Consanguinity, the union between two individuals who are related as second cousins or closer, is a long‐standing and respected tradition in many communities. Although there are social and economic benefits of consanguineous unions, offspring are at increased risk of having an inherited genetic condition or congenital anomaly. Genetic counseling services for consanguinity are available to couples at many centers. However, little is known about patient expectations of and experiences with genetic counseling for this indication, or their perspectives on genetic screening relevant to family planning, such as expanded carrier screening (ECS). This exploratory qualitative study involved interviews with 13 individuals who had recently received preconception or prenatal genetic counseling for consanguinity at a single center. We sought to gain insight into their expectations for the genetic counseling session, experiences discussing family history and reproductive risks with the genetic counselor, and views on ECS. Interview transcripts were analyzed using an interpretive descriptive approach. Data analysis revealed three main themes: (a) anticipation balances apprehension before the appointment; (b) genetic counseling reduces anxiety and empowers; and (c) the need for wider information dissemination about consanguinity‐related risks and genetic services. Our findings support the personal utility of genetic counseling for consanguinity and demonstrate the need for increased visibility and access to genetics information, counseling, and testing relevant to this patient population.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid adoption of virtual clinic processes and healthcare delivery. Herein, we examine the impact of virtualising genetics services at Canada’s largest cancer centre. A retrospective review was conducted to evaluate relevant metrics during the 12 weeks prior to and during virtual care, including referral and clinic volumes, patient wait times and genetic testing uptake. The number of appointments and new patients seen were maintained during virtual care. Likewise, there was a significant increase in the number of patients offered testing during virtual care who did not provide a blood sample (176/180 (97.7%) vs 180/243 (74.1%); p<0.001), and a longer median time from the date of pretest genetic counselling to the date a sample was given (0 vs 11 days; p<0.001). Referral volumes significantly decreased during virtual care (35 vs 22; p<0.001), which was accompanied by a decreased median wait time for first appointment (55 days vs 30 days; p<0.001). The rapid virtualisation of cancer genetic services allowed the genetics clinic to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic without compromising clinical volumes or access to genetic testing. There was a decrease in referral volumes and uptake of genetic testing, which may be attributable to pandemic-related clinical restrictions.

This study compares knowledge, experience and understanding of genetic testing, and psychological outcomes among breast and ovarian cancer patients undergoing multi-gene panel testing via genetic counselor-mediated (GMT) or oncologist-mediated (OMT) testing models. A pragmatic, prospective survey of breast and ovarian cancer patients pursuing genetic testing between January 2017 and August 2019 was conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada. A total of 120 (80 GMT; 40 OMT) individuals completed a survey administered one week following consent to genetic testing. Compared to OMT, the GMT cohort had higher median knowledge (8 vs. 9; p = 0.025) and experience/understanding scores (8.5 vs. 10; p < 0.001) at the time of genetic testing. Significant differences were noted in the potential psychological concerns experienced, with individuals in the GMT cohort more likely to screen positive in the hereditary predisposition domain of the Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer tool (55% vs. 27.5%; p = 0.005), and individuals in the OMT cohort more likely to screen positive in the general emotions domain (65.0% vs. 38.8%; p = 0.007). The results of this study suggest that OMT can be implemented to streamline genetic testing; however, post-test genetic counseling should remain available to all individuals undergoing genetic testing, to ensure any psychologic concerns are addressed and that individuals have a clear understanding of relevant implications and limitations of their test results.

Neurofibromatosis Type I (NF1) is caused by variants in neurofibromin (NF1). NF1 predisposes to a variety of benign and malignant tumor types, including breast cancer. Women with NF1 <50 years of age possess an up to five-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer compared with the general population. Impaired emotional functioning is reported as a comorbidity that may influence the participation of NF1 patients in regular clinical surveillance despite their increased risk of breast and other cancers. Despite emphasis on breast cancer surveillance in women with NF1, the uptake and feasibility of high-risk screening programs in this population remains unclear. A retrospective chart review between 2014–2018 of female NF1 patients seen at the Elizabeth Raab Neurofibromatosis Clinic (ERNC) in Ontario was conducted to examine the uptake of high-risk breast cancer screening, radiologic findings, and breast cancer characteristics. 61 women with pathogenic variants in NF1 enrolled in the high-risk Ontario breast screening program (HR-OBSP); 95% completed at least one high-risk breast screening modality, and four were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Our findings support the integration of a formal breast screening programs in clinical management of NF1 patients.

Introduction Knowledge of the genetic mechanisms driving hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) has recently expanded due to advances in gene sequencing technologies. Genetic testing for HBOC risk now involves multi-gene panel testing, which includes well characterized high-penetrance genes (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as moderate- and low-penetrance genes. Certain moderate and low penetrance genes are associated with limited data to inform cancer risk estimates and clinical management recommendations, which create new sources of genetic and clinical uncertainty for patients. Purpose The aim of this review is to evaluate the psychological and health behaviour outcomes associated with multi-gene panel testing for HBOC risk. The search was developed in collaboration with an Information Specialist (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre) and conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCare, PsycINFO, Epub Ahead of Publication. Results Similar to the BRCA1/2 literature, individuals with a pathogenic variant (PV) reported higher levels of testing-related concerns and cancer-specific distress, as well as higher uptake of prophylactic surgery in both affected and unaffected individuals compared to those with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) or negative result. A single study demonstrated that individuals with a PV in a moderate penetrance gene reported higher rates of cancer worry, genetic testing concerns and cancer-related distress when compared to women with high penetrance PV. Analysis of cancer screening and prevention outcomes based upon gene penetrance were limited to two studies, with conflicting findings. Conclusion The findings in this review emphasize the need for studies examining psychological and health behavior outcomes associated with panel testing to include between group differences based upon both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance. Future studies evaluating the impact of gene penetrance on patient-reported and clinical outcomes will require large samples to be powered for these analyses given that a limited number of tested individuals are found to have a PV.