Pre-counseling Education for Low Literacy Women at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC): Patient Experiences Using the Cancer Risk Education Intervention Tool (CREdIT)

The Cancer Risk Education Intervention Tool (CREdIT) is a computer-based (non-interactive) slide presentation designed to educate low-literacy, and ethnically and racially diverse public hospital patients at risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) about genetics. To qualitatively evaluate participants’ experience with and perceptions of a genetic education program as an adjunct to genetic counseling, we conducted direct observations of the intervention, semi-structured in person interviews with 11 women who viewed CREdIT, and post-counseling questionnaires with the two participating genetic counselors. Five themes emerged from the analysis of interviews: (1) genetic counseling and testing for breast/ovarian cancer was a new concept; (2) CREdIT’s story format was particularly appealing; (3) changes in participants’ perceived risk for breast cancer varied; (4) some misunderstandings about individual risk and heredity persisted after CREdIT and counseling; (5) the context for viewing CREdIT shaped responses to the presentation. Observations demonstrated ways to make the information provided in CREdIT and by genetic counselors more consistent. In a post-session counselor questionnaire, counselors’ rating of the patient’s preparedness before the session was significantly higher for patients who viewed CREdIT prior to their appointments than for other patients. This novel educational tool fills a gap in HBOC education by tailoring information to women of lower literacy and diverse ethnic/racial backgrounds. The tool was well received by interview participants and counselors alike. Further study is needed to examine the varied effects of CREdIT on risk perception. In addition, the implementation of CREdIT in diverse clinical settings and the cultural adaptation of CREdIT to specific populations reflect important areas for future work.     

Collaboration of Colorado Cancer Genetic Counselors to Integrate Next Generation Sequencing Panels into Clinical Practice

The recent introduction of clinically available next generation sequencing (NGS) cancer panels has presented new challenges for genetic counselors. Determining which patients are appropriate for NGS panel testing is complex. Due to the large number of genes included in the NGS panels, thorough and appropriate pre-test counseling and interpretation of NGS results can be a time-consuming and difficult process. Many of the genes associated with increased cancer risk lack published clinical management guidelines and estimates of cancer risk for individuals with deleterious mutations. In order to efficiently and effectively review the clinical utility of NGS panels, Colorado cancer genetic counselors formed a working group to gain a better understanding of the genes included in NGS cancer panels. This publication reports on the approach of this group, the process used to evaluate a selected NGS panel, future directions for this collaboration, and ideas for other genetic counselors to form similar groups to efficiently evaluate new technologies and improve practice.     

The Ophthalmic Experience: Unanticipated Primary Findings in the Era of Next Generation Sequencing

Next generation sequencing (NGS) technology, with the ability to sequence many genomic regions at once, can provide clinicians with increased information, in the form of more mutations detected. Discussions on broad testing technology have largely been focused on incidental findings, or unanticipated results related to diseases beyond the primary indication for testing. By examining multiple genes that could be responsible for the patient’s presentation, however, there is also the possibility of unexpected results that are related to the reason genetic testing was ordered. We present a case study where multiple potentially causative mutations were detected using NGS technology. This case raises questions of scientific uncertainty, and has important implications for medical management and secondary studies. Clinicians and genetic counselors should be aware of the potential for increased information to affect one’s understanding of genetic risk, and the pre- and post-testing counseling process.     

Parental Attitudes,Beliefs, and Perceptions about Genetic Testing for FAP and Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Minors

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is the second most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome and confers a nearly 100% lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer. Understanding factors that facilitate and inhibit genetic testing and cancer surveillance in children who are members of families affected by FAP will better equip clinicians to clarify misunderstandings and facilitate appropriate care. The aims of this study were to examine parental attitudes and beliefs regarding endoscopic surveillance and genetic testing in minors at risk for developing FAP. This cross-sectional study includes analyses of qualitative and quantitative interview data collected from parents of children with or at risk for FAP. This report includes data from 28 parents with a total of 51 biological children between 10–17 years of age. The parents had a clinical and/or genetic diagnosis of FAP. Most commonly reported facilitators included provider recommendation (surveillance) and personalized medical management (genetic testing). Most commonly reported barriers included lack of provider recommendation (surveillance) and cost (genetic testing).     

Genetic Counselors’ Perceived Responsibilities Regarding Reproductive Issues for Patients at Risk for Huntington Disease

Research indicates that health care professionals’ attitudes may affect patients’ decisions regarding prenatal Huntington Disease testing, but few studies have sampled genetic counselors. In this qualitative study, genetic counselors described their experiences counseling individuals at risk for HD regarding reproductive decision-making. Five major research questions were investigated: 1) What are genetic counselor responsibilities? 2) What issues arise for patients and counselors? 3) How do counselors reconcile prenatal testing with presymptomatic testing? 4) To what extent are counselors’ initial expectations of at-risk patients’ beliefs and behaviors met? and 5) What advice would counselors offer to novice practitioners about working with this patient population? Fifteen genetic counselors experienced in counseling individuals at risk for HD participated in a semi-structured phone interview that yielded several themes. For example, participants identified their primary responsibility as information provision; less prevalent were psychosocial support and facilitating decision making. The most common ethical challenge was testing prenatally for HD which also results in presymptomatic testing of minors. Participants were divided about how directive to be in response to this ethical issue and about termination of a gene positive pregnancy.     

Reproductive Endocrinologists’ Utilization of Genetic Counselors for Oncofertility and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Treatment of <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA1/2</Emphasis> Mutation Carriers

Genetic counselors believe fertility preservation and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) discussions to be a part of their role when counseling BRCA1/2 mutation-positive patients. This study is the first to explore reproductive endocrinologists’ (REI) practices and attitudes regarding involvement of genetic counselors in the care of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers seeking fertility preservation and PGD. A survey was mailed to 1000 REIs from Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility (SREI), an American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) affiliate group. A 14.5 % response rate was achieved; data was analyzed using SPSS software. The majority of participating REIs were found to recommend genetic counseling to cancer patients considering fertility preservation (82 %) and consult with a genetic counselor regarding PGD for hereditary cancer syndromes (92 %). Additionally, REIs consult genetic counselors regarding PGD patient counseling (88 %), genetic testing (78 %), and general genetics questions (66 %). Two areas genetic counselors may further aid REIs are: elicitation of family history, which is useful to determine fertility preservation and PGD intervention timing (32 % of REIs utilize a cancer family history to determine intervention timing); and, interpretation of variants of uncertain significance (VOUS) as cancer panel genetic testing becomes more common (36 % of REIs are unfamiliar with VOUS). Given our findings, the Oncofertility Consortium® created an online resource for genetic counselors focused on fertility preservation education and communication strategies.     

A Genetic Counselor’s Guide to Using Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice

Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) and rapid reductions in cost have increased the use of such technologies in research and clinical practice. However, many barriers exist to translating NGS for routine clinical use, including issues related to the interpretation of results, and the potential to find results that are secondary or incidental to the specific application of NGS. Nonetheless, NGS has become sufficiently affordable to be offered by several clinical laboratories, and increasingly it is becoming an attractive and viable option for clinicians and patients. This article reviews current NGS technologies, highlighting the information genetic counselors need to know to make informed-decisions about utilizing NGS in the clinic, and underscoring the impact of this new testing modality on the practice of genetic counseling.     

22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome: Attitudes towards Disclosing the Risk of Psychiatric Illness

22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome (22q11.2DS) is a common microdeletion syndrome with multisystem features. There is a strong association with psychiatric disorders. One in every four to five patients develop schizophrenia. Despite studies showing that early diagnosis and treatment are likely to lead to improved outcome, genetic counselors may be reluctant to discuss the risk of psychiatric illness. The aim of this research was to explore parental attitudes and genetic counselors’ perspectives and practice regarding disclosure of the clinical manifestations of 22q11.2DS, particularly the risk of psychiatric illness. We delivered a questionnaire to genetic counselors via established list-serves, 54 of which were completed. We also conducted interviews with four parents of adults with 22q11.2DS and schizophrenia. The majority of counselors and parents felt that the increased risk to develop a psychiatric illness is important to disclose. However, in the initial counseling session when the diagnosis was made in infancy genetic counselors were significantly less likely to discuss the risk of psychiatric disorders compared to other later onset features such as hypothyroidism (41?% vs. 83?%, p?=?0.001). When the diagnosis of 22q11.2DS was made in infancy, counselors’ responses in regard to timing of disclosure about psychiatric illnesses were fairly evenly divided between infancy, childhood and adolescence. In contrast, for other major features of 22q11.2DS, disclosure would predominantly be in infancy. The respondents reported that the discussion of psychiatric issues with parents was challenging due to the stigma associated with mental illness. Some also noted limited knowledge about psychiatric illness and treatment. These results suggest that genetic counselors could benefit from further education regarding psychiatric illness in 22q11.2DS and best strategies for discussing this important subject with parents and patients.     

Parents’ Perceptions of Autism Spectrum Disorder Etiology and Recurrence Risk and Effects of their Perceptions on Family Planning: Recommendations for Genetic Counselors

Knowledge about the etiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) is increasing, but causes remain elusive for most cases. Genetic counselors are positioned to help families that have children with ASDs despite uncertainty regarding etiology. To determine how genetic counselors might best provide services, an anonymous survey was conducted with 255 parents whose children were diagnosed on the autism spectrum. Questions concerned: 1) their perceptions of ASD cause(s) and 2) recurrence risk, 3) whether perceived risk affected family planning decisions, 4) whether parents had received genetic services, and 5) how genetic counselors might assist families. The most prevalent perceived cause was genetic influences (72.6%). Most parents’ recurrence risk perceptions were inaccurately high and significantly affected family planning. Only 10% had seen a genetic professional related to an ASD. Parents provided several suggestions for genetic counselor best practices. Findings indicate the importance of genetic counselor awareness of parent perceptions in order to best help families who have children with ASDs.     

Spiritual Assessment in Genetic Counseling

One hundred and twenty seven full members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors participated in this study exploring current spiritual assessment practices of genetic counselors and reactions to a spiritual assessment tool. While 60% of genetic counselors reported they had performed a spiritual assessment within the past year, fewer than 8.7% of these counselors assessed spirituality in more than half of their sessions. Counselors reporting high perceived relevance of spiritual assessment performed an assessment more frequently than those reporting a low perceived relevance. Barriers to spiritual assessment included lack of time, insufficient skills, and uncertainty regarding the role of spiritual assessment within genetic counseling. Almost two-thirds of counselors expressed that having a spiritual assessment tool would increase their ability to elicit relevant information. These data suggest a need for increased training regarding the methods for and relevance of spiritual assessment in genetic counseling. Recommendations for future directions of research are explored.     

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.     

Development of a Communication Aid to Facilitate Risk Communication in Consultations with Unaffected Women from High Risk Breast Cancer Families: A Pilot Study

The literature on risk perception in women from high-risk breast cancer families reveals persistent over-estimation of risk, even after counseling. In this study, a communication aid was designed to facilitate discussion of risk between clinical geneticists and genetic counselors and women from this high-risk population. Method: Stage 1. The aid was developed by an expert panel of clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, psychologists, an epidemiologist, an oncologist, linguists and a consumer. It was guided by the international literature on risk communication and a large multi-centre Australian study of risk communication. The 13 page full-color communication aid used varying formats of words, numbers, graphs and pie-charts to address (a) the woman’s subjective risk; (b) the population risk of breast cancer; c) the risk of inherited breast cancer; (d) the cumulative risk for women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations; (e) family risk factors; (f) the woman’s suitability for genetic testing; (h) screening and management recommendations, and (i) a re-assessment of the woman’s subjective risk. Stage 2: A before–after pilot study of 38 women who were unaffected with breast cancer and were attending four Australian familial cancer clinics was undertaken. Baseline and follow-up questionnaires were completed by 27 women. Outcomes were compared to those observed in 107 similar women undergoing genetic counseling without the communication aid in 2001. Results: The risk communication aid appears to be beneficial; breast cancer genetics knowledge improved in some areas and importantly, risk perceptions improved in the cohort receiving the communication aid. Psychological measures showed no difference in anxiety or depression between the group receiving the communication aid and the comparison cohort. Women and clinicians were very positive about the usefulness of the communication aid as an adjunct to the genetic counseling consultation.     

Probability Biases in Genetic Problem Solving: A Comparison of Undergraduates, Genetic Counseling Graduate Students, and Genetic Counselors

Heuristics are mental shortcuts that aid people in everyday problem-solving and decision-making. Although numerous studies have demonstrated their use in contexts ranging from consumers’ shopping decisions to experts’ estimations of experimental validity, virtually no published research has addressed heuristics use in problems involving genetic conditions and associated risk probabilities. The present research consists of two studies. In the first study, 220 undergraduates attempted to solve four genetic problems—two common heuristic problems modified to focus on genetic likelihood, and two created to study heuristics and probability rule application. Results revealed that the vast majority of undergraduates used heuristics and also demonstrated a complete misuse of probability rules. In the second study, 156 practicing genetic counselors and 89 genetic counseling students solved slightly modified versions of the genetic problems used in Study 1. Results indicated that a large percentage of both genetic counselors and students used heuristics, but the counselors demonstrated superior problem-solving performance compared to both the genetic counseling students and the undergraduates from Study 1. Research, training, and practice recommendations are presented.     

Genomic Counseling: Next Generation Counseling

Personalized medicine continues to expand with the development and increasing use of genome-based testing. While these advances present new opportunities for diagnosis and risk assessment, they also present challenges to clinical delivery. Genetic counselors will play an important role in ushering in this new era of testing; however, it will warrant a shift from traditional genetic counseling to “genomic counseling.” This shift will be marked by a move from reactive genetic testing for diagnosis of primarily single-gene diseases to proactive genome-based testing for multiple complex diseases for the purpose of disease prevention. It will also require discussion of risk information for a number of diseases, some of which may have low relative risks or weak associations, and thus, may not substantially impact clinical care. Additionally, genomic counselors will expand their roles, particularly in the area of health promotion to reduce disease risk. This additional role will require a style of counseling that is more directive than traditional counseling and require greater knowledge about risk reducing behaviors and disease screening.     

Incorporating a Psychological Counselor in a Cancer Risk Assessment Program: Necessity, Acceptability, and Potential Roles

Evidence suggests that cancer risk assessment may be associated with increased psychological distress. This exploratory study assessed the necessity and acceptability of incorporating psychological counseling into routine clinic procedures at a cancer risk program. Following a visit to a university-based cancer risk clinic, patients (N = 102) completed an anonymous self-report instrument. Participants reported experiencing current stress and anxiety (41%), depression (29%), and suicidal ideation (2%). Patients with a history of cancer were more likely to be experiencing current emotional difficulties. Sixty-nine percent of the participants found the visit with the psychological counselor to be helpful, while 41% of the participants reported interest in follow-up psychological services. Interest in receiving future psychological services was positively correlated with levels of anxiety, depression, and cancer worry. This pilot study demonstrates the acceptability and potential role for psychological counselors in increasing adjustment in high-risk patients undergoing genetic counseling for inherited cancers.     

The Impact of Social Roles on the Experience of Men in BRCA1/2 Families: Implications for Counseling

Recent advances in genetics have identified several genes associated with inherited susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer and have led to the commercial availability of mutation analyses. Although the majority of cancers associated with BRCA1/2 mutations are seen in women, men with BRCA1/2 mutations are at increased risk for male breast cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer and melanoma. Limited data available on the response of men in BRCA1/2 families suggest that the majority do not pursue genetic counseling, thus they may forgo the opportunity to improve health practices and to pass on valuable cancer risk information to offspring. The patterns of relationships of men within the family and society can pose challenges to their recognition of genetic health threats and the need for preventive interventions. Genetic counselors are in a position to inform at-risk males of their genetic risk, and to help them explore their personal health options.     

The Life Course Perspective: a Guide for Genetic Counselors

This is the first article in a two part series about utilizing the life course perspective (LCP) in genetic counseling. LCP can be a useful tool for genetic counselors when counseling people with a known genetic mutation. Previous theories such as Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSMSR) examine current reactions to a positive genetic test result. LCP extends beyond the current time to explore temporal and contextual elements of the experience. A review of research revealed, LCP has been used to study the perspective of caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s disease, referral for a family history of breast cancer, Mexican American caregivers of older adult, social class and cancer incidence and cancer and the sense of mastery. Incorporating LCP into a study explaining the experiences of people living with a positive test result for a genetic mutation such as the BRCA mutation provides a comprehensive exploration of this experience.     

Attitudes and Practice of Genetic Counselors Regarding Anonymous Testing for BRCA1/2

Patients and clinicians alike view anonymous testing as a potential way to avoid perceived risks of genetic testing such as insurance and employment discrimination and the potential loss of privacy. To assess their experience with and attitudes towards anonymous testing for BRCA1/2, genetic counselors were invited to complete an internet-based survey via the NSGC Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group (FCRC-SIG) listerv. A majority of the 115 respondents (70%) had received requests from patients for anonymous BRCA1/2 testing at some point in their careers and 43% complied with this request. Most counselors, however, encountered such requests infrequently, 1–5 times per year. Although genetic counselors do not generally encourage anonymous testing and over a third of respondents feel it should never be offered, a substantial subset support its use under specific circumstances. In general, a strong consensus exists among counselors that anonymous testing should not be offered routinely. In light of the current legislative landscape, it is of note that a substantial proportion of respondents (42.7%) cited the threat of life insurance discrimination as a reason for pursuing AT, and fewer cited health insurance (30.0%) or employment discrimination (29.1%) as justifications. Since there exists no federal legislative protections against discrimination by life insurance companies, it makes sense that genetic counselors were more responsive to this issue as opposed to the threat of discrimination in health insurance and employment.     

Genomic Testing: a Genetic Counselor’s Personal Reflection on Three Years of Consenting and Testing

Whole exome sequencing (WES) is increasingly used in research and clinical genetics as the cost of sequencing decreases and the interpretation improves. Genetic counselors need to be prepared to counsel a diverse patient population for this complex test. This commentary is a reflection of one genetic counselor’s experiences in counseling, consenting, and returning results for clinical and research WES for over 120 participants and patients. She reflects on how she overcame the initial challenges and concerns of counseling for WES and how her counseling evolved from a teaching based counseling model to an interactive patient-center counseling model. Her insights are offered to prepare other genetic counselors for the growing use of genomic testing.