Patient Engagement With Clinicians and Family Members About Genetic Test Results Across Risk Groups in Women With
Steven J Katz1,2, Paul Abrahamse3, Allison Furgal3
1Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Purpose:
To examine patient report of engagement with clinicians and relatives about their germline genetic test results across risk groups in women diagnosed with cancer.
Patients And Methods:
We surveyed women age 20-79 years diagnosed with breast, ovarian, or uterine cancer in 2018-19 in Georgia or California, in whom a germline genetic testing yielded a pathogenic variant (PV) in a breast, ovarian, or uterine cancer susceptibility gene (grouped by high v moderate risk) or a variant of unknown significance (VUS) about 4 years after diagnosis (N = 1,767, 52.4% response rate).
Results:
Most patients with PVs (84.5%) had a genetic counseling visit to discuss test results, and a majority (70.6%) were encouraged to share results with relatives with no difference across PV risk groups. Half of the patients with PV reported that a genetic counselor gave them advice about how to talk to relatives and one third reported that a counselor talked directly with a relative. Physician engagement with patients about family communication of test results was low: one third of patients with high-risk PV reported that their oncologist encouraged them to share results with relatives. Patients with PV shared test results with 80% of first-degree relatives and one third of second-degree relatives. Compared with patients with PVs, those with VUS had less engagement with clinicians about sharing test results with relatives; were less likely to believe that they had a responsibility to share results with family; and were less likely to share results with relatives.
Conclusion:
Patients with PVs share results with many family members but clinician support is insufficient, especially among cancer doctors. A substantial proportion of patients with VUS-only engage relatives about results but more research is needed about the nature of the discussions regarding these indeterminate findings.
More Related Videos
10:27Testing Targeted Therapies in Cancer using Structural DNA Alteration Analysis and Patient-Derived Xenografts
Published on: July 25, 2020
13:04In Vivo and Ex Vivo Approaches to Study Ovarian Cancer Metastatic Colonization of Milky Spot Structures in Peritoneal Adipose
Published on: October 14, 2015
Related Concept Videos
Cancer-Critical Genes II: Tumor Suppressor Genes
When the function of certain critical genes, especially those involved in cell cycle regulation and cell growth signaling cascades, gets disrupted, it upsets the cell cycle progression. Such cells with unchecked cell cycles start proliferating uncontrollably and eventually develop into tumors.
Such genes that act...
Cancer-Critical Genes I: Proto-oncogenes
When the function of certain critical genes, especially those involved in cell cycle regulation and cell growth signaling cascades, gets disrupted, it upsets the cell cycle progression. Such cells with unchecked cell cycles start proliferating uncontrollably and eventually develop into tumors.
Such genes that act...
Genetic Screens
Forward genetic screens
Forward or “classical” genetic screens involve creating random mutations in an organism’s DNA using radiation, mutagens, or insertion of additional bases, which...
Cancer Prevention
Some...
Nursing Ethical Principles II
Consider the following scenario, which illustrates how these principles are applied in the care of Mr. John, a fifty-year-old teacher diagnosed with metastatic liver cancer.
Initially, Mr. John's...
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...
