Related Articles

This study evaluates the extent to which psychological adaptation (validated measures of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and test-specific distress) after genetic susceptibility testing is influenced by changes in beliefs about Alzheimer's disease (AD) and sharing of test results with others. Adult children of AD patients (N=269) from a randomized clinical trial involving genetic testing for apolipoprotein E (APOE) provided information before, as well as 6 weeks and 12 months after results disclosure. The levels of adaptation varied highly among participants at 12-month assessment. Participants who learned that they were ε4 negative (lower risk) had a reduction in perceived risk and concern about developing AD compared with those who learned that they were ε4 positive. Those who received results through an extended educational protocol (three in-person visits) had a larger decline in AD concern than those in a condensed protocol (educational brochure and two in-person visits). Increase in AD concern 6 weeks after disclosure was associated with increase in depression scores (b=0.20, P<0.01) and anxiety levels (b=0.20, P<0.01), and higher distress associated with AD genetic testing (b=0.18, P=0.02) 1 year after testing. Increase in perceived risk (b=0.16, P=0.04) was also associated with higher AD genetic testing distress. Sharing the test results with health professionals and friends (but not family) was associated with decrease in depression (b= −0.11, P=0.05) and anxiety levels (b= −0.16, P<0.01), respectively after a year. Enhancing discussion with regard to risks and concerns about AD during pretesting counseling and obtaining support through sharing the results after testing may help facilitate test recipients' long-term psychological adaptation.

This study explored the extent to which recipients of genetic susceptibility testing for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) communicated their results to others. It also examined demographic characteristics, along with beliefs about AD, associated with such communication. Participants (N = 271) in a randomized clinical trial involving genetic testing for Apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene variants among first-degree relatives of AD patients reported their communication behaviors 6 weeks after the results disclosure. Information on beliefs about AD and genetic testing was collected at baseline. Eighty-two percent of participants receiving APOE genotype information shared their results with someone. Specifically, 64% shared with family members, 51% with spouse or significant others, 35% with friends, and 12% with health care professionals. Greater AD treatment optimism was associated with communicating results to family (OR=1.43), spouse (OR=1.62), friends (OR =1.81), and health care professionals (OR=2.20). Lower perceived risk (OR=0.98) and higher perceived importance of genetics in the development of AD (OR=1.93) were associated with results communication in general. Lower perceived drawbacks of AD genetic testing was associated with results communication to friends (OR=0.65). Beliefs about AD risks and causes, genetic testing, and development of treatments may partly determine the interpersonal communication patterns of genetic susceptibility test results.

Susceptibility testing for common, complex adult-onset diseases is projected to become more commonplace as the rapid pace of genomic discoveries continues, and evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of such testing is needed to inform medical practice and health policy. Apolipoprotein E (APOE) testing for risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) provides a paradigm in which to examine the process and impact of disclosing genetic susceptibility for a prevalent, severe and incurable neurological condition. This review summarizes findings from a series of multi-site randomized clinical trials examining psychological and behavioral responses to various methods of genetic risk assessment for AD using APOE disclosure. We discuss challenges involved in disease risk estimation and communication and the extent to which participants comprehend and perceive utility in their genetic risk information. Findings on the psychological impact of test results are presented (e.g., distress), along with data on participants’ health behavior and insurance purchasing responses (e.g., long term care). Finally, we report comparisons of the safety and efficacy of intensive genetic counseling approaches to briefer models that emphasize streamlined processes and educational materials. The implications of these findings for the emerging field of personal genomics are discussed, with directions identified for future research.

Purpose

Perceptions about the pros and cons of genetic susceptibility testing are among the best predictors of test utilization. How actual testing changes such perceptions has yet to be examined.

Methods

In a clinical trial, first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease received genetic risk assessments for Alzheimer disease including APOE disclosure. Participants rated 11 possible benefits associated with genetic testing (pros) and 10 risks or limitations (cons) before genetic risk disclosure and again 12 months afterward.

Results

Pros were rated higher than cons at baseline (3.53 vs. 1.83, P < 0.001) and at 12 months after risk disclosure (3.33 vs. 1.88, P < 0.001). Ratings of pros decreased during the 12-month period (3.33 vs. 3.53, P < 0.001). Ratings of cons did not change (1.88 vs. 1.83, P = 0.199) except for a three-item discrimination subscale which increased (2.07 vs. 1.92, P = 0.012). Among specific pros and cons, three items related to prevention and treatment changed the most.

Conclusion

The process of APOE genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease sensitizes some to its limitations and the risks of discrimination; however, 1-year after disclosure, test recipients still consider the pros to strongly outweigh the cons.

Background

The apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype provides information on the risk of Alzheimer's disease, but the genotyping of patients and their family members has been discouraged. We examined the effect of genotype disclosure in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Methods

We randomly assigned 162 asymptomatic adults who had a parent with Alzheimer's disease to receive the results of their own APOE genotyping (disclosure group) or not to receive such results (nondisclosure group). We measured symptoms of anxiety, depression, and test-related distress 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after disclosure or nondisclosure.

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups in changes in time-averaged measures of anxiety (4.5 in the disclosure group and 4.4 in the nondisclosure group, P = 0.84), depression (8.8 and 8.7, respectively; P = 0.98), or test-related distress (6.9 and 7.5, respectively; P=0.61). Secondary comparisons between the non-disclosure group and a disclosure subgroup of subjects carrying the APOE ε4 allele (which is associated with increased risk) also revealed no significant differences. However, the ε4-negative subgroup had a significantly lower level of test-related distress than did the ε4-positive subgroup (P=0.01). Subjects with clinically meaningful changes in psychological outcomes were distributed evenly among the nondisclosure group and the ε4-positive and ε4-negative subgroups. Baseline scores for anxiety and depression were strongly associated with post-disclosure scores of these measures (P<0.001 for both comparisons).

Conclusions

The disclosure of APOE genotyping results to adult children of patients with Alzheimer's disease did not result in significant short-term psychological risks. Test-related distress was reduced among those who learned that they were APOE ε4–negative. Persons with high levels of emotional distress before undergoing genetic testing were more likely to have emotional difficulties after disclosure. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00571025.)

Background -

Genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer (HCRC) had significant psychological consequences for test recipients. This prospective longitudinal study investigated the factors that predict psychological resilience in adults undergoing genetic testing for HCRC.

Methods -

A longitudinal study was carried out from April 2003 to August 2006 on Hong Kong Chinese HCRC family members who were recruited and offered genetic testing by the Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry to determine psychological outcomes after genetic testing. Self-completed questionnaires were administered immediately before (pre-disclosure baseline) and 2 weeks, 4 months and 1 year after result disclosure. Using validated psychological inventories, the cognitive style of hope was measured at baseline, and the psychological distress of depression and anxiety was measured at all time points.

Results -

Of the 76 participating subjects, 71 individuals (43 men and 28 women; mean age 38.9 ± 9.2 years) from nine FAP and 24 HNPCC families completed the study, including 39 mutated gene carriers. Four patterns of outcome trajectories were created using established norms for the specified outcome measures of depression and anxiety. These included chronic dysfunction (13% and 8.7%), recovery (0% and 4.3%), delayed dysfunction (13% and 15.9%) and resilience (76.8% and 66.7%). Two logistic regression analyses were conducted using hope at baseline to predict resilience, with depression and anxiety employed as outcome indicators. Because of the small number of participants, the chronic dysfunction and delayed dysfunction groups were combined into a non-resilient group for comparison with the resilient group in all subsequent analysis. Because of low frequencies, participants exhibiting a recovery trajectory (n = 3 for anxiety and n = 0 for depression) were excluded from further analysis. Both regression equations were significant. Baseline hope was a significant predictor of a resilience outcome trajectory for depression (B = -0.24, p < 0.01 for depression); and anxiety (B = -0.11, p = 0.05 for anxiety).

Conclusions -

The current findings suggest that hopefulness may predict resilience after HCRC genetic testing in Hong Kong Chinese. Interventions to increase the level of hope may be beneficial to the psychological adjustment of CRC genetic testing recipients.

Perceived risk is a complex concept that influences the genetic counseling process and can affect client coping and behavior. Although the association between family history and risk perception is well recognized in the literature, no studies have explored this relationship specifically in those seeking genetic susceptibility testing for a common chronic condition. REVEAL is a randomized trial assessing the impact of APOE disclosure and genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Using baseline REVEAL data, we hypothesized that there would be a significant association between the degree of AD family history and risk perception of AD, and that this relationship would be stronger in those who believed that genetics is a very important AD risk factor. In our sample of 293 participants, we found that a higher self-perceived risk of AD was associated with strength of family history of AD (p<0.001), belief in genetics as an important AD risk factor (p<0.001), being female (p<0.001) and being Caucasian (p=0.02). These results are the first to demonstrate the association between family history and risk perception in persons volunteering for genetic susceptibility testing for a common complex disease.

Objective

Few data are available regarding the long-term psychological impact of uninformative BRCA1/2 test results. This study examines change in distress from pretesting to 12-months post-disclosure, with medical, family history, and psychological variables, such as pretesting perceived risk of carrying a deleterious mutation prior to testing and primary and secondary appraisals, as predictors.

Methods

209 women with uninformative BRCA1/2 test results completed questionnaires at pretesting and 1-, 6-, and 12-months post-disclosure, including measures of anxiety and depression, cancer-specific and genetic testing distress. We used a mixed models approach to predict change in post-disclosure distress.

Results

Distress declined from pretesting to 1-month post-disclosure, but remained stable thereafter. Primary appraisals predicted all types of distress at 1-month post-disclosure. Primary and secondary appraisals predicted genetic testing distress at 1-month as well as change over time. Receiving a variant of uncertain clinical significance (VUCS) and entering testing with a high expectation for carrying a deleterious mutation predicted genetic testing distress that persisted through the year after testing.

Conclusions

As a whole, women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 test results are a resilient group. For some women, distress experienced in the month after testing does not dissipate. Variables, such as heightened pretesting perceived risk and cognitive appraisals, predict greater likelihood for sustained distress in this group and could be amenable to intervention.

Background: The increased availability of genetic tests for common, complex diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), raises questions about what people are willing to pay for these services. Methods: We studied willingness-to-pay for genetic testing in a study of AD risk assessment that included APOE genotype disclosure among 276 first-degree relatives of persons with AD. Results: Seventy-one percent reported that they would ask for such testing from their doctor if it were covered by health insurance, and 60% would ask for it even if it required self-pay. Forty-one percent were willing to pay more than $100 for testing, and more than half would have been willing to pay for the test out of pocket. Participants who learned that they were APOE ɛ4 positive and those who had higher education were less likely to want testing if covered by insurance, possibly to avoid discrimination. Conclusion: This is the first report to examine willingness to pay for susceptibility genetic testing in a sample of participants who had actually undergone such testing. These findings reveal that some participants find valuable personal utility in genetic risk information even when such information does not have proven clinical utility.

New genetic tests for adult-onset diseases raise concerns about possible adverse selection in insurance markets. To test for this behavior, 148 cognitively normal individuals participating in a randomized clinical trial of genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) were tracked for one year after risk assessment and APOE genotype disclosure. Although no significant differences were found in health, life, or disability insurance purchases, those who tested positive were 5.76 times more likely to have altered their long-term care insurance than individuals who did not receive APOE genotype disclosure. If genetic testing for AD risk assessment becomes common, it could trigger adverse selection in the long-term care insurance market.

Background

Counselees are more aware of genetics and seek information, reassurance, screening and genetic testing. Risk counseling is a key component of genetic counseling process helping patients to achieve a realistic view for their own personal risk and therefore adapt to the medical, psychological and familial implications of disease and to encourage the patient to make informed choices [1,2].

The aim of this study was to conceptualize risk perception and anxiety about cancer in individuals attending to genetic counseling.

Methods

The questionnaire study measured risk perception and anxiety about cancer at three time points: before and one week after initial genetic counseling and one year after completed genetic investigations. Eligibility criteria were designed to include only index patients without a previous genetic consultation in the family. A total of 215 individuals were included. Data was collected during three years period.

Results

Before genetic counseling all of the unaffected participants subjectively estimated their risk as higher than their objective risk. Participants with a similar risk as the population overestimated their risk most. All risk groups estimated the risk for children's/siblings to be lower than their own. The benefits of preventive surveillance program were well understood among unaffected participants.

The difference in subjective risk perception before and directly after genetic counseling was statistically significantly lower in all risk groups. Difference in risk perception for children as well as for population was also statistically significant. Experienced anxiety about developing cancer in the unaffected subjects was lower after genetic counseling compared to baseline in all groups. Anxiety about cancer had clear correlation to perceived risk of cancer before and one year after genetic investigations.

The affected participants overestimated their children's risk as well as risk for anyone in population. Difference in risk perception for children/siblings as for the general population was significant between the first and second measurement time points. Anxiety about developing cancer again among affected participants continued to be high throughout this investigation.

Conclusion

The participant's accuracy in risk perception was poor, especially in low risk individuals before genetic counseling. There was a general trend towards more accurate estimation in all risk groups after genetic counseling. The importance of preventive programs was well understood. Cancer anxiety was prevalent and associated with risk perception, but decreased after genetic counseling.

[1] National Society of Genetic Counselors (2005), Genetic Counseling as a Profession. Available at (accessed November 25th 2007)

[2] Julian-Reynier C., Welkenhuysen M-, Hagoel L., Decruyenaere M., Hopwood P. (2003) Risk communication strategies: state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. Eur J of Human Genetics 11, 725-736.

This study sought to examine changes in psychological distress following cancer genetic counselling. Women attending a family cancer clinic completed questionnaires before their appointment and at 2 weeks, 6 months and 12 months after their appointment. Twenty-six women were at low risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer, 76 were at moderate risk, 46 were at high risk and 46 women had previously had breast or ovarian cancer. All groups were compared with regard to measures of anxiety, depression, general psychological distress, worry about developing breast and ovarian cancer, and perceived risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer and perceived likelihood of carrying a genetic mutation. General psychological distress did not change over the course of the study and the groups did not differ on these measures. Worry about developing breast cancer and perceptions of the likelihood of carrying a genetic mutation significantly reduced following genetic counselling. On the whole women who had already had breast/ovarian cancer showed more concerns about ovarian cancer and raised perceptions of risk in comparison with the other groups, indicating the need for sensitive counselling of such women.

British Journal of Cancer (2002) 86, 43–50. DOI: 10.1038/sj/bjc/6600030 www.bjcancer.com

© 2002 The Cancer Research Campaign

Women who participate in BRCA1/2 cancer genetic counseling do so for a variety of reasons, including learning quantitative risk information about their chances of developing hereditary breast-ovarian cancer at some point during their lifetimes. For these women, obtaining pre-test and disclosure genetic counseling with a professional affords them numerous potential benefits, including adequate preparation for, and accurate interpretation of, their test results. In consequence, women commonly report being highly satisfied with their cancer genetic counseling experience, even if the information learned through testing suggests they are at increased cancer risk. This occurrence raises an interesting question, namely what are the psychological aspects of satisfaction with genetic counseling for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer in women? To answer this question, we administered the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale (GCSS) to a convenience sample of 61 women participating in BRCA1/2 pre-test genetic counseling, and re-administered the GCSS to approximately one-third of these women at disclosure. Available psychological data included personality, distress, and family functioning. In bivariate analyses, optimism and family functioning were positively associated with pre-test satisfaction. With respect to satisfaction at disclosure, general and cancer-specific distress were negatively associated with satisfaction. Our findings suggest that psychological aspects of satisfaction with cancer genetic counseling vary, with individual differences and family functioning playing a role at pre-test, and distress playing a role at disclosure. The implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.

Objectives

To investigate the psychosocial impact for women of a diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis and discuss the implications for the proposed UK chlamydia screening programme.

Design

Qualitative study with semistructured interviews. Interview transcripts analysed to identify recurrent themes.

Participants

Seventeen women with a current or recent diagnosis of chlamydia.

Setting

A family planning clinic and a genitourinary medicine clinic in Glasgow.

Results

Three themes were identified: perceptions of stigma associated with sexually transmitted infection, uncertainty about reproductive health after diagnosis, and anxieties regarding partner's reaction to diagnosis. Most women had not previously perceived sexually transmitted infections as personally relevant; this was a function of stereotypical beliefs about who was “at risk” of sexually transmitted infection. These beliefs were pervasive and negatively affected reactions to diagnosis and produced anxiety about disclosure of the condition to others (particularly sexual partners) and future reproductive morbidity. This anxiety, given the uncertain natural history of chlamydia, may prove difficult to dispel.

Conclusions

There are three primary areas of concern for women after a diagnosis of chlamydia which need to be examined in the proposed screening programme. Information provided should normalise and destigmatise chlamydial infection and positively promote genitourinary medicine services. Support services should be available because notification of partner can cause anxiety. Uncertainty about future reproductive morbidity may be inevitable; staff providing screening will require guidance in providing advice under such conditions.

Background

Genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may be conferred by the susceptibility polymorphism apolipoprotein E (APOE), where the ε4 allele increases the risk of developing late-onset Alzheimer’s disease but is not a definitive predictor of the disease, or by autosomal dominant mutations (e.g., the presenilins), which almost inevitably result in early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease. The purpose of this study was to compare the psychological impact of using these two different types of genetic information to disclose genetic risk for AD to family members of affected patients.

Methods

Data were compared from two separate protocols. The Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer’s Disease (REVEAL) Study is a randomized, multi-site clinical trial that evaluated the impact of susceptibility testing for Alzheimer’s disease with APOE in 101 adult children of Alzheimer’s disease patients. A separate study, conducted at the University of Washington, assessed the impact of deterministic genetic testing by disclosing presenilin-1, presenilin-2, or TAU genotype to 22 individuals at risk for familial Alzheimer’s disease or frontotemporal dementia. In both protocols, participants received genetic counseling and completed the Impact of Event Scale (IES), a measure of test-specific distress. Scores were analyzed at the time point closest to one year post-disclosure at which IES data were available. The role of genetic test result (positive vs. negative) and type of genetic testing (deterministic vs. susceptibility) in predicting log-transformed IES scores was assessed with linear regression, controlling for age, gender, and time from disclosure.

Results

Subjects from the REVEAL Study who learned that they were positive for the susceptibility gene APOE ε4+ experienced similar, low levels of test-specific distress compared to those who received positive results of deterministic testing in the University of Washington study (p= 0.78). APOE ε4+ individuals in the susceptibility protocol experienced more test-specific distress than those who tested ε4− in the same study (p= 0.04); however, among those receiving deterministic test disclosure, the subjects who received positive results did not experience significantly higher levels of distress when compared to those who received negative results (p= 0.88).

Conclusions

The findings of this preliminary study, with limited sample size, suggest that the test-related distress experienced by those receiving positive results for a deterministic mutation is similar to the distress experienced by those receiving positive results from genetic susceptibility testing, and that the majority of participants receiving genotype disclosure do not experience clinically significant distress as indicated by IES scores one year after learning of their test results.

Purpose

This study evaluates the Alzheimer disease risk perceptions of individuals who accurately recall their genetics-based Alzheimer disease risk assessment.

Methods

Two hundred forty-six unaffected first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease were enrolled in a multisite randomized controlled trial examining the effects of communicating APOE genotype and lifetime Alzheimer disease risk information.

Results

Among the 158 participants who accurately recalled their Alzheimer disease risk assessment 6 weeks after risk disclosure, 75 (47.5%) believed their Alzheimer disease risk was more than 5% points different from the Alzheimer disease risk estimate they were given. Within this subgroup, 69.3% believed that their Alzheimer disease risk was higher than what they were told (discordant high), whereas 30.7% believed that their Alzheimer disease risk was lower (discordant low). Participants with a higher baseline risk perception were more likely to have a discordant-high risk perception (P < 0.05). Participants in the discordant-low group were more likely to be APOE ε4 positive (P < 0.05) and to score higher on an Alzheimer disease controllability scale (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Our results indicate that even among individuals who accurately recall their Alzheimer disease risk assessment, many people do not take communicated risk estimates at face value. Further exploration of this clinically relevant response to risk information is warranted.

This study examines psychological determinants and effects of participating in genetic testing among persons diagnosed with or at risk for developing primary pulmonary arterial hypertension. Longitudinal data were drawn from orally administered surveys with 70 affected or at-risk individuals concerning their thoughts, feelings, and decision making about testing for mutations in BMPR2. Distress was measured by use of the Impact of Events Scale. Variations in tolerance for ambiguity were also examined. Although uptake of testing was low, as is common for incompletely penetrant mutations that lack clear therapeutic interventions, we found that those who participated in testing evidenced greater reduction in distress compared to those who had not participated in testing, irrespective of test result. No differences in tolerance for ambiguity by testing status were found. Participation in genetic testing, irrespective of test results, may be particularly beneficial to individuals who may have genetic mutations and who are experiencing high levels of distress.

Background

Perceived beliefs about breast cancer and breast cancer screening are important predictors for mammography utilization. This study adapted and validated the Champion's scale in Peru. This scale measures perceived susceptibility for breast cancer and perceived benefits and barriers for mammography.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among women ages 40 to 65 attending outpatient gynecology services in a public hospital in Peru. A group of experts developed and pre-tested a Spanish version of the Champion's scale to assess its comprehensibility (N = 20). Factor analysis, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability analyses were performed (N = 285). Concurrent validity compared scores from participants who had a mammogram and those who did not have it in the previous 15 months. T-test and multiple regression analysis adjusting for socio-demographic factors, mammography knowledge and other preventive behaviors were performed.

Results

The construct validity and reliability were optimal. Cronbach-Alpha coefficients were 0.75 (susceptibility), 0.72 (benefits) and 0.86 (barriers). Concurrent validity analysis showed an association between barriers and mammography screening use in bivariate (22.3 ± 6.7 vs. 30.2 ± 7.6; p < 0.001) and multiple regression analysis (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.18-0.43). Ages 50-60 years (OR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.19-4.65), history of prior Papanicolaou test (OR = 3.69, 95% CI = 1.84-7.40), and knowledge about breast cancer and mammography (OR = 3.69, 95% CI = 1.84-7.40) were also independently associated with mammography screening use.

Conclusion

Concurrent validity analysis showed that the Champion's scale has important limitations for assessing perceived susceptibility for breast cancer and perceived benefits for mammography among Peruvian women. There is still a need for developing valid and reliable instruments for measuring perceived beliefs about breast cancer and mammography screening among Peruvian women.

Purpose

To evaluate what psychological and behavioral factors predict who is likely to seek SNP-based genetic test for multiple common health conditions where feedback can be used to motivate primary prevention.

Methods

Adults aged 25 to 40, who were enrolled in a large managed care organization were surveyed. Those eligible could log on to a secure study Web site to review information about the risks and benefits of a SNP-based genetic test and request free testing. Two primary outcomes are addressed: Accessing the Web (yes, no) and deciding to be tested (completed a blood draw at the clinic)

Results

Those considering genetic susceptibility testing did hold genetically deterministic beliefs (0.42 on scale of 0-behavior to 1-genetic), but believed genetic information to be valuable and were confident they could understand such information. Individuals who believed it important to learn about genetics (OR=1.28), were confident they could understand genetics (OR=1.26), and reported the most health habits to change (OR=1.39) were most likely to get tested.

Conclusions

Physician-patient interactions could benefit if physicians develop “net friendly” strategies to capitalize on patients’ interest in online genetics information and leverage the interaction as a teachable moment to encourage family health history assessment and improved health behaviors.

Purpose

Responses following BRCA1/2 genetic testing are relevant for comprehension of risk status and may play a role in risk management decision making. The objective of this study was to evaluate a Psychosocial Telephone Counseling (PTC) intervention delivered to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers following standard genetic counseling (SGC). We examined the impact of the intervention on distress and concerns related to genetic testing.

Patients and Methods

This prospective randomized clinical trial included 90 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. We measured anxiety, depression, and genetic testing distress outcomes at intervention baseline and 6- and 12-months following disclosure. We evaluated the effects of SGC versus SGC plus PTC on psychological outcomes using intention-to-treat analyses through Generalized Estimating Equations.

Results

At 6 months, PTC reduced depressive symptoms (Z = −2.25, P = .02) and genetic testing distress (Z = 2.18, P = .02) compared to standard genetic counseling. Further, women in the intervention condition reported less clinically-significant anxiety at 6 months (χ21 = 4.11, P = .04) than women who received SGC. We found no differences in outcomes between the intervention groups at the 12-month follow-up.

Conclusions

As an adjunct to SGC, psychosocial telephone counseling delivered following disclosure of positive BRCA1/2 test results appears to offer modest benefits for distress and anxiety. These results build upon a growing literature of psychosocial interventions for BRCA1/2 carriers and, given the potential impact of affect on risk management decision making, suggest that some carriers may derive benefits from adjuncts to traditional genetic counseling.

BACKGROUND

Women who receive positive or uninformative BRCA1/2 test results face a number of decisions about how to manage their cancer risk. The purpose of this study was to prospectively examine the effect of receiving a positive vs. uninformative BRCA1/2 genetic test result on the perceived pros and cons of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing oophorectomy (RRO) and breast cancer screening. We further examined how perceived pros and cons of surgery predict intention for and uptake of surgery.

METHODS

308 women (146 positive, 162 uninformative) were included in RRM and breast cancer screening analyses. 276 women were included in RRO analyses. Participants completed questionnaires at pre-disclosure baseline and 1-, 6-and 12-months post-disclosure. We used linear multiple regression to assess whether test result contributed to change in pros and cons and logistic regression to predict intentions and surgery uptake.

RESULTS

Receipt of a positive BRCA1/2 test result predicted stronger pros for RRM and RRO (Ps < .001), but not perceived cons of RRM and RRO. Pros of surgery predicted RRM and RRO intentions in carriers and RRO intentions in uninformatives. Cons predicted RRM intentions in carriers. Pros and cons predicted carriers’ RRO uptake in the year after testing (Ps < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of BRCA1/2 mutation test results impacts how carriers see the positive aspects of RRO and RRM and their surgical intentions. Both the positive and negative aspects predict uptake of surgery.

There are limited data on the impact of incorporating genetic counseling and testing into the newborn hearing screening process. We report on results from a prospective, longitudinal study to determine the impact of genetic counseling and GJB2/GJB6 genetic testing on parental knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about genetic testing. One hundred thirty culturally hearing parents of 93 deaf or hard-of-hearing children ages 0 – 3 years primarily identified through newborn hearing screening received pre- and post-test genetic counseling for GJB2 and GJB6. Parents completed questionnaires following pre-test counseling, and 1- and 6-months post-test result disclosure. Results indicate that following pre-test counseling all parents perceived benefits to genetic testing. While parents who received positive results continued to perceive benefits from testing, perceived benefit declined among parents who received inconclusive or negative results. Parents did not perceive genetic testing as harmful following pre-test counseling or receipt of test results. Parents who received positive test results performed better in understanding recurrence and causation of their child’s deafness and indicated greater interest in prenatal genetic testing than those who received inconclusive or negative test results. Parents felt that pediatricians and audiologists should inform parents of genetic testing availability; however, there was no consensus on timing of this discussion. Thus culturally hearing parents do not perceive genetic testing of their deaf or hard-of-hearing infants/toddlers as harmful; they feel that primary care providers should discuss genetic testing with them; and positive genetic test results with genetic counseling give rise to better understanding and perceived benefit than negative or inconclusive results.

BRCA genetic test results provide important information to manage cancer risk for patients and their families. Little is known on the communication of genetic test results by mutation status with family members and physicians in the oncology care setting. As part of a longitudinal study evaluating the impact of genetic counseling and testing among recently diagnosed breast cancer patients, we collected patients' self-reported patterns of disclosure. Descriptive statistics characterized the sample and determined the prevalence of disclosure of BRCA test results to family members and physicians. Of 100 patients who completed the baseline and the 6-month followup survey, 77 reported pursuing testing. The majority shared test results with female first-degree relatives; fewer did with males. Participants were more likely to share results with oncologists compared to surgeons, primary care physicians, or other specialty physicians. These findings suggest that while breast cancer patients may communicate results to at-risk female family members and their medical oncologist, they may need education and support to facilitate communication to other first-degree relatives and providers.

Purpose

The associations between characteristics of family relationships and family trends in cancer worry and the psychological adjustment of recipients of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility were investigated.

Methods

Data provided by 178 individuals from 24 families with Lynch syndrome who participated in a cohort study investigating psychological and behavioral outcomes of genetic testing were used. Responses from multiple family members were aggregated to construct family trends representing norms and departure from norms in cancer worry.

Results

Lower perceived family cohesion at baseline and decrease in this variable at 6-months after receipt of test results were associated with higher depression scores at 12-months. More variability in cancer worry among family members at baseline was also associated with higher depression scores at 12-months. Increase in family conflict was associated with decrease in depression scores among individuals from families with higher levels of cancer worry on average and less variability among the members.

Conclusions

Family relationships and family trends in levels of cancer worry may play important roles in the psychological adjustment of genetic test recipients. The findings highlight the complexity of familial environment surrounding individuals that undergo genetic testing and suggest the benefits of considering these factors when providing genetic services.

This paper explores whether and how the behavioral impact of genotype disclosure can be disentangled from the impact of numerical risk estimates generated by genetic tests. Secondary data analyses are presented from a randomized controlled trial of 162 first-degree relatives of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients. Each participant received a lifetime risk estimate of AD. Control group estimates were based on age, gender, family history, and assumed ε4-negative apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype; intervention group estimates were based upon the first three variables plus true APOE genotype, which was also disclosed. AD-specific self-reported behavior change (diet, exercise, and medication use) was assessed at 12 months. Behavior change was significantly more likely with increasing risk estimates, and also more likely, but not significantly so, in ε4-positive intervention group participants (53% changed behavior) than in control group participants (31%). Intervention group participants receiving ε4-negative genotype feedback (24% changed behavior) and control group participants had similar rates of behavior change and risk estimates, the latter allowing assessment of the independent effects of genotype disclosure. However, collinearity between risk estimates and ε4-positive genotypes, which engender high-risk estimates, prevented assessment of the independent effect of the disclosure of an ε4 genotype. Novel study designs are proposed to determine whether genotype disclosure has an impact upon behavior beyond that of numerical risk estimates.