Essential Elements of Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment, Counseling, and Testing: Updated Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Updated from their original publication in 2004, these cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of counseling at-risk individuals through genetic cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provide information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Essential components include the intake, cancer risk assessment, genetic testing for an inherited cancer syndrome, informed consent, disclosure of genetic test results, and psychosocial assessment. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.     

Risk Assessment and Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

These cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial and ethical implications of identifying at-risk individuals for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) through cancer risk assessment, with or without genetic susceptibility testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment as well as the professional expertise of genetic counselors with significant experience in education and counseling regarding hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Critical components of the process include the ascertainment of medical and family histories, determination and communication of cancer risk, assessment of risk perception, education regarding the genetics of HBOC, discussion of molecular testing for HBOC if appropriate (including benefits, risks and limitations) and any necessary follow-up. These recommendations do not dictate an exclusive course of management or guarantee a specific outcome. Moreover, they do not replace the professional judgment of a health care provider based on the clinical situation of a client.     

Psychosocial Conditions of Women Awaiting Genetic Counseling: A Population-based Study

The decision whether to undergo genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer is complex. Knowledge about the psychosocial conditions of women who are awaiting counseling is sparse. We aimed to compare the psychosocial conditions of women awaiting genetic counseling with those of women in two reference groups. We included 567 women referred to genetic counseling for hereditary risk of breast or ovarian cancer (Genetic Group), 689 women referred to mammography (Mammography Group) and a random sample of 2,000 women from the general population (Population Group). One to 4 weeks before the first counseling session or mammography, data were collected by questionnaires. Both women affected with cancer and unaffected women in the Genetic Group appeared to have a somewhat higher prevalence of cancer-specific-distress than the corresponding reference groups. Further research on the effect of pre- counseling interventions appear warranted in addition with exploring a potential association between waiting time and cancer-specific distress.     

Inherited Thrombophilia: Key Points for Genetic Counseling

With the evolution of medical genetics to focus on highly prevalent, multifactorial conditions, it is inevitable that genetic counselors will be called upon to participate in the evaluation and counseling of individuals with inherited thrombophilia. The purpose of this review is to educate the genetic counselor on key issues related to risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary thrombophilia. The information contained in this document is derived from an extensive review of the literature, as well as the author's personal expertise. Upon completion of this review, the genetic counselor will be able to: a) describe inherited and acquired risk factors for thrombosis, b) collect and interpret personal and family histories to assess risk related to hereditary thrombophilia, c) discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of thrombophilia testing, including psychosocial aspects and implications for medical management, and d) identify educational and support resources for patients and families.     

Patient Satisfaction with Cancer Genetic Counseling: A Psychometric Analysis of the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale

Satisfaction is an important patient reported outcome of genetic counseling, as it is one of the elements used by professional organizations and healthcare accrediting bodies to determine the quality of professional work. However, empirical research on patient satisfaction with genetic counseling has been limited, partly due to the lack of standardized measures available to assess this construct. The purpose of this study was to conduct a psychometric analysis of a new satisfaction measure, the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale (GCSS), within a sample of women participating in a no-cost cancer genetic counseling and testing program. The sample consisted of 61 women undergoing counseling and testing for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer risk (BRCA1/2 testing) who completed the GCSS following pretest counseling. The results suggest that the GCSS was reliable (Cronbach's coefficient alpha = 0.90) and that participants were highly satisfied with the care they received. In addition, there were no differences in satisfaction between cancer genetic counseling and prenatal counseling participants (based on preexisting norms), and satisfaction did not vary by sociodemographic characteristics. Implications and recommendations are discussed.     

Lifestyle Risk Factors Among People Who Have Had Cancer Genetic Testing

Hereditary cancer genetic counseling often focuses on medically intensive risk-reduction strategies, like imaging and risk-reducing surgeries. Lifestyle factors also influence cancer risk, but health behavior counseling is not common in genetic counseling. Information about typical lifestyle risk factors among patients seeking hereditary cancer risk is sparse. The current study describes cancer risk-relevant lifestyle factors for people who have had cancer genetic testing. Data came from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 4) collected in 2013. Analytic variables represented American Cancer Society nutrition and physical activity guidelines. Lifestyle factors were assessed for people who had undergone testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, or Lynch Syndrome genes. Among 3016 HINTS respondents, 135 had cancer genetic testing. Of these, 58 % were overweight or obese. Eighteen percent reported no moderate-intensity physical activity. Average sedentary screen-time was 3.4 h (SE = 0.472) daily. Sixty-three percent drank non-diet soda, and 23 % of these people drank soda every day. Between 18 and 36 % consumed less than 2 ½ cups fruits/vegetables daily. Twenty-four percent were current smokers. Lifestyle risk factors were not different between people who had genetic testing and those who had not. In conclusion, most people who had genetic testing for cancer susceptibility have at least one modifiable risk factor. Genetic counselors have opportunities to impact a counselee’s cancer risk not only through risk-tailored medical procedures, but also through lifestyle modification recommendations. Results of the current study may foster a broader discussion of genetic counselors’ roles in healthy lifestyle education.     

The Value of a Genetic Counselor: Improving Identification of Cancer Genetic Counseling Patients with Chart Review

Advances in genetics are changing cancer care and requiring institutions to maximize the unique skills of genetics professionals. The identification of genetic syndromes is vital for prevention and management of families with high cancer risks. Despite this, high risk individuals who qualify are often not referred. Genetic counselors could review oncology charts to improve identification. A genetics assessment tool developed by NCI Community Cancer Centers Program was used to perform self-assessment of the genetics program. A weekly report of all new oncology patients was provided to a genetic counselor for chart review. In 2010, 58 % of all eligible patients (n?=?152) were offered a genetics evaluation. In 2011 this improved to 70 % (n?=?167), which was a statistically significant difference, X ²(1)?=?5.13, p?=?0.02. By cancer site, ovarian cancer referrals also showed statistically significant improvement, X ²(1)?=?6.36, p?=?0.01. Breast and colon referrals were improved but not significant. Over 10 months, 129 patients were identified through the chart review program. Three were confirmed to have a genetic mutation for a hereditary cancer syndrome. An average week included review of 73 charts for 10 medical oncologists, 4 radiation oncologists, and 4 pediatric oncologists which generated 60–80 min of work for the genetic counselor. This program improved patient identification and quality, and allowed physicians to become more aware of opportunities for genetic counseling and more patients to receive genetic counseling and testing.     

Genetic Counseling for Fragile X Syndrome: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

The National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) recommendations for fragile X syndrome (FXS) genetic counseling are intended to assist health care professionals who provide genetic counseling for individuals and families in whom the diagnosis of FXS is strongly suspected or has been made. The recommendations are the opinions of genetic counselors with expertise in FXS counseling and are based on clinical experience, a review of pertinent English language medical articles, and reports of expert committees. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular client.     

An Investigation of Genetic Counselors’ Testing Recommendations: Pedigree Analysis and the Use of Multiplex Breast Cancer Panel Testing

Genetic testing recommendations for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer involve pedigree analysis and consultation of testing guidelines. The testing landscape for hereditary cancer syndromes is shifting as multiplex panel tests become more widely integrated into clinical practice. The purpose of the current study was to assess how genetic counselors utilize pedigrees to make recommendations for genetic testing, to determine consistency of these recommendations with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines and to explore current use of multiplex panel testing. Sixty-nine genetic counselors were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group’s Discussion Forum. Participation involved pedigree analysis and completion of an online questionnaire assessing testing recommendations and use of multiplex panel testing. Pedigree analysis and test recommendations were scored for consistency with NCCN guidelines. The average score was 12.83/15 indicating strong consistency with NCCN guidelines. Participants were more likely to consider multiplex testing when pedigrees demonstrated highly penetrant dominant inheritance but were not indicative of a particular syndrome. Participant concerns about multiplex panel testing include limited guidelines for both testing eligibility and medical management. This study demonstrates high utilization of pedigree analysis and raises new questions about its use in multiplex genetic testing.     

Factors Influencing Perceptions of Breast Cancer Genetic Counseling among Women in an Urban Health Care System

The study assessed perceptions of breast cancer genetic counseling. Focus groups were conducted with twenty women (ages < = 50 years) in a Midwestern, urban health system identified as at above average risk of developing hereditary breast cancer and referred for breast cancer genetic counseling following mammography. All participants associated the words “breast cancer” with fear. African American women who received breast cancer genetic counseling may have channeled their fear into increased vigilance related to breast health. African American women who did not receive breast cancer genetic counseling were most knowledgeable about it. In contrast, Caucasian women who did not receive it reported uncertainty about the role of genetic counseling and testing in assessing breast cancer risk, mistrust in medical professionals, and lack of trust in the accuracy of genetic tests. The results could be used to help develop interventions to improve informed decision-making regarding breast cancer genetic counseling.     

The Use of Family History Questionnaires: An Examination of Genetic Risk Estimates and Genetic Testing Eligibility in the Non-responder Population

The use of mailed family history questionnaires (FHQs) has previously been established to be an effective method for obtaining family history information for the triage of patients for genetic counseling and genetic testing of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome; yet only 53% of patients complete their FHQ within 6 months from the date of mailing (Armel et al. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18(4):366–378, 2009). Although literature exists evaluating why women may not attend genetic counseling, no data are currently available examining genetic risk or genetic testing eligibility in the population of patients not returning their FHQ (non-responders). Concern exists that if non-responders are not followed-up for the purpose of triage for genetic counseling, individuals at high-risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome may be missed. This article explores the demographics of the non-responder population to assess genetic risk estimates for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and genetic testing eligibility as compared to a responder population of patients who completed a mailed FHQ. A total of 430 pedigrees were obtained, 215 from non-responders and 215 from responders. Results of this study indicate that 69% of non-responders were either unreachable by telephone (42%), declined an appointment (19%), or were previously seen in another center for a genetic counseling visit (8%). Additionally, results indicate that non-responders are less likely to be eligible for genetic testing (40%) as compared to responders (57%) (p = 0.0004). Together these data shed light on a population of patients for which limited information exists and suggest that we question how and to what extent clinics should pursue non-responders, particularly in light of global reductions in health care funding.     

Genetic Evaluation and Counseling of Couples with Recurrent Miscarriage: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

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

Genetic Counseling and Screening of Consanguineous Couples and Their Offspring: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for genetic counseling and screening for consanguineous couples (related as second cousins or closer) and their offspring with the goals of1. providing preconception reproductive options2. improving pregnancy outcome and identifying reproductive choices3. reducing morbidity and mortality in the 1st years of life, and4. respecting psychosocial and multicultural issues.The recommendations are the opinions of a multicenter working group (the Consanguinity Working Group (CWG)) with expertise in genetic counseling, medical genetics, biochemical genetics, genetic epidemiology, pediatrics, perinatology, and public health genetics, which was convened by the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). The consensus of the CWG and NSGC reviewers is that beyond a thorough medical family history with follow-up of significant findings, no additional preconception screening is recommended for consanguineous couples. Consanguineous couples should be offered similar genetic screening as suggested for any couple of their ethnic group. During pregnancy, consanguineous couples should be offered maternal–fetal serum marker screening and high-resolution fetal ultrasonography. Newborns should be screened for impaired hearing and detection of treatable inborn errors of metabolism. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. The professional judgment of a health care provider, familiar with the facts and circumstances of a specific case, will always supersede these recommendations.     

Exploring Hereditary Cancer Among Dying Cancer Patients—A Cross-Sectional Study of Hereditary Risk and Perceived Awareness of DNA Testing and Banking

Hereditary cancer assessment at the end of life is a relatively unexplored area, but it could be critical for surviving family members. This study explored the prevalence of hereditary cancer among dying cancer patients and assessed patients’ perceived awareness of DNA testing and/or banking in a public access hospital. Palliative care patients with cancer from a single institution (or their medical-decision-making surrogates for patients unable to answer for themselves) completed structured interviews. Information was collected through medical records review and structured interviews for 43 dying cancer patients. Information for 9 patients was collected from surrogates. Nine patients (21%, 95% CI?=?8.8% to 33.1%) had strong genetic risk. Currently available genetic tests could have addressed this risk for several patients. None had previous genetic counseling, testing or DNA banking. Among strong-risk patients, about half of patients/surrogates had heard/read “almost nothing” about genetic testing (44%) and DNA banking (67%). Perceived genetic awareness was not associated with genetic risk, and neither were sociodemographic characteristics. The proportion of hereditary cancer may be at least as high in the palliative care population as in other clinical settings, but awareness and uptake among patients are low. These conditions are not being recognized upstream and families are losing valuable information.     

Risk-Reduction Surgery Decisions in High-Risk Women Seen for Genetic Counseling

Women at greatest risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer may consider prophylactic removal of breasts or ovaries as a risk-reduction measure. This report describes uptake of risk-reduction mastectomy (RRM), risk-reduction oophorectomy (RRO), and related factors in 62 high-risk women who received genetic counseling. Seven (11%) participants underwent RRM and 13 (21%) underwent RRO. Of these women, 37% did not have BRCA testing, suggesting other factors influence decisions to undergo surgery. Women who had indicated (pre-genetic counseling) their intent not to have surgery chose not to have surgery. Information received during genetic counseling that women perceived as being most important for influencing risk-reduction surgery decisions was BRCA test result (positive or negative), followed by discussion of family cancer history. Reasons for indecision about risk-reduction surgery included genetic testing results, concerns about surgery, timing in life, and early menopause. The findings enhance our understanding of information that is helpful to women considering this surgery.     

Perceptions of High-Risk Care and Barriers to Care Among Women at Risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer following Genetic Counseling in the Community Setting

Data are limited regarding barriers to care among women, with or at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), following genetic counseling in the community setting. Using a telephone survey, we retrospectively addressed perceptions of post-genetic counseling medical care and barriers to care among 69 at-risk women from the non-academic setting. Of these, all agreed that following cancer screening recommendations was better than not following them; none felt recommendations were too difficult to follow; all believed screening would help keep them healthy; 57% believed screening would prevent cancer. Twenty-five percent noted discomfort with breast imaging; 29% found ovarian cancer screening uncomfortable. Close to a quarter of participants reported difficulty deciding whether or not to undergo risk-reducing mastectomy while 10% noted difficulty deciding for or against bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. There were no perceived major barriers to care, although 38% felt that screening reminders would be helpful, and 10% needed more help in following through with care. Overall, participants believed that they were benefiting from their post-genetic counseling medical care. This work identified HBOC-related support needs to include: informational resources that promote improved understanding of cancer risk and high-risk management; screening reminder systems; and decision support tools.     

Why Is Cancer Genetic Counseling Underutilized by Women Identified as at Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer? Patient Perceptions of Barriers Following a Referral Letter

Family history information comprises an important tool in identifying and referring patients at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) to cancer genetic counseling. Despite recommendations and support provided by numerous professional organizations, cancer genetic counseling services are underutilized by atrisk patients. This study aimed to: (1) determine the rate of genetic counseling utilization following a referral letter, (2) characterize factors (barriers and supports) which influenced uptake of services, and (3) identify potential strategies for increasing utilization. This study evaluated the uptake of cancer genetic counseling among 603 screening mammography patients identified as having an increased risk for HBOC based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. At risk individuals and their primary care providers were mailed a referral letter recommending genetic counseling. Three focus groups (N = 24) were conducted to identify responses to receiving a letter recommending genetic counseling, barriers to seeking genetic counseling, and facilitating factors to utilizing these services. Participant responses were qualitatively analyzed using thematic and cross case analysis. Within one year, 50/603 (8 %) of the identified at-risk women completed a genetic counseling appointment. Participant-perceived barriers which influenced their decision not to seek genetic counseling included lack of relevance and utility, limited knowledge about genetic counseling, concerns about the genetic counseling process, and concerns about cost and insurance coverage. Participant-perceived facilitating factors which would support a decision to seek genetic counseling included greater awareness and education about genetic counseling services when receiving a referral, and improved follow up and guidance from their provider. Findings from this study support the need for patient and primary care provider education, and improved provider-patient communication to increase uptake of genetic counseling services.     

Genetic Counseling Outcomes: Perceived Risk and Distress After Counseling for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer

Genetic counseling may turn risk information into cancer prevention behavior by modifying health beliefs and cancer-related distress. We assessed the effect of genetic counseling on these factors in 101 adult first-degree-relatives of colorectal cancer patients from families with known or suspected hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Before counseling and once afterward, subjects completed self-report measures of perceived lifetime risk and cancer-distress. Most persons overestimated their cancer risk, and higher perceived risk was associated with believing that colorectal cancer cannot be prevented. Individual perceived risk changed after counseling, although mean perceived risk was unchanged. After adjusting for baseline risk, older persons and those with higher estimated objective cancer risk had larger postcounseling decreases. Distress after counseling was positively correlated with baseline distress and anxiety symptoms, and inversely correlated with tolerance for ambiguity. The findings suggest counseling interventions that should increase the likelihood of screening and offer hypotheses for future research.