scholarly journals ”For mine børns skyld”: Affektiv cirkulation af risiko, ansvar og køn i BRCA genetisk udredning

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (27) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Vestergaard Youssufi ◽  
Lotte Huniche

Genetisk udredning benyttes i stigende grad af raske mennesker, som er i risiko for at udvikle alvorlige eller livstruende sygdomme. Nogle tilfælde af brystkræft og kræft i æggestokke og æggeledere skyldes en mutation i et af de to BRCA-gener, som kan forårsage tidlig sygdom og død. Gennem interviews med kvinder, der er testet positive for en BRCA-mutation, og med en genetisk rådgiver udforsker artiklen, hvilken rolle den affektive cirkulation af risiko, ansvar og køn har i den genetiske rådgivningsproces og for valg af testning og profylaktisk kirurgi. Analysen viser, at frygt er en gennemgående følelse for kvinderne og deres familiemedlemmer både før, under og efter testning. For kvinder, og særligt  mødre, accelererer følelsen af frygt med deres egen og andres forventninger om, at de som kvinder skal være omsorgsfulde og beskyttende overfor deres familie. For at håndtere frygten hersker der konsensus om at gøre brug af de tilbud, som stilles til rådighed i den medicinsk genetiske kontekst. Der er en udbredt kulturel forestilling, om at man kan opnå viden om sine gener og træffe beslutninger på den baggrund, og en tendens til at opfatte genetisk testning og profylaktisk kirurgi som den ansvarlige måde for kvinder at håndtere risiko. Kønnede forestillinger om kvinders og mødres udvidede ansvar, lagt oveni den medicinske genetiks muligheder, virker gennem frygten disciplinerende på kvindernes valg af testning og profylaktisk kirurgi, også selvom det har omfattende negative konsekvenser for deres egne kroppe og liv. Det stiller særlige krav til genetiske rådgivere og sundhedsvæsnets tilbud på området. ”For my children’s sake”: affective circulation of risk, responsibility and gender in BRCA genetic counselingGenetic testing is increasingly used by healthy people who are at risk for developing serious or life threatening diseases. Some instances of breast and ovarian cancer are caused by a mutation in one of the two BRCA-genes and may cause early onset of disease and premature death. Based on interviews of women who have tested positive for a BRCA mutation, and a genetic counselor this article explores the role of affective circulation of risk, responsibility and gender in the processes and choices around genetic counseling, testing and prophylaxis. The analysis shows that for women and their relatives fear is integral to the entire process of genetic testing. For women, and particularly mothers, fear is exacerbated by the widespread culteral expectation that women ought to care for and protect family members. One way to handle that fear and to meet expectations in the context of medical genetics is making use of the available measures. The notion that you can know your genes and act upon genetic knowledge is a cultural given and works as a driver for perceiving genetic counseling, testing and prophylactic surgery as the more responsible way for women and mothers to manage risk. The gendered conception of extended responsibilities of women and mothers, coupled with the promises of medical genetics, may discipline women to undergo genetic testing and surgery for the sake of family members, particularly children, regardless of any adverse consequences for their own bodies and lives.

Author(s):  
Christian F. Singer ◽  
Yen Y. Tan ◽  
Christine Rappaport

AbstractAimThe aim of this study is to review the legal implications, the technology, the indications and the management of women with a familial background of breast and/or ovarian cancer.MethodsWe have reviewed the literature and national Austrian guidelines to describe the uptake of genetic counseling and the management options offered in Austria.ResultsGenetic testing for theConclusionWhile readily available country-wide counseling has led to an increase in counseling and testing, Austrian legislation mandates “non-directional counseling” resulting in a comparatively low uptake of prophylactic surgery.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 52-52
Author(s):  
Hadeel Assad ◽  
Maliha Naseer ◽  
Samira Ahsan

52 Background: Women with a deleterious mutation in BRCA 1/2 genes have an increased lifetime risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. A spectrum of risk reducing and early detection strategies exist including clinical and radiographic surveillance, hormonal therapy, and prophylactic surgery. Methods: We studied the pattern of clinicopreventive inclination among patients undergoing BRCA testing in our genetics center via a telephone based questionnaire. Differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were identified using independent sample t-test and Fisher exact test. Results: A total of 320 individuals were seen at the genetics center between October 2007 and February 2013. Twenty-nine were eligible of which 25 agreed to participate; 20 were found to be BRCA positive and 5 were true negatives. Most participants (> 75%) informed family members they were undergoing BRCA testing and all women shared the result of their deleterious mutation. An average of 2.2 (SD: 1.28) subsequent family members were tested which led to the discovery of 1.33 (SD: 1.15) new deleterious BRCA mutation carriers. Of the 20 BRCA positive patients, 13 opted for prophylactic surgery of which 5 underwent prophylactic oophorectomy (PO), 4 had prophylactic mastectomy (PM), and another 4 combined PO with PM. The remaining chose increased surveillance. Hormonal therapy was used as a preventive program in 6 women, 4 combined it with prophylactic surgery. Data subanalysis revealed BRCA carriers who opted for prophylactic surgery were more likely to be white (> 75%), younger, multiparous, live in Detroit suburbs, and have a personal history of cancer (92% versus 83%, respectively). Screening and surveillance practices were variable in timing and modality. Conclusions: 65 % of women with deleterious BRCA mutation underwent prophylactic surgery as their cancer risk reducing method. Decisions regarding adopting least to most aggressive measures remain highly influenced by personal history of cancer as well as individual socioeconomic characteristics. Understanding factors that affect women’s decisions to adopt various risk reduction strategies will aid both mutation carriers and clinicians to decide on optimal management.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 74s-74s
Author(s):  
I. Boukovinas ◽  
G. Lypas ◽  
M. Liontos ◽  
C. Andreadis ◽  
C. Papandreou ◽  
...  

Background: State health insurance authorities in Greece do not reimburse genetic testing for cancer predisposition. The Hellenic Society of Medical Oncology has launched and carries out a national program covering genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations detection, with the financial support of pharmaceutical industry. Aim: This analysis evaluates how, during this program, access to genetic testing transformed the oncologists' therapeutic approach toward their ovarian cancer patients and how the results impacted treatment decisions concerning PARP inhibitors. Adoption of testing by healthy relatives and timing of testing in the disease continuum were also evaluated. Methods: Adult patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian carcinoma, irrespectively of family history or age at diagnosis were eligible for this program. Genetic counseling was recommended before testing, and both were offered at no financial cost. First degree family members of pathogenic mutation carriers were also offered free counseling and testing. Results: From March 2015 through January 2018, 708 patients were enrolled and tested. One hundred and forty seven (20.7%) mutation carriers were identified, 102 (14.4%) in BRCA1 and 45 (6.3%) in BRCA2 gene. Testing was more often pursued at initial diagnosis (61%) than at recurrence (39%), as recorded for 409 patients with available relevant information. During the 1st year of the program, average monthly tests performed were 25.1, while during the 3rd year this number increased to 34.3 tests per month. Among patients who tested positive for deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations, relapse was reported in 58 patients, 94.8% of which (n= 55) received treatment with the PARP inhibitor olaparib as per its indication. Family members of 21 patients (14.3%), out of the 147 who tested positive, received genetic counseling and testing for the mutation identified in the context of the program. Conclusion: Free access to genetic testing for BRCA1/2 for ovarian cancer patients and genetic consultation facilitates testing uptake, affects common clinical practice & has major impact on patients and their families. Still, diffusion of genetic information and broader testing of family members require further efforts by the oncological community.


Author(s):  
Eric Rosenthal ◽  
April L. Studinski Jones

The laboratory genetic counselor is commonly called upon to serve as an educational resource within the genetic testing laboratory. This chapter outlines this unique genetic counseling role. Laboratory genetic counselors provide education about genetic testing and genetic concepts within the laboratory to existing laboratory staff, new laboratory genetic counselor colleagues, formal educational program participants (genetic counselor interns, graduate students, medical students and residents, and laboratory fellows), and laboratory colleagues. They also use their skills and knowledge to educate client laboratories and clinicians. They may also participate in public and community forums.


Author(s):  
Colleen Landy Schmitt ◽  
Gabriel A. Lazarin

Sales and marketing functions may be a good fit for laboratory genetic counselors. Genetic counselors can use the technical and communication skills they learned during genetic counseling training to perform roles in marketing and sales and as medical liaisons for genetic testing laboratories. This chapter describes how genetic counselors in sales roles use their genetic counseling background. It discusses the challenges and limitations of such roles. Resources for thriving in sales and marketing roles are provided.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 230-230
Author(s):  
Shafqat Shah ◽  
Gregory John Aune ◽  
Lindsey Mette ◽  
Natalie Poullard

230 Background: Awareness of inherited genetic risk and cancer predisposition has markedly increased. Research has shown that germline mutations in known cancer predisposition genes are identified in ~8% of pediatric oncology patients. Patients diagnosed years ago did not meet with a Genetic counselor or undergo genetic testing. The annual comprehensive survivorship visit provides cancer survivors an opportunity to review personal and family history and receive Genetic counseling. Methods: Our group initiated a pilot project in our Childhood Cancer Survivorship clinic (CCSC) to assess the feasibility of introducing survivors to a Certified Genetic Counselor (CGC). Initially, a chart review of annual visits that took place over a 3-month period was performed. A record of documentation of family history and genetic counseling was made. During the pilot period, survivors and their families were given the option to meet with a CGC. The CGC prepared a pedigree and made specific written recommendations regarding the indication, if any, for genetic testing in the patient or family. Anonymous post-counseling surveys were mailed to the families to gauge their satisfaction. Results: Prior to the pilot, 38 survivors were seen for annual visits over a 3 month period. Chart review identified no formal genetic counseling. A note of a family history of cancer was made in 1 patient. During the 3 month implementation period, 50 survivors were seen for annual visits. Thirty-four ( ~70%) accepted the offer to see a CGC. Of the 16 that did not meet with a CGC, 3 had significant medical issues that required attention, 2 had Down syndrome and 2 had previous genetic counseling. The rest declined interest with no specific rationale. Very few (3) surveys were returned. All rated the experience highly. Conclusions: Our experience in a multi-disciplinary CCSC supports the feasibility of delivering CGC services to long-term survivors of cancer. A majority of survivors were interested in meeting with the CGC. Further development of this program will focus on educating survivors about cancer predisposition and increasing access to CGC services.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1585-1585
Author(s):  
Sarah S. Lee ◽  
Katherine Baumann ◽  
Bhoomi Bhuptani ◽  
Sarah Turecamo ◽  
Julia Anne Smith ◽  
...  

1585 Background: While the management of BRCA1/2 is clear, management of non-BRCA mutations with increased risk or uncertain risk of ovarian cancer (OC) is not well established. Previously, we reported that referral to a gynecologic oncologist (GO) resulted in a 30-fold increased uptake of risk reducing surgery (RRS). We aimed to identify trends in genetic testing (GT) and referral to a GO of patients (pts) with such mutations. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study at 3 satellite sites within 1 institution from 2014 to 2018, pts were identified by ICD-10 codes Z15.01, Z15.02, Z15.09, Z15.89, C50.919, Q99.8, and C54.1. Pts with mutations with increased risk of OC ( MLH1, MSH2/6, PMS2, EPCAM (LS genes) , RAD51C/D, BRIP1, STK11) and uncertain risk of OC ( PALB2, ATM, BARD1, NBN) were included; BRCA1/2 and variants of uncertain significance were excluded . Outcomes of interest were patterns of GT and referral to a GO. Chi square and logistic regression were used with p < 0.05. Results: Of 20,000 pts with above ICD-10 codes, 240 pts had genes of interest. Mutations in increased risk of OC included: LS genes, 131; BRIP1, 14; RAD51D, 8; RAD51C, 5; STK11, 1. Mutations associated with uncertain risk of OC were: ATM, 43; PALB2, 23; NBN, 10; BARD1, 5. Pts with known mutations prior establishing care at our institution (N = 69) were less likely to be referred to a GO (22% vs 78%, p = 0.015). Pts with LS genes were more likely to be referred to a GO (52% vs. 25%, p < 0.001), to be tested by a GC (52% vs 25%, p < 0.001), and to be tested for family history (FH) of known mutation (69% vs 30%, p < 0.001). Provider performing GT included: genetic counselor (GC), 66 (28%); medical oncologist, 44 (18%); general obstetrician-gynecologist, 44 (18%); breast surgeon, 6 (3%), and primary care provider, 5 (2%). Of 66 pts tested by a GC, 46 (70%) were referred to GO, vs 48/105 (45%) pts who underwent GT by non-GC (p = 0.001). Reasons for GT among pts were: FH of cancer, 113 (47%); personal history of cancer, 56 (23%); known FH of a mutation, 49 (20%); and unknown indication, 22 (9%). When controlling for age, parity, race, insurance, GT provider, and reasons for GT, mutations with increased risk of OC were associated with referral to a GO (OR 3.55, 95% CI 1.88-6.72), along with pts who were tested by a GC (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.27-5.51). Conclusions: Only ~30% of pts underwent GT by a GC, which was associated with increased referral to a GO. LS genes are better known and were associated with higher uptake of GO referral. Education of OC risks of these newer mutations among providers performing GT may increase referral to a GO and uptake of RRS.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 138-138
Author(s):  
Larry Edward Bilbrey ◽  
Natalie R. Dickson ◽  
Smita K Rao ◽  
Gregg Christian Shepard ◽  
Kathy McGee ◽  
...  

138 Background: A nine provider, community oncology clinic had limited local access to genetic counseling. Additionally, the practice had no process for identifying appropriate patients for genetic counseling or testing and no method to track referrals and test results. The practice partnered with a contracted genetic counselor and a study was completed to standardize screening and follow-up and to increase referrals and testing. Methods: Baseline data on genetic testing performed in 2018 was obtained from three major genetic testing labs. Based on the NCCN guidelines for genetic assessment, the practice created automated screening reports from the EMR, supplemented by manual chart review, to identify appropriate patients for genetic counseling. Front office, clinical and billing workflows were created. Patients were scheduled to see the counselor via in-person appointments or remotely via a HIPAA compliant telemedicine platform. The genetic counseling sessions included education and consent for testing followed by review and discussion of results. Consultations and genetic testing results were documented in the practice’s EMR. Results: Baseline data showed that the clinic tested 7 patients in 2018; 2 patients in the first quarter. During the pilot from Jan-Mar 2019, 34 patients were referred for genetic counseling; 30 consented to testing. This is a 329% increase over 2018; 1400% for the first quarter. Of the 30 patients tested during the pilot, 6 were positive for a pathogenic mutation. Conclusions: By contracting with a genetic counselor, and establishing procedures for screening, counseling, consenting, testing and follow-up, the practice was able to increase the number of appropriate genetic testing considerably. This process will be scaled to multiple sites of a community practice.


Cancers ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanna McCuaig ◽  
Susan Armel ◽  
Melanie Care ◽  
Alexandra Volenik ◽  
Raymond Kim ◽  
...  

The combination of increased referral for genetic testing and the current shortage of genetic counselors has necessitated the development and implementation of alternative models of genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer assessment. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the patient outcomes that are associated with alternative models of genetic testing and genetic counseling for hereditary cancer, including germline-only and tumor testing models. Seven databases were searched, selecting studies that were: (1) full-text articles published ≥2007 or conference abstracts published ≥2015, and (2) assessing patient outcomes of an alternative model of genetic counseling or testing. A total of 79 publications were included for review and synthesis. Data-charting was completed using a data-charting form that was developed by the study team for this review. Seven alternative models were identified, including four models that involved a genetic counselor: telephone, telegenic, group, and embedded genetic counseling models; and three models that did not: mainstreaming, direct, and tumor-first genetic testing models. Overall, these models may be an acceptable alternative to traditional models on knowledge, patient satisfaction, psychosocial measures, and the uptake of genetic testing; however, particular populations may be better served by traditional in-person genetic counseling. As precision medicine initiatives continue to advance, institutions should consider the implementation of new models of genetic service delivery, utilizing a model that will best serve the needs of their unique patient populations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 66-66
Author(s):  
Barry Tong ◽  
Hala Borno ◽  
Fern Alagala ◽  
Kelly Gordon ◽  
Eric Jay Small ◽  
...  

66 Background: At UCSF, ~850 men with metastatic prostate cancer are seen annually, all of whom should receive germline genetic testing. Prior to our study, the GU medical oncology program offered a self-pay, take-home genetic testing kit (30-gene panel) to patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Patients with positive test results were referred for genetic counseling. For this study, the UCSF Cancer Genetics and Prevention program partnered with the GU medical oncology program, adapting a Genetic Testing Station (GTS) to expand access and accommodate testing needs. At Prostate GTS, a genetic counselor assistant (GCA) facilitates cancer genetics education by video, enrolls patient in a research registry, collects a family history and saliva sample sent for an 87-gene panel. Our study evaluates the effectiveness of the GTS by comparing prospective performance metrics and testing outcomes of Prostate GTS with retrospective data obtained from the take-home method (“Before GTS”). Methods: Men were ascertained by their treating oncologist and referred for GTS. Indications for genetic testing include: all metastatic prostate cancer, or under age 50 at diagnosis, or with family history, or at clinician discretion. GTS metrics were prospectively collected by clinical staff. “Before GTS” metrics were retrospectively collected through data reporting from commercial lab analysis (test orders dated 01/2017 to 09/2019) and patient chart review. Results: In the first 6 months of Prostate GTS (10/2019-3/2020), 139 patients received testing at the GTS and 91% (127) had received results at censoring. GTS results were distributed as follows: 10% (13) positives, 33% (42) negative no VUS, and 57% (72) negative w/VUS. In the 33 months, “Before GTS”, 218 genetic testing orders had been placed, with 78% (196) reported at censoring, distributed as 11% (22) positive, 68% (134) negative no VUS, and 20% (40) negative w/VUS. The rate of incomplete tests decreased significantly with the GTS, (22% down to 9%, p = 0.0008). "Before GTS", of patients with a positive result, 15/22 (68%) were referred for genetic counseling, of which 8 completed a visit (36% of all positives). In the GTS model, all patients with positive results were seen by a genetic counselor for results disclosure and counseling. Comparing result rates across similar timeframes, 127 results were reported from GTS compared to 40 results from “Before GTS” in the same calendar months the year prior, representing a 218% increase in returned results. Median turnaround time decreased from 16 days to 9 days with GTS. Conclusions: GTS efficiently increased access to genetic testing and counseling for patients with prostate cancer. By leveraging GCAs and video education, this model involves cancer genetics at each step of the process, decreases turnaround time, and increases rates of returned results that can be used by patients to inform treatment and prevention strategies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document