The psychological aspects of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in cancer patients (diagnostic genetic testing) have so far received less attention than predictive genetic testing in unaffected persons. Our study is aimed at gaining insight into the psychological aspects of diagnostic genetic testing and at formulating practical recommendations for counseling. Cancer patients often play a key role in the communication of information to relatives because they were the first individuals to be tested in the family. The present article focuses on the communication to close and distant relatives about the hereditary cancer, the genetic test and its result. Participants previously diagnosed with breast and/or ovarian cancer, with a family history of these cancers and who requested DNA-testing, were eligible for the study. Of the 83 eligible patients who could be contacted, 63 participated (response rate = 76%). Twenty-six participants were members of a family where a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation was detected. The DNA-analysis in the family of 37 participants had not revealed any mutation. Data were collected by semi-structured interviews and psychological tests and questionnaires. The dissemination of information was largely focused on first-degree relatives. Communication to distant relatives about the genetic test and its result was problematic. Other than the genetic test result and age as "objective" predictors of informing distant relatives, little and/or superficial contact seemed to be the major subjective barrier to informing distant relatives. Furthermore, the knowledge about HBOC of these messengers reveals several shortcomings. Communication within the family should receive special attention during counseling.

The aim of this retrospective, exploratory study was to gain insight into how cancer patients who had a diagnostic genetic test for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer looked back on the pre-test period and to gain insight into the psychological impact of the genetic test result. Data were collected by semistructured interviews and self-report questionnaires in 19 BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, 7 noncarriers, and 36 patients with an inconclusive genetic test result. Cancer patients had a genetic test mainly for other persons, especially relatives in the descendant line. Mutation carriers felt more in control, but they also reported negative effects of genetic testing such as negative emotional impact and being concerned about their children. Non-carriers were relieved. The group of women where no BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation was found in the family was heterogeneous. Some misinterpreted the genetic test result as revealing the absence of a genetic predisposition. Others were relieved but also still aware of an increased risk, whereas a last group experienced continuing uncertainty and felt less in control. Self-report questionnaires did not reveal differences in general and cancer-specific distress as a function of the genetic test result. Furthermore, no differences among the three groups were found regarding perceived seriousness of breast and ovarian cancer and perceived control of breast cancer. Perceived control of ovarian cancer was highest in the inconclusive group.

No abstract

This prospective study evaluates emotional functioning and illness representations in 68 unaffected women (34 carriers/34 noncarriers) 1 year after predictive testing for BRCA1/2 mutations when offered within a multidisciplinary approach. Carriers had higher subjective risk perception of breast cancer than noncarriers. Carriers who did not have prophylactic oophorectomy had the highest risk perception of ovarian cancer. No differences were found between carriers and noncarriers regarding perceived seriousness and perceived control of breast and ovarian cancer. Mean levels of distress were within normal ranges. Only few women showed an overall pattern of clinically elevated distress. Cancer-specific distress and state-anxiety significantly decreased in noncarriers from pre- to posttest while general distress remained about the same. There were no significant changes in distress in the group of carriers except for ovarian cancer distress which significantly decreased from pre- to posttest. Our study did not reveal adverse effects of predictive testing when offered in the context of a multidisciplinary approach.

Familial colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for 10-15% of all CRCs. In about 5% of all cases, CRC is associated with a highly penetrant dominant inherited syndrome. The most common inherited form of non-polyposis CRC is the Lynch syndrome which is responsible for about 2-4% of all cases. Surveillance of individuals at high risk for CRC prevents the development of advanced CRC. About 1 million individuals in Western Europe are at risk for Lynch syndrome. We performed a survey to evaluate the strategies currently used to identify individuals at high risk for CRC in 14 Western European countries. Questionnaires were distributed amongst members of a European collaborative group of experts that aims to improve the prognosis of families with hereditary CRC. The survey showed that in all countries obtaining a family history followed by referral to clinical genetics centres of suspected cases was the main strategy to identify familial and hereditary CRC. In five out of seven countries with a (regional or national) CRC population screening program, attention was paid in the program to the detection of familial CRC. In only one country were special campaigns organized to increase the awareness of familial CRC among the general population. In almost all countries, the family history is assessed when a patient visits a general practitioner or hospital. However, the quality of family history taking was felt to be rather poor. Microsatellite instability testing (MSI) or immunohistochemical analysis (IHC) of CRC are usually recommended as tools to select high-risk patients for genetic testing and are performed in most countries in patients suspected of Lynch syndrome. In one country, IHC was recommended in all new cases of CRC. In most countries there are no specific programs on cancer genetics in the teaching curriculum for medical doctors. In conclusion, the outcome of this survey and the discussions within an European expert group may be used to improve the strategies to identify individuals at high risk of CRC. More attention should be given to increasing the awareness of the general population of hereditary CRC. Immunohistochemical analysis or MSI-analysis of all CRCs may be an effective tool for identifying all Lynch syndrome families. The cost-effectiveness of this approach should be further evaluated. All countries with a CRC population screening program should obtain a full family history as part of patient assessment.