Role of psychological background in cancer susceptibility genetic testing distress: It is not only about a positive result

9.22.2023

Clinical and familial factors predict psychological distress after genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. However, the contribution of an individual's psychological background to such distress is unclear. This study aims to analyze the psychological impact of genetic testing and to identify the profile of individuals at higher risk. This is a longitudinal multicenter study of individuals undergoing genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Demographic, clinical, genetic, familial, and psychological (personality types, cancer worry) characteristics were assessed by validated questionnaires the day of genetic testing. Distress, uncertainty, and positive experience perception (MICRA scale) were evaluated at the results disclosure visit, and 3 and 12 months afterwards. Multivariate analysis was performed. A total of 714 individuals were included. A high neuroticism score, high baseline cancer worry, and a positive genetic test result were independently associated with higher psychological impact (p-value < 0.05). The highest risk profile (10% of the cohort) included women with high level of neuroticism and a positive result. Uncertainty was mainly associated with a high level of neuroticism, regardless of the genetic test result. A holistic approach to personalized germline genetic counseling should include the assessment of personality dimensions.

Read Article

Measuring high-risk parents' opinions about direct-to-consumer genetic testing for adult-onset inherited cancer syndromes in their adolescent and young adult children

9.22.2023

Neither direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing nor predictive genetic testing for adult-onset conditions is recommended for minor children due to ethical concerns and low clinical utility. However, parents with pathogenic variants (PVs) in disease-causing genes may be interested in pursuing genetic testing that includes the familial PV for their children. The Pediatric Testing Attitudes Scale (P-TAS) was previously developed to examine high-risk parents' opinions about pediatric BRCA genetic testing for adult-onset breast/ovarian cancer. Here, the psychometric properties of the P-TAS were examined in a new sample of N = 126 parents (M age = 47.2 years) with PVs in a more complete set of cancer risk genes represented on DTC panel tests. The mean score on the P-TAS was 44 out of a maximum score of 60, indicating that a majority of parents generally held favorable opinions about testing their children for adult-onset inherited cancer syndromes. The internal consistency of the full scale was high (α = 0.91). A factor analysis identified two-component scales, labeled Attitudes and Beliefs (α = 0.93) and Decision Making and Communication (α = 0.83). In a multivariable regression model, P-TAS co-factors accounted for 34% of variance in parental opinions, including the frequency of prior family communication about cancer and the likelihood of utilizing DTC genetic testing with children (R² = 0.34, p < 0.001). Results suggest that the P-TAS remains a reliable measure to assess high-risk parents' opinions about pediatric DTC genetic testing for adult-onset conditions, with promising validity. Applications of the P-TAS include informing genetic counseling practice, pediatric medical care, and policy guidelines surrounding DTC genetic testing.

Read Article

Clinical and laboratory genetic counselor attitudes on the reporting of variants of uncertain significance for multigene cancer panels

9.22.2023

Research suggests variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) present a variety of challenges for genetic counselors (GCs), nongenetics clinicians, and patients. Multigene cancer panels reveal more VUSs than single gene testing as a result of the increase in the number of genes being tested. This study surveyed 87 clinical cancer GCs involved with direct patient care and 19 laboratory GCs who provide guidance to clinicians regarding genetic test results about their attitudes on various options for the reporting of VUSs by laboratories for broad multigene cancer panels. Independent samples t-tests were utilized to compare the two groups. Based on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree), clinical cancer GCs (M = 5.4; SD = 0.8) and laboratory GCs (M = 5.2; SD = 0.9) agreed overall that VUSs should be reported (p = 0.44; Cohen's d = 0.21). When asked about specific reporting options, both clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.1) and laboratory GCs (M = 2.1; SD = 1.4) disagreed that VUSs should be reported only for genes related to the indication for testing (p = 0.50; Cohen's d = 0.17). Overall, most GCs felt clinicians should not choose whether VUSs should be reported on genetic test results, with clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.3) feeling more strongly against it than laboratory GCs (M = 3.1; SD = 1.4; p = 0.002; Cohen's d = 0.88). Generally, GCs were more in favor of VUSs not being reported for population-based screening, with laboratory GCs (M = 4.7; SD = 0.8) agreeing more with that practice than clinical cancer GCs (M = 3.7; SD = 1.4; p = 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.80). Both clinical cancer GCs (M = 4.1; SD = 1.2) and laboratory GCs (M = 3.9; SD = 1.2) agreed additional guidelines on how to approach VUSs in clinical practice should be developed (p = 0.54; Cohen's d = 0.17). While most GCs supported the reporting of VUSs overall, our analyses suggest clinical cancer and laboratory GCs may have different attitudes toward specific VUS-related reporting options. Further research is needed to elucidate GC preferences to help inform best practices for the reporting of VUSs. The development of additional standardized guidelines on how to approach VUSs would further support clinical practice.

Read Article

Searching for secrets, searching for self: Childhood adversity, self-concept clarity, and the motivation to uncover family secrets through direct-to-consumer genetic testing

9.22.2023

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests have become an attractive product for those hoping to gain insight into their health, ancestry, and biological relatedness. In some cases, test results are unexpected, and lead to the revelation of previously undisclosed family secrets. A subset of individuals may pursue testing explicitly for this purpose; however, the psychosocial processes underlying this motivation remain unexamined. Grounded in the literature on family secrecy, trauma, and the development of self-concept, we tested a hypothesized mediation model to provide insight into this motivation among a sample of 433 individuals in pursuit of DTC genetic testing. In line with the documented association between maladaptive family communication patterns and trauma exposure in childhood, we found that exposure to adverse childhood experiences was associated with the motivation to pursue DTC genetic testing for the purpose of uncovering family secrets. We also found evidence of an indirect effect through reduced self-concept clarity. These findings suggest that impaired identity formation processes may have played a role in transmitting the effect. Furthermore, the findings highlight a novel way in which family histories may contribute to DTC genetic testing motivations. Future examination of these and other psychosocial phenomena that contribute to DTC genetic testing will be crucial to consider as the tests become increasingly accessible, and as the information they can provide becomes increasingly comprehensive. Findings from this line of research could help to identify for whom and under what conditions DTC genetic testing benefits well-being, and the conditions under which the act of testing and receipt of results could have adverse psychosocial effects. These insights will be of interest to genetic counselors working in the field of DTC genetic testing, and those working with individuals and families affected by unexpected test results.

Read Article

Defining orienting language in the genetic counseling process

9.22.2023

We defined orienting language in genetic counseling sessions as ‘language intended to direct focus to a particular aspect of the counseling process; a physical, emotional, or cognitive space; or an outcome’. This is a concept expanding on the idea of ‘orientation’ statements in the genetic counseling literature. We propose that orienting language is an important component of effective communication in the genetic counseling process. Our goals were to document the presence of orienting language in genetic counseling sessions with practicing genetic counselors and simulated clients, categorize types of orienting language, and evaluate the purpose of this language. A sample of Genetic Counseling Video Project videotape transcripts was evaluated through consensus coding for orienting language. Orienting language was found to be abundant in the dataset evaluated. Each excerpt was coded for orienting language Strategies and Purpose. The six categories of Strategy codes identified were Logical Consistency, Providing Context, Guidance, Structuring the Session, Anchoring, and Procedural. The six categories of Purpose codes were Counselee Understanding, Guidance, Engagement, Promoting Effective Counselor/Counselee Interactions, Counselee Adaptation, and Relationship Building. Results support our expanded definition of orienting language, which was similar in both cancer and prenatal specialties and across years of counselor experience. Orienting language acts as a series of signposts to help clients navigate the sometimes complex and unfamiliar territory of a genetic counseling session. The introduction of this term into the genetic counseling literature allows its use by genetic counselors to be further evaluated and potentially incorporated into genetic counselor training.

Read Article

Factors that influence the management recommendations breast surgeons provide to women with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes

9.22.2023

Pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes, such as ATM and CHEK2, confer a two- to five-fold increased lifetime risk for breast cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has guidelines for breast surgeons to utilize when counseling women with pathogenic variants in these genes; however, previous studies indicate that other factors impact breast surgeons' recommendations to patients. This study investigated factors influencing management recommendations presented by breast surgeons to women with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with breast surgeons practicing in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. A total of 15 breast surgeons from eight different hospitals participated in five focus groups and three individual interviews. Participants discussed factors they consider when making management recommendations for risk reduction in women with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes. Participants provided risk management recommendations for given scenarios. Patient motivation/opinion, family history, patient current health status, patient personal preference, and patient anxiety level were among the most common factors mentioned. It appeared that how these factors are valued and applied in practice varies. There was no consensus among breast surgeons on which risk-reducing management options they would recommend in each scenario. There are many factors breast surgeons take into consideration when making recommendations for this patient population. This information could inform future research on decision making around treatment for individuals with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes.

Read Article

The utility of limited Spanish proficiency in interpreted genetic counseling sessions

9.22.2023

Professional interpreters are an integral component of healthcare for Spanish-speaking individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). Research has demonstrated that errors in interpretation are common and can contribute to poor outcomes for Spanish-speaking clients. Providers with some Spanish proficiency may be able to detect clinically significant interpretation errors, potentially limiting negative clinical outcomes and helping to reduce health disparities for clients with LEP. This study aimed to identify the level of Spanish proficiency necessary for genetic counselors to be able to detect a majority of clinically significant errors made by a professional interpreter during a reproductive genetic counseling session. Practicing genetic counselors and genetic counseling graduate students were surveyed regarding their Spanish language background, experience working with interpreters, and self-rated Spanish proficiency. Participants then watched short video clips from three simulated reproductive genetic counseling sessions conducted with a professional interpreter and were tasked with identifying clinically significant interpretation errors. Survey responses were analyzed from 118 participants who met eligibility criteria. Participants who reported “basic” and “fair” Spanish proficiency detected an average of 36.5% and 67% of clinically significant errors, respectively. Those reporting “good” proficiency or higher detected more than 80% of errors. Overall self-rated Spanish proficiency was positively correlated with years of Spanish language education and individual measures of speaking, listening, and reading proficiency, indicating that self-report may be a reasonable measure of proficiency when the goal is error detection in an interpreted session. Genetic counselors with even minimal Spanish proficiency can detect clinically significant interpretation errors, allowing for the correction of these errors during the session. Genetic counselors with “basic” and “fair” may consider genetic counseling-specific Spanish language classes to increase their proficiency to be able to detect a majority of interpretation errors and thereby improve the quality of care and reduce health disparities for Spanish-speaking clients.

Read Article

Adding a genetic counseling assistant improves efficiency of hereditary cancer genetic counseling without impacting patient experience

9.22.2023

Improving efficiency of genetic counseling can allow genetic counselors to see more patients, increasing access to this valuable service. However, the patient experience should be carefully considered as changes are made, so that quality is not sacrificed. The primary outcome of this study was time in session with a board-certified genetic counselor at baseline (T0), after the addition of a genetic counseling assistant (GCA) (T1). The secondary outcome was the patient experience, which was collected from an electronic survey sent three days after the genetic counseling session. A total of 689 appointments were evaluated over 12 months; 291 in T0 by two genetic counselors (Jan–June 2019), 398 in T1 by two genetic counselors (August 2019–Jan 2020). The overall genetic counseling median appointment time decreased by 10 min in T1 (p < 0.001), and the median amount of time spent on post-session activities by the two genetic counselors decreased by 15 min (p < 0.001). There was an increase in the average number of patients seen per FTE per month from 24.3 in T0 to 33.2 in T1. There was no difference in overall patient experience from T0 to T1 (p = 0.3). There was high patient satisfaction, including with the amount of time spent in a session during both time periods (p = 0.63). This study found decreased appointment time with the addition of a GCA in a single clinic without impacting patient experience.

Read Article

No longer “non-traditional”: Genetic counselors' perceptions towards laboratory and industry roles

9.22.2023

A growing percentage of genetic counselors are employed in roles that do not involve direct patient care, commonly in commercial diagnostic laboratories. This study aimed to assess characteristics of laboratory and industry (LI) roles and perceptions of the genetic counseling community's views towards such roles. Members of NSGC and ABGC were invited to participate in this study. Data analysis included descriptive and inferential statistics and select participant quotes are included to highlight key points identified by statistical analyses. Three hundred twenty-six genetic counselors who self-identified as currently or previously working within an LI role responded to the survey. Over 40% of participants reported feeling that they were not perceived positively by colleagues outside of LI settings, and 54% felt that GC colleagues in non-LI roles provided mostly negative commentary about LI GC roles. Over 90% of individuals felt that their employer was a factor in the way they were perceived by others and that this factor carried a bigger weight than job title, work setting, or even professional responsibilities. Qualitative responses from open-ended text questions suggest that while perceptions toward LI roles have improved over time, commentary regarding the “dark side” of genetic counseling persists. To promote the continued, unified growth of the genetic counseling profession and other healthcare professions, it is necessary to address this source of intra-professional conflict.

Read Article

Comparison of genetic testing documentation between genetic counselors and non-genetic counselors

9.22.2023

Implementation of genetic testing in healthcare increases, but access to, and number of, genetics providers remain scarce. This study analyzed the impact of genetic counselor (GC) involvement on frequency of documentation of pre- and post-test counseling of genetic testing between GCs and genetics providers (GPs), and GCs and non-genetics providers (NGPs). A retrospective chart review of 467 charts from patients who had genetic testing ordered between July 2016 and June 2018 at a primarily pediatric institution was conducted. GCs were involved for 223 charts (GC group), and not involved for 244 (non-GC group). The non-GC group was further stratified into patient charts with Genetics Providers (GP group) (n = 100) involved and those with Non-Genetics Providers (NGP group) (n = 144) involved. Categorical, binomial, pre-test variables (counseling, test description, results possibilities, insurance coverage, and cost) and categorical, binomial, post-test variables (results disclosure, family testing recommendations, recurrence risk, and provided resources) were collected and compared using Fisher's exact test (p < 0.005). With the exception of test description, documentation for all variables occurred more frequently in the GC group compared to the NGP group (all p < 0.001). Documentation for the majority of variables also occurred more frequently in the GC group compared to the GP group (p < 0.005), with the exceptions of overall pre-test counseling and family testing recommendations. GC involvement was associated with increased documentation of most pre- and post-test genetic counseling variables. With increased emphasis placed on transparency, accurateness, and access for patients of the EMR, in part due to the passage of the CARES Act, documentation should reflect the content of counseling provided. The cause of the documentation discrepancy identified may have differing effects on patient care and provider education.

Read Article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Last

Back to NSGC News