) presented with a new lesion (median size, 15 mm; range 7–57 mm), a median of 11 months (IQR, 8; range 3–17 months) after a prior examination, by which time 10 of 13 (77%) had progressed beyond the pancreas. The remaining 15 of 28 (54%) had neoplastic progression in a previously detected lesion (12 originally cystic, 2 indeterminate, 1 solid), and 11 (73%) had PC progressed beyond the pancreas. The 12 patients with cysts had been monitored for 21 months (IQR, 15 months) and had a median growth of 5 mm/y (IQR, 8 mm/y). Successful early detection (as high-grade dysplasia or PC confined to the pancreas) was associated with resection of cystic lesions (vs solid or indeterminate lesions (odds ratio, 5.388; 95% confidence interval, 1.525–19.029) and small lesions (odds ratio, 0.890/mm; 95% confidence interval 0.812–0.976/mm). Conclusions: In nearly half of high-risk individuals developing high-grade dysplasia or PC, no prior lesions are detected by imaging, yet they present at an advanced stage. Progression can occur before the next scheduled annual examination. More sensitive diagnostic tools or a different management strategy for rapidly growing cysts are needed.

The effect of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) on breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers is uncertain. Retrospective analyses have suggested a protective effect but may be substantially biased. Prospective studies have had limited power, particularly for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Further, previous studies have not considered the effect of RRSO in the context of natural menopause. A multi-centre prospective cohort of 2272 BRCA1 and 1605 BRCA2 mutation carriers was followed for a mean of 5.4 and 4.9 years, respectively; 426 women developed incident breast cancer. RRSO was modelled as a time-dependent covariate in Cox regression, and its effect assessed in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. There was no association between RRSO and breast cancer for BRCA1 (HR = 1.23; 95% CI 0.94-1.61) or BRCA2 (HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.62-1.24) mutation carriers. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, HRs were 0.68 (95% CI 0.40-1.15) and 1.07 (95% CI 0.69-1.64) for RRSO carried out before or after age 45 years, respectively. The HR for BRCA2 mutation carriers decreased with increasing time since RRSO (HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.26-0.99 for 5 years or longer after RRSO). Estimates for premenopausal women were similar. We found no evidence that RRSO reduces breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers. A potentially beneficial effect for BRCA2 mutation carriers was observed, particularly after 5 years following RRSO. These results may inform counselling and management of carriers with respect to RRSO. The BCFR was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centres in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organisations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. CNIO was partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare Diseases (CIBERER). CNIO was also partially supported by FISPI16/00440. INHERIT was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the 'CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer' program-grant #CRN-87521-and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade-grant #PSR-SIIRI-701. The PERSPECTIVE project was supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (GPH-129344), the Ministere de l'Economie, de la Science et de l' Innovation du Quebec through Genome Quebec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. Jacques Simard is a Chairholder of the Canada Research Chair in Oncogenetics. EMBRACE is supported by the Cancer Research UK grants C1287/A23382 and C1287/A16563. D. Gareth Evans is supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester (IS-BRC-1215-20007). The investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by the Cancer Research UK grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Antonis C. Antoniou is funded by Cancer Research UK grants C12292/A20861 and C12292/A11174. MT is funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007-2013)/European Research Council (310018). The German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) is supported by the German Cancer Aid (grant no 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler). The national French cohort, GENEPSO, had been supported by a grant from the Fondation de France and the Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer and is being supported by a grant from INCa as part of the European program ERA-NET on Translational Cancer Research (TRANSCAN-JTC2012, no. 2014-008). HCSC was supported by CIBERONC 161200301 from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. The HEBON study is supported by the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the BBMRI grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46, and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. The IHCC was supported by Grant PBZ_ KBN_122/P05/2004 and ERA-NET TRANSAN JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054 (ERA-NET-TRANSCAN/07/2014). This work was supported by grants to kConFab and the kConFab Follow-Up Study from Cancer Australia (809195); the Australian National Breast Cancer Foundation (IF 17); the National Health and Medical Research Council (454508, 288704, 145684); the National Institute of Health U.S.A. (1RO1CA159868); the Queensland Cancer Fund; the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia; and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. KAP is an Australian National Breast Cancer Foundation fellow. MODSQUAD-Czech Republic, Brno, was supported by MH CZ -DRO (MMCI, 00209805) and by MEYS -NPS I -LO1413 to LF and MN. The Hungarian Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study was supported by Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745, NKFI OTKA K-112228, and the Norwegian EEA Financial Mechanism HU0115/NA/2008-3/OP-9. Lund-BRCA collaborators are supported by the Swedish Cancer Society, Lund Hospital Funds, and European Research Council Advanced Grant ERC-2011-294576. Stockholm-BRCA collaborators are supported by the Swedish Cancer Society. The funders had no role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; the writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Sí

Purpose: Whether endometrial carcinoma (EC) should be considered part of the gBRCA1/2-associated hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is topic of debate. We sought to assess whether ECs occurring in gBRCA carriers are enriched for clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics, thereby supporting a causal relationship. Experimental Design: Thirty-eight gBRCA carriers that developed EC were selected from the nationwide cohort study on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the Netherlands (HEBON), and these were supplemented with four institutional cases. Tumor tissue was retrieved via PALGA (Dutch Pathology Registry). Nineteen morphologic features were scored and histotype was determined by three expert gynecologic pathologists, blinded for molecular analyses (UCM-OncoPlus Assay including 1213 genes). ECs with LOH of the gBRCA-wild-type allele (gBRCA/LOHpos) were defined “gBRCA-associated,” those without LOH (gBRCA/LOHneg) were defined “sporadic.” Results: LOH could be assessed for 40 ECs (30 gBRCA1, 10 gBRCA2), of which 60% were gBRCA/LOHpos. gBRCA/LOHpos ECs were more frequently of nonendometrioid (58%, P = 0.001) and grade 3 histology (79%, P < 0.001). All but two were in the TP53-mutated TCGA-subgroup (91.7%, P < 0.001). In contrast, gBRCA/LOHneg ECs were mainly grade 1 endometrioid EC (94%) and showed a more heterogeneous distribution of TCGA-molecular subgroups: POLE-mutated (6.3%), MSI-high (25%), NSMP (62.5%), and TP53-mutated (6.3%). Conclusions: We provide novel evidence in favor of EC being part of the gBRCA-associated HBOC-syndrome. gBRCA-associated ECs are enriched for EC subtypes associated with unfavorable clinical outcome. These findings have profound therapeutic consequences as these patients may benefit from treatment strategies such as PARP inhibitors. In addition, it should influence counseling and surveillance of gBRCA carriers.

Item does not contain fulltext Genetic testing in patients with cancer; new developments About 5% of patients with cancer have a causative germline mutation. When a germline mutation is detected, this may have major implications for treatment and follow-up of the patient, as well as for relatives who are at risk of carrying the mutation. Increasingly, DNA-testing of tumor tissue is being performed to identify potential druggable targets, aiming at personalized medicine. Both germline testing and tissue testing may have consequences for the patient, for treatment and for family members. Currently there is a trend towards mainstreaming of genetic testing, which implies that treating physicians will increasingly be the ones to order DNA tests. This implies that they need to be aware of the (family) consequences and pitfalls of genetic testing. It calls for close collaboration between clinical genetics and regional treating physicians, and adequate referral of patients with abnormal DNA results and those with other clues for a genetic predisposition. The aim being optimal tailored treatment for each patient and adequate cancer prevention for their relatives.

Background:Paternal transmission of a BRCA mutation has been reported to increase the risk of breast cancer in offspring more than when the mutation is maternally inherited. As this effect might be caused by referral bias, the aim of this study was to assess the parent-of-origin effect of the BRCA1/2 mutation on the breast cancer lifetime risk, when adjusted for referral bias. Methods: A Dutch national cohort including 1,314 proven BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and covering 54,752 person years. Data were collected by family cancer clinics, via questionnaires and from the national Dutch Cancer Registry. The parent-of-origin effect was assessed using Cox regression analyses, both unadjusted and adjusted for referral bias. Referral bias was operationalized by number of relatives with cancer and by personal cancer history. Results: The mutation was of paternal origin in 330 (42%, P < 0.001) BRCA1 and 222 (42%, P < 0.001) BRCA2 carriers. Paternal origin increased the risk of prevalent breast cancer for BRCA1 [HR, 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19–2.00] and BRCA2 carriers (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95–2.06). Adjusted for referral bias by several family history factors, these HRs ranged from 1.41 to 1.83 in BRCA1 carriers and 1.27 to 1.62 in BRCA2 carriers. Adjusted for referral bias by personal history, these HRs were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.25–1.71) and 1.14 (95% CI, 0.42–3.15), respectively. Conclusion: A parent-of-origin effect is present after correction for referral bias by family history, but correction for the personal cancer history made the effect disappear. Impact: There is no conclusive evidence regarding incorporating a BRCA1/2 parent-of-origin effect in breast cancer risk prediction models. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(8); 1251–8. ©2016 AACR.

Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA-velocity (PSAV) have been used to identify men at risk of prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating PSA screening in men with a known genetic predisposition to PrCa due to BRCA1/2 mutations. This analysis evaluates the utility of PSA and PSAV for identifying PrCa and high-grade disease in this cohort. Methods: PSAV was calculated using logistic regression to determine if PSA or PSAV predicted the result of prostate biopsy (PB) in men with elevated PSA values. Cox regression was used to determine whether PSA or PSAV predicted PSA elevation in men with low PSAs. Interaction terms were included in the models to determine whether BRCA status influenced the predictiveness of PSA or PSAV. Results: 1634 participants had >= 3 PSA readings of whom 174 underwent PB and 45 PrCas diagnosed. In men with PSA >3.0 ng ml(-1), PSAV was not significantly associated with presence of cancer or high-grade disease. PSAV did not add to PSA for predicting time to an elevated PSA. When comparing BRCA1/2 carriers to non-carriers, we found a significant interaction between BRCA status and last PSA before biopsy (P = 0.031) and BRCA2 status and PSAV (P = 0.024). However, PSAV was not predictive of biopsy outcome in BRCA2 carriers. Conclusions: PSA is more strongly predictive of PrCa in BRCA carriers than non-carriers. We did not find evidence that PSAV aids decision-making for BRCA carriers over absolute PSA value alone.

BACKGROUND: Clinical classification of rare sequence changes identified in the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is essential for appropriate genetic counselling of individuals carrying these variants. We previously showed that variant BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln in the BRCA1 transcriptional transactivation domain demonstrated equivocal results from a series of functional assays, and proposed that this variant may confer low to moderate risk of cancer.METHODS: Measures of genetic risk (report of family history, segregation) were assessed for 68 BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) families recruited through family cancer clinics, comparing results with 34 families carrying the previously classified pathogenic BRCA1 c.5095C>T p.Arg1699Trp (R1699W) mutation at the same residue, and to 243 breast cancer families with no BRCA1 pathogenic mutation (BRCA-X).RESULTS: Comparison of BRCA1 carrier prediction scores of probands using the BOADICEA risk prediction tool revealed that BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln variant carriers had family histories that were less 'BRCA1-like' than BRCA1 c.5095C>T p.Arg1699Trp mutation carriers (pA p.Arg1699Gln had reduced penetrance compared with the average truncating BRCA1 mutation penetrance (p=0.0002), with estimated cumulative risks to age 70 of breast or ovarian cancer of 24%.CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide substantial evidence that the BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) variant, demonstrating ambiguous functional deficiency across multiple assays, is associated with intermediate risk of breast and ovarian cancer, highlighting challenges for risk modelling and clinical management of patients of this and other potential moderate-risk variants.

Item does not contain fulltext Clinical and molecular cytogenetic studies in a case with partial trisomy 12p due to a de novo supernumerary ring chromosome: We report on a girl with a mosaic karyotype containing a supernumerary ring chromosome. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies showed that this marker chromosome was derived from chromosome 12, resulting in partial trisomy 12p13.1-->12q11. The girl showed developmental delay, cerebral visual impairment, obesity and mild dysmorphic features. Her clinical data at 6 months, 3 years, and 6 years of age were compared with the clinical data on other trisomy 12p patients.

Data on survival of BRCA1/2-associated primary breast cancer (PBC) patients who opt for subsequent contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) are scarce and inconsistent. We examined the efficacy of CRRM on overall survival in mutation carriers with a history of PBC. From a Dutch multicentre cohort, we selected 583 BRCA-associated PBC patients, being diagnosed between 1980 and 2011. Over time, 242 patients (42%) underwent CRRM and 341 patients (58%) remained under surveillance. Survival analyses were performed using Cox models, with CRRM as a time-dependent covariate. The median follow-up after PBC diagnosis was 11.4 years. In the CRRM group, four patients developed contralateral breast cancer (2%), against 64 patients (19%) in the surveillance group (p

Background: We aimed to quantify previously observed relatively high cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA2 carriers) older than 60 in the Northern Netherlands, and to analyze whether these could be explained by mutation spectrum or population background risk. Methods: This consecutive cohort study included all known pathogenic BRCA1/2 carriers in the Northern Netherlands (N = 1,050). Carrier and general reference populations were: BRCA1/2 carriers in the rest of the Netherlands (N = 2,013) and the general population in both regions. Regional differences were assessed with HRs and ORs. HRs were adjusted for birth year and mutation spectrum. Results: All BRCA1 carriers and BRCA2 carriers younger than 60 had a significantly lower breast cancer risk in the Northern Netherlands; HRs were 0.66 and 0.64, respectively. Above age 60, the breast cancer risk in BRCA2 carriers in the Northern Netherlands was higher than in the rest of the Netherlands [HR, 3.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11–14.35]. Adjustment for mutational spectrum changed the HRs for BRCA1, BRCA2 Conclusions: Differences in mutation spectrum only partly explain the regional differences in breast cancer risk in BRCA2 carriers, and for an even smaller part in BRCA1 carriers. Impact: The increased risk in BRCA2 carriers older than 60 may warrant extension of intensive breast screening beyond age 60. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(11); 2482–91. ©2014 AACR.

Item does not contain fulltext 4 p.

Contains fulltext : 24033___.PDF (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

PMCID: PMC3319317.-- et al., [Background]: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified variants at 19p13.1 and ZNF365 (10q21.2) as risk factors for breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. We explored associations with ovarian cancer and with breast cancer by tumor histopathology for these variants in mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). [Methods]: Genotyping data for 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 40 studies were combined. [Results]: We confirmed associations between rs8170 at 19p13.1 and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers [HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-1.27; P = 7.42 × 10(-4)] and between rs16917302 at ZNF365 (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97; P = 0.017) but not rs311499 at 20q13.3 (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94-1.31; P = 0.22) and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Analyses based on tumor histopathology showed that 19p13 variants were predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, whereas rs16917302 at ZNF365 was mainly associated with ER-positive breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We also found for the first time that rs67397200 at 19p13.1 was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer for BRCA1 (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; P = 3.8 × 10(-4)) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10-1.52; P = 1.8 × 10(-3)). [Conclusions]: 19p13.1 and ZNF365 are susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer and ER subtypes of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. [Impact]: These findings can lead to an improved understanding of tumor development and may prove useful for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers., This research was supported by NIH grant CA128978, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), a U.S. Department of Defence Ovarian Cancer Idea award (W81XWH-10-1-0341), and grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the Komen Foundation for the Cure. This work was also supported by Cancer Research UK (CR-UK) grants C12292/A11174 and C1287/A10118. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175). Support was also provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program and by the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance-grant #019511., A.C. Antoniou is a CR-UK Senior Cancer Research Fellow. D.F. Easton is CR-UK Principal Research Fellow. G. Chenevix-Trench6 is a NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellow. BFBOCC was supported by the Research Council of Lithuania grant LIG-19/2010 to R. Janavicius. BMBSA was supported by grants from the Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA) to E.J. van Rensburg. BCFR was supported by the National Cancer Institute, NIH under RFA-CA-06-503 and through cooperative agreements with members of the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR) and Principal Investigators, including Cancer Care Ontario (U01 CA69467), Columbia University (U01 CA69398), Fox Chase Cancer Center (U01 CA69631), Huntsman Cancer Institute (U01 CA69446), Cancer Prevention Institute of California (formerly the Northern California Cancer Center; U01 CA69417), University of Melbourne (U01 CA69638), and Research Triangle Institute Informatics Support Center (RFP No. N02PC45022-46). CBCS was supported by The Neye Foundation. CNIO was partially supported by Fundación Mutua Madrileña, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (FIS PI08 1120), and the Basque Foundation for Health Innovation and Research (BIOEF): BIO07/CA/006. CONSIT TEAM was supported by grants from Ministero della Salute (Extraordinary National Cancer Program 2006 “Alleanza contro il Cancro” to L. Varesco and P. Radice, and “Progetto Tumori Femminili” to P. Radice), Ministero dell'Universita' e Ricerca (RBLAO3-BETH to P. Radice), Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (Special Project “Hereditary tumors” to P. Radice), Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (4017 to P. Pujol), and by funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5 × 1,000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects “5 × 1000”)., The DKFZ study was supported by funds from the DKFZ. EMBRACE was supported by CR-UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D.G. Evans and Fiona Lalloo were supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester, UK. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust were supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. R.A. Eeles, Elizabeth Bancroft, and Lucia D'Mello were supported by CR-UK Grant C5047/A8385. GC-HBOC was supported by a grant of the German Cancer Aid (grant 109076) and by the Centre of Molecular Medicine Cologne (CMMC). The GEMO study was supported by the Ligue National Contre le Cancer; Association for International Cancer Research Grant (AICR-07-0454); and the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award. The Georgetown study was supported by the Familial Cancer Registry at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008), the Cancer Genetics Network (HHSN261200744000C), and Swing Fore the Cure. GOG was supported through funding provided by both intramural (Clinical Genetics Branch, DCEG) and extramural (Community Oncology and Prevention Trials Program—COPTRG) NCI programs. K. Phillips is the Cancer Council Victoria, Colebatch Clinical Research Fellow. HEBCS was supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (132473), the Finnish Cancer Society, and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HEBON study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, and the ZonMW grant 91109024. HUNBOCS was supported by the Hungarian Research Grant KTIA-OTKA CK-80745. ICO was supported by Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, Spanish Health Research Fund; Carlos III Health Institute; Catalan Health Institute and Autonomous Government of Catalonia; contract grant numbers ISCIIIRETIC RD06/0020/1051, PI10/01422, PI10/31488, and 2009SGR290. IHCC was supported by a Polish Foundation of Science award to K. Jaworska, a fellow of International PhD program, Postgraduate School of Molecular Medicine, Warsaw Medical University. ILUH was supported by the Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund., INHERIT was supported with J. Simard, Chairholder of the Canada Research Chair in Oncogenetics. IOVHBOCS was supported by Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca (MIUR), and “Ministero della Salute” (“Progetto Tumori Femminili and grant numbers RFPS 2006-5-341353, ACC2/R6.9”). kConFab was supported by grants from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and by the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. The kConFab Clinical Follow-Up Study was funded by the NHMRC [145684, 288704, 454508]. A.-B. Skytte is supported by a NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship. A.K. Godwin was funded by U01CA69631, 5U01CA113916, and the Eileen Stein Jacoby Fund while at FCCC. The author acknowledges support from The University of Kansas Cancer Center and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K. Godwin is the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences endowed Professor. The McGill study was supported by the Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer. M. Thomassen holds a Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Québec clinician-scientist award. The MSKCC study was supported by the Starr Cancer Consortium, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Norman and Carol Stone Cancer Research Initiative, the Kate and Robert Niehaus Clinical Cancer Research Initiative, the Lymphoma Foundation, and the Sabin Family Research Initiative. The NCI study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc. NNPIO was supported by the Russian Federation for Basic Research (grants 10-04-92601, 10-04-92110, 11-04-00227) and the Federal Agency for Science and Innovations (contract 16.512.11.2237)., OCGN was supported by Cancer Care Ontario and the U.S. National Cancer Institute, NIH under RFA # CA-06-503 and through cooperative agreements with members of the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR) and Principal Investigators. OSU-CCG was supported by the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. PBCS was supported by an Instituto Toscano Tumori grant to M.A. Caligo. SEABASS was supported by CARIF and University Malaya. The UCSF study was supported by the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, the Avon Foundation, and the Center for Translational and Policy Research in Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), NIH/NCI P01 CA130818-02A1. UKFOCR was supported by a project grant from CRUK to P.P.D. Pharoah. The UPENN study was supported Komen Foundation for the Cure to S.M. Domchek, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation to K.L. Nathanson, and NIH grants R01-CA083855 and R01-CA102776 to T.R. Rebbeck. WCRI was supported by the American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professorship #SIOP-06-258-06-COUN.

Recently, a locus on chromosome 6q22.33 (rs2180341) was reported to be associated with increased breast cancer risk in the Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) population, and this association was also observed in populations of non-AJ European ancestry. In the present study, we performed a large replication analysis of rs2180341 using data from 31,428 invasive breast cancer cases and 34,700 controls collected from 25 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). In addition, we evaluated whether rs2180341 modifies breast cancer risk in 3,361 BRCA1 and 2,020 BRCA2 carriers from 11 centers in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Based on the BCAC data from women of European ancestry, we found evidence for a weak association with breast cancer risk for rs2180341 (per-allele odds ratio (OR) = 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06, p = 0.023). There was evidence for heterogeneity in the ORs among studies (I-2 = 49.3%; p = less than0.004). In CIMBA, we observed an inverse association with the minor allele of rs2180341 and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers (per-allele OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-1.00, p = 0.048), indicating a potential protective effect of this allele. These data suggest that that 6q22.33 confers a weak effect on breast cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in DNA repair are good candidates to be tested as phenotypic modifiers for carriers of mutations in the high-risk susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. The base excision repair (BER) pathway could be particularly interesting given the relation of synthetic lethality that exists between one of the components of the pathway, PARP1, and both BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this study, we have evaluated the XRCC1 gene that participates in the BER pathway, as phenotypic modifier of BRCA1 and BRCA2. METHODS: Three common SNPs in the gene, c.-77C>T (rs3213245) p.Arg280His (rs25489) and p.Gln399Arg (rs25487) were analysed in a series of 701 BRCA1 and 576 BRCA2 mutation carriers. RESULTS: An association was observed between p.Arg280His-rs25489 and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers, with rare homozygotes at increased risk relative to common homozygotes (hazard ratio: 22.3, 95% confidence interval: 14.3-34, P

Contains fulltext : 95821.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: Li Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) and Von Hippel-Lindau disease (VHL) are two rare hereditary tumor syndromes, characterized by a high risk of developing multiple tumors at various sites and ages for which preventive and treatment options are limited. For partners, it may be difficult to deal with the on-going threat of tumors in both their spouse and children. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the prevalence of and factors associated with psychological distress among partners of individuals with or at high risk of LFS or VHL. METHODS: As part of a nationwide, cross-sectional study, partners of individuals diagnosed with or at high risk of LFS or VHL were invited to complete a self-report questionnaire assessing distress, worries, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Fifty-five (58%) of those high-risk individuals with a partner consented to having their partner approached for the study. In total, 50 partners (91%) completed the questionnaire, of whom 28% reported clinically relevant levels of syndrome-related distress. Levels of distress and worries of the partners and their high-risk spouse were significantly correlated. Younger age and a lack of social support were also associated significantly with heightened levels of distress and worries. The majority of partners (76%) believed that professional psychosocial support should be routinely offered to them. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-quarter of the partners exhibit clinically relevant levels of distress that warrant psychological support. The distress levels of the 'patient' could potentially be used to identify partners at risk of developing clinically relevant levels of distress.

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have a high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Differences in penetrance indicate that this risk may be influenced by lifestyle factors. Because physical activity is one of the few modifiable risk factors, it may provide a target to add to breast cancer prevention in this high-risk population. We examined the association between self-reported lifetime sports activity and breast cancer risk in a nationwide retrospective cohort study, including 725 carriers, of whom 218 had been diagnosed with breast cancer within 10 years prior to questionnaire completion. We found a nonsignificantly decreased risk for ever engaging in sports activity (HR = 0.84, 95%CI = 0.57-1.24). Among women who had participated in sports, a medium versus low level of intensity and duration (i.e., between 11.0 and 22.7 mean MET hours/week averaged over a lifetime) reduced the risk of breast cancer (HR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.36-0.95); no dose-response trend was observed. For mean hours/week of sports activity, a nonsignificant trend was observed (HRlow versus never = 0.93, 95%CI = 0.60-1.43; HRmedium versus never = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.51-1.29; HRhigh versus never = 0.78, 95%CI = 0.48-1.29; p (trend overall) = 0.272; p (trend active women) = 0.487). For number of years of sports activity no significant associations were found. Among women active in sports before age 30, mean MET hours/week showed the strongest inverse association of all activity measures (HRmedium versus low = 0.60, 95%CI = 0.38-0.96; HRhigh versus low = 0.58, 95%CI = 0.35-0.94; p (trend) = 0.053). Engaging in sports activity after age 30 was also inversely associated with breast cancer risk (HR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.44-0.91). Our results indicate that sports activity may reduce the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Introduction: Current attempts to identify genetic modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 associated risk have focused on a candidate gene approach, based on knowledge of gene functions, or the development of large genome-wide association studies. In this study, we evaluated 24 SNPs tagged to 14 candidate genes derived through a novel approach that analysed gene expression differences to prioritise candidate modifier genes for association studies.Methods: We successfully genotyped 24 SNPs in a cohort of up to 4,724 BRCA1 and 2,693 BRCA2 female mutation carriers from 15 study groups and assessed whether these variants were associated with risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.Results: SNPs in five of the 14 candidate genes showed evidence of association with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers (P Conclusions: This study provides evidence that the SMAD3 gene, which encodes a key regulatory protein in the transforming growth factor beta signalling pathway and is known to interact directly with BRCA2, may contribute to increased risk of breast cancer in BRCA2 mutation carriers. This finding suggests that genes with expression associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status are enriched for the presence of common genetic modifiers of breast cancer risk in these populations.

Little is known about the relation between communication during cancer genetic counseling and outcome. We assessed associations between counselor-counselee communication and counselee satisfaction, cognitions, anxiety, and fulfillment of major needs, corrected for pre-visit levels as appropriate. In total 171 consecutive new counselees, mainly referred for breast or colon cancer, received pre- and post-visit questionnaires assessing needs/fulfillment, knowledge, perceived control (PPC), anxiety (STAI), and satisfaction. Initial visits were videotaped and counselor eye gaze was recorded. Verbal communication was rated by Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). Asking more medical questions was associated with lower satisfaction levels. Receiving more medical information was related to higher correct knowledge scores, higher reported fulfillment of some needs, and unrelated to perceptions of control. Receiving more psychosocial information and longer counselor eye gaze were related to higher anxiety scores. Longer visits were related to higher correct knowledge scores. Providing medical information appears the most powerful communication aspect to increase counselee satisfaction and address needs. More research is needed on how to address adequately (emotional) needs and increase feelings of control.

This study assessed psychological distress during the first year after diagnosis in breast cancer patients approached for genetic counseling at the start of adjuvant radiotherapy and identified those vulnerable to long-term high distress. Of the approached patients some chose to receive a DNA test result (n = 58), some were approached but did not fulfill criteria for referral (n = 118) and some declined counseling and/or testing (n = 44). The comparative group consisted of patients not eligible for genetic counseling (n = 182) and was therefore not approached. Patients actively approached for genetic counseling showed no more long-term distress than patients not eligible for such counseling. There were no differences between the subgroups of approached patients. Predictors for long-term high distress or an increase in distress over time were pre-existing high distress and a low quality of life, having children, and having no family members with breast cancer. It is concluded that breast cancer patients can be systematically screened and approached for genetic counseling during adjuvant radiotherapy without imposing extra psychological burden. Patients vulnerable to longterm high distress already displayed high distress shortly after diagnosis with no influence of their medical treatment on their level of distress at long-term.

Item does not contain fulltext Of all forms of cancer, approximately 5% are caused by factors leading to a strong genetic predisposition. DNA diagnosis is currently used in families with hereditary tumour syndromes, such as familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary non-polyposis colorectal carcinoma (Lynch syndrome), and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Those persons who have not inherited the predisposition no longer have to undergo regular examinations. DNA diagnosis for a hereditary predisposition is currently also performed in patients with cancer at a relatively young age, even if the family history is unclear or negative. Consideration of the patient in the context of his or her family is important for both medico-technical and psychosocial reasons. This is true of both diagnostic and presymptomatic DNA diagnosis. For these reasons, the clinical application of the DNA diagnosis of hereditary tumours has become an integral part of the work of the multidisciplinary cancer family clinics of the university medical centres and the cancer centres. Guidelines for the management of hereditary tumours have recently been issued, with criteria for referral to the specialised outpatient clinics.

Objectives: To assess the influence of a 1-day individual video-feedback training for cancer genetic counselors on the interaction during initial visits. Feedback was intended to help counselors make counselees’ needs more explicit and increase counselors’ sensitivity to these. Methods: In total 158 counselees, mainly referred for breast or colon cancer and visiting 1 of 10 counselors, received a pre- and post-visit questionnaire assessing needs (fulfillment). Visits were videotaped, counselor eye gaze was assessed, and verbal communication was analyzed by Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) adapted to the genetic setting. Halfway the study, five counselors were trained. Results: Trained counselors provided more psychosocial information, and with trained counselors emotional consequences of DNA-testing was more often discussed. Counselees seen by a trained counselor considered their need for explanations on (emotional) consequences of counseling as better fulfilled. Unexpectedly, counselees’ contribution to the interaction was smaller with trained counselors. Conclusion: Feedback appeared to result in greater emphasis on psychosocial issues, without lengthening the visit. However, counselors did not become more verbally supportive in other ways than by providing information. Practice implications: A 1 day individual training appears effective to some extend; increased opportunities for watching and practicing behavioral alternatives and arranging consolidating sessions may improve training results.

The fulfillment of counselees’ expectations in cancer genetic counseling and how this affects the outcome of counseling have received little attention so far. This study investigates how the initial consultation influences counselees’ cognitions and anxiety, whether counselors address counselees’ prior needs and preferences during the visit, and whether addressing needs is associated with a more positive outcome of the visit. One hundred twenty-eight affected and unaffected counselees from families with no known mutation, who were seen by one of fourteen counselors, participated. Pre- and post-visit questionnaires assessed correct knowledge about hereditary breast or colon cancer, perceived personal control (PPC), anxiety (STAI), risk perceptions, and(fulfillmentof)needs (QUOTE-geneca). Results demonstrated a pre- to post-visit significant increase in correct knowledge and PPC, and a significant decrease in STAI and risk perceptions. However, marked overestimation of risks persisted. Decrease in STAI and risk perceptions was significantly less pronounced in affected versus unaffected counselees. The majority of counselees were (very) satisfied about the extent to which their needs were addressed, albeit about one-fifth were not regarding emotional matters and explanations about their own cancer risk. Finally, the better counselees perceived their needs to be fulfilled, the significantly higher their PPC and the significantly lower their STAi scores were. Findings suggest that both unaffected and affected counselees should becounseled carefully. Also, a more effective service may be attained if counselors pay more attention to counselees’ emotional needs and detail more inheritance and penetrance of mutated genes in relation to counselees’ family history.

This study sought to describe counsellor–counselee interaction during initial cancer genetic counselling consultations and to examine whether the communication reflects counselees’ previsit needs. A total of 130 consecutive counselees, referred mainly for breast or colon cancer, completed a questionnaire before their first appointment at a genetic clinic. Their visit was videotaped. Counselee and counsellor verbal communications were analysed and initiative to discuss 11 genetics-specific conversational topics was assessed. The content of the visit appeared relatively standard. Overall, counselees had a stronger psychosocial focus than counsellors. Counsellors directed the communication more and initiated the discussion of most of the topics assessed. Counselees did not appear to communicate readily in a manner that reflected their previsit needs. Counsellors provided more psychosocial information to counselees in higher need for emotional support, yet did not enquire more about counselees’ specific concerns. New counselees may be helped by receiving more information on the counselling procedure prior to their visit, and may be advised to prepare the visit more thoroughly so as to help them verbalise more their queries during the visit.