Psychological Distress and Coping Ability of Women at High Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer before Undergoing Genetic Counseling—An Exploratory Study from Germany

Carriers of pathogenic variants causing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) are confronted with a high risk to develop malignancies early in life. The present study aimed to determine the type of psychological distress and coping ability in women with a suspicion of HBOC. In particular, we were interested if the self-assessed genetic risk had an influence on health concerns and coping ability. Using a questionnaire established by the German HBOC Consortium, we investigated 255 women with breast cancer and 161 healthy women before they were seen for genetic counseling. The group of healthy women was divided into groups of high and low self-assessed risk. In our study, healthy women with a high self-assessed risk stated the highest stress level and worries about their health and future. A quarter of the women requested psychological support. Overall, only few women (4–11%) stated that they did not feel able to cope with the genetic test result. More women (11–23%, highest values in the low-risk group) worried about the coping ability of relatives. The results of our exploratory study demonstrate that the women, who presented at the Department of Human Genetics, Hanover Medical School, Germany were aware of their genetic risk and had severe concerns about their future health, but still felt able to cope with the genetic test result.

Data sharing to improve concordance in variant interpretation across laboratories: results from the Canadian Open Genetics Repository

BackgroundThis study aimed to identify and resolve discordant variant interpretations across clinical molecular genetic laboratories through the Canadian Open Genetics Repository (COGR), an online collaborative effort for variant sharing and interpretation.MethodsLaboratories uploaded variant data to the Franklin Genoox platform. Reports were issued to each laboratory, summarising variants where conflicting classifications with another laboratory were noted. Laboratories could then reassess variants to resolve discordances. Discordance was calculated using a five-tier model (pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), variant of uncertain significance (VUS), likely benign (LB), benign (B)), a three-tier model (LP/P are positive, VUS are inconclusive, LB/B are negative) and a two-tier model (LP/P are clinically actionable, VUS/LB/B are not). We compared the COGR classifications to automated classifications generated by Franklin.ResultsTwelve laboratories submitted classifications for 44 510 unique variants. 2419 variants (5.4%) were classified by two or more laboratories. From baseline to after reassessment, the number of discordant variants decreased from 833 (34.4% of variants reported by two or more laboratories) to 723 (29.9%) based on the five-tier model, 403 (16.7%) to 279 (11.5%) based on the three-tier model and 77 (3.2%) to 37 (1.5%) based on the two-tier model. Compared with the COGR classification, the automated Franklin classifications had 94.5% sensitivity and 96.6% specificity for identifying actionable (P or LP) variants.ConclusionsThe COGR provides a standardised mechanism for laboratories to identify discordant variant interpretations and reduce discordance in genetic test result delivery. Such quality assurance programmes are important as genetic testing is implemented more widely in clinical care.

Patient recommendations for content and design for electronic return of genetic test results: An interview study among patients who accessed their genetic test results online (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Genetic test results will be increasingly made available electronically as more patient-facing tools are developed; however, little research has been done that collects patient preferences for content and design before creating results templates. OBJECTIVE This study identifies patient preferences for electronic return of genetic test results, including what considerations should be prioritized for content and design. METHODS Following User-Centered Design methods, 59 interviews were conducted using semi-structured protocols. The interviews explored content and design issues for patient portal results return for patients who received electronic results for specific types of genetic tests (pharmacogenomic, hereditary blood disorders, and positive and negative risk results for heritable cancers) or who had electronically received any type of genetic test result as well as a non-genetic test result. RESULTS In general, a majority of participants felt that there always needed to be some clinician involvement in electronic results return and that electronic coversheets with simple summaries would be helpful for facilitating that. Coversheet summaries could accompany, but not replace, the more detailed report. Participants had specific suggestions for those results summaries, such as only reporting the information that was most important for patients to understand, including next steps, and to do so using clear language free of medical jargon. Electronic results return should also include explicit encouragement for patients to contact providers with questions. Finally, many participants preferred to manage their care using their smartphones, particularly in instances where they needed to access health information on the go. CONCLUSIONS Participants recommended that a patient-friendly front section accompany the more detailed report and made suggestions for organization, content, and wording. Many used their smartphones regularly to access test results, therefore, health systems and patient portal software vendors should accommodate smartphone application design and web portal design concomitantly when developing results return platforms. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

Genetic counselling and testing for inherited dementia: single-centre evaluation of the consensus Italian DIAfN protocol

Background A consensus protocol for genetic counselling and testing of familial dementia, the Italian Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s and Frontotemporal Network (IT-DIAfN) protocol, has been developed in Italy by a network of expert dementia centres. The aim of this study is to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of the genetic counselling and testing process, as undertaken according to the IT-DIAfN protocol in one of the IT-DIAfN dementia research centres. Methods The protocol was tested by a multidisciplinary team at the IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy, on affected individuals with suspected inherited forms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and to healthy at-risk relatives. The genetic counselling and testing process consisted of (i) pre-test consultation and psychological assessment (ii) genetic testing, (iii) genetic test result disclosure and (iv) follow-up consultation and psychological assessment. Results Twenty affected individuals from 17 families fulfilled the family history criteria of the IT-DIAfN protocol for suspected inherited dementia (17 for AD, 2 for FTD, 1 for inclusion body myopathy with Paget disease of bone and frontotemporal dementia) and were included in the protocol. Nineteen out of 20 affected individuals received the genetic test result (one left after the pre-test consultation being not ready to cope with an unfavourable outcome). A pathogenic mutation was found in 6 affected individuals (1 in PSEN1, 2 in PSEN2, 1 in GRN, 1 in MAPT, 1 in VCP). Eleven healthy at-risk relatives asked to undergo predictive testing and were included in the protocol. Three completed the protocol, including follow-up; one did not ask for the genetic test result after genetic testing; and eight withdrew before the genetic testing, mainly due to an increased awareness about the possible consequences of an unfavourable test result. To date, no catastrophic reactions were reported at the follow-up. Conclusions Our case series shows that a structured genetic counselling and testing protocol for inherited dementia can be implemented in both affected individuals and at-risk relatives in a research setting. The procedure was shown to be safe in terms of occurrence of catastrophic events. A formal validation in larger cohorts is needed.