Risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following genetic testing for adult-onset disorders

Although clinical genetic testing is available for over 1,000 inherited disorders, consequences of predictive genetic testing have been most extensively examined for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), hereditary colon cancer, and Huntington disease (HD). These focus primarily on psychological, ethical, legal, and social aspects of genetic testing. Genetic testing may also provide information that can lead to behaviors that promote health and reduce risk for disease, reflecting options available for the disorder for which the person is at risk. However, regardless of condition, people completing a genetic test may inform relatives about the results of the test and implications for their risk to develop the condition. Literature on risk reduction behaviors and communication focuses on families with HBOC or colorectal cancer. Few reports document behaviors for other conditions. This paper presents a systematic review of the research literature on risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following clinical genetic testing for adult onset conditions, primarily HBOC, familial colon cancers, and HD. Insights gleaned from this review are discussed as a basis for planning monitoring of health promotion and risk-reduction behaviors for genetic testing for present and future use.     

Simultaneous interdisciplinary counseling in German breast/ovarian cancer families: first experiences with patient perceptions, surveillance behavior and acceptance of genetic testing

As part of a multicenter study supported by the German Mildred Scheel foundation we have established an interdisciplinary counseling setting for members of breast and/or ovarian cancer families. We offer simultaneous counseling by a team consisting of a geneticist, a gynecologist and a psycho-oncologist. Here we describe our counseling protocol and our first short-term experience with this interdisciplinary approach. Preliminary data on patient perceptions and behaviors in the context of DNA testing are reported. Overall, our counseling approach was perceived as beneficial both by the counselors and the consultants. A marked overestimation of the risk to develop breast and/or ovarian cancer was noted in the group of unaffected individuals from medium to low risk breast cancer families in contrast to an appropriate risk perception in members from high risk families. All participants shared many of the same expectations about genetic testing and counseling and appeared to base their decision-making about testing on the risk classification given by the genetic counselor. The reported participation in gynecological cancer prevention programs was high in all families at risk, but was less sufficient in unaffected as compared to affected persons. Although current data on BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation analyses render testing in medium to low risk individuals questionable, our findings emphasize the importance of genetic counseling and education in all risk categories of breast and/or ovarian cancer families.     

Impact of genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility

Previously, we have reported a clinical trial in which any woman in a defined geographic region who had a qualifying family history and who was referred by her physician or who was identified through a regional cancer registry was offered free genetic counseling, BRCA testing, and recommendations based on test results. Each family was represented by one affected and one unaffected person. Of the 87 families actually tested, 13 were found to have deleterious mutations. To assess the impact of the counseling and testing process, we contacted the tested individuals 1 month and 1 year after receiving the test result and those with an abnormal test result after 4 years. Index subjects, we found, differed significantly from relatives. Before coming for counseling, index subjects perceived both their general health and emotional health as worse than did their relatives. After counseling and testing, index subjects continue to worry more about breast cancer than do relatives. Affected subjects, we found, differed significantly from unaffected subjects. Before counseling, affected subjects knew more about breast cancer, perceived their general health as poorer, and reported greater adherence to recommended breast cancer surveillance than did unaffected subjects. After counseling and testing, affected subjects were less satisfied than unaffected subjects with having been tested. This study indicates that the group most prone to distress by cancer risk genetic counseling and testing is not the recruited relatives, nor even those affected with cancer, but rather the index patients themselves. The index patients, i.e., the ones who want the risk information most, appear to undergo the most stress in obtaining it.     

Discrepancies between estimated and perceived risk of cancer among individuals with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer

Communicating cancer risk and recommending adequate control programs is central for genetic counseling. Individuals affected by hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) are at about 80% life-time risk of colorectal cancer and for female carriers 40-60% risk of endometrial cancer and 10-15% risk of ovarian cancer. The perceived risk among mutation carriers may, however, deviate from the risk communicated and has been demonstrated to influence adherence to control programs. We investigated the perceived cancer risk among HNPCC mutation carriers (n = 47) and correlated the findings to individual characteristics. A perceived risk of colorectal cancer above 60% was reported by 22/45 individuals, and only one out of five mutation carriers reported a perceived risk > 80%. Female mutation carriers, individuals below age 50, and individuals who received their oncogenetic counseling within 1 year prior to the study reported higher, albeit not significantly, perceived risks of colorectal cancer. Higher perceived risks were also reported by individuals who had lost a parent to HNPCC-related cancer at early age, whereas individuals with a personal history of cancer did not report a higher perceived risk. Regarding gynecological cancer, 6/18 females reported a perceived risk of 40-60% for endometrial cancer, whereas the remaining women both underestimated and overestimated their risk, and none of the women referred to the risk of ovarian cancer. We conclude that despite educational efforts and an increasing amount of data on the cancer risk in HNPCC, a minority of the mutation carriers report a perceived risk at the same level as that communicated during oncogenetic counseling.     

Comprehensive genetic counseling for families at risk for HNPCC: impact on distress and perceptions

The aim of the study was to explore distress and health beliefs before and after comprehensive interdisciplinary counseling in families at risk for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). Results reported here were derived from a consecutive sample of 65 counselees [31 patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and 34 unaffected at-risk persons] who participated in interdisciplinary counseling provided by human geneticists, surgeons, and psycho-oncologists before genetic testing. Data were collected from self-administered questionnaires before, as well as 4-6 weeks after, counseling. Distress and perceptions specific to HNPCC were assessed at both timepoints using standardized as well as author-derived instruments. Distress declined after counseling, as did worries related to HNPCC. An increase was found in personal belief in control of cancer risk, for instance, in the perceived efficacy of early detection of CRC. We also observed a trend toward greater anticipated ability to cope with a positive gene test after counseling. Changes after counseling were generally more pronounced for persons at risk, as compared to patients with cancer. The decrease in distress was partly attributable to an increase in personal self-confidence. One-third of the sample reported enhanced communication specific to hereditary disease within the family after counseling. A substantial minority, however, said they experienced increased worry and physical symptoms after counseling. Overall, counselees demonstrated less stress and perceived cancer threat as well as enhanced beliefs regarding personal control over cancer, suggesting an overall beneficial impact of comprehensive counseling. Further research is needed to identify those individuals most at risk for increased fear and worry related to HNPCC so that they may be most appropriately counseled.     

Genetic predictive testing for bowel cancer predisposition: the impact on the individual.

When considering the impact of a genetic diagnosis of hereditary predisposition to colon cancer, there are many similarities to other predictive genetic tests, but also many differences. The development and availability of such genetic diagnoses, and the concept of testing being linked to effective prevention, have advanced rapidly, opening up not only unique opportunities but also unique psychosocial situations for the affected families-and unusual ethical issues for the professional. Compared to a diagnosis of sporadic colorectal cancer for a patient, hereditary colorectal cancer requires an understanding of genetics, heredity, and the attendant mathematics of risk calculation, but, most importantly, there must be a belief that it is possible to remain healthy whilst having an increased risk. This paper outlines the possible impact of a genetic diagnosis of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) or familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) on both the individual and the family and concludes that genetic testing should be accompanied by genetic counseling. Relevant ethical issues are also introduced, with the opinion presented suggesting that if primary considerations are always for the individual rather than the family or society, then unethical or eugenic decisions are likely to be avoided.     

Attitudes toward genetic testing in patients at risk for HNPCC/FAP and the German population

Adequate knowledge regarding hereditary diseases and genetics, as well as personal attitudes toward gene tests, are major determinants of optimal utilization of genetic testing. In the present study, we aimed to explore the general attitudes toward genetic testing in a sample representative of the German general population (n = 2,076) and to compare the attitudes of persons at risk for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer/familial adenomatous polyposis (HNPCC/FAP) (n = 36) who had attended a university genetic counseling service, with a matched general population sample. We administered a subset of a questionnaire previously used in a Finnish study (Jallinoja et al., 1998). The 12 statements pertain to approval, disapproval, and concern for genetic testing. Overall, the results reveal high approval of genetic testing in the German population and in at-risk persons. In accordance with other studies, we find that the attitudes of individuals for whom hereditary disease is a salient issue of personal relevance and the attitudes of the general public are very similar. Only a few significant differences between these two samples emerged, indicating that at-risk persons hold a more favourable view of the testing. One intriguing finding was the high rate of "don't know" responses, especially in the general population sample. Compared to results from Finland, approval of genetic testing is lower in the German population, and endorsement of "don't knows" is remarkably higher. We argue for increased attention to the issue of attitude change after genetic counseling and for the need of comparative cross-cultural research on attitudes toward gene technology.     

Impact of genetic counseling and testing on colorectal cancer screening behavior

One goal of cancer genetic counseling is to improve early detection and prevention of cancers by identifying individuals at risk and providing screening recommendations. This study determined the impact of genetic counseling and testing on patient's post-genetic risk assessment colorectal cancer screening behaviors. Follow-up data from patients seen August, 1996, through May, 1998, at the Johns Hopkins Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic were analyzed. Eligible patients included those without cancer who were due for a colon examination by the time of follow-up, based on recommendations given during genetic risk assessment (GRA). We analyzed the role of gender, age, time since GRA, prior screening, genetic testing decision, mutation status, and post-GRA screening. Of 65 patients evaluated, 50 (76.9%) had undergone at least one endoscopic colon exam prior to visiting the Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic. At the time of GRA, 37 of 65 (56.9%) were overdue for a colon exam and at the time of follow-up, 15/65 (23.1%) were past due (p < 0.001). Patients with mutation-positive genetic tests were more likely to adhere to screening guidelines than those with negative gene tests (100% vs. 40.5%, p = 0.05). Genetic counseling and testing increases overall patient adherence with recommended colon screening, especially for those with positive genetic test results. However, patients with negative results may receive false reassurance about cancer risks and fail to follow recommended screening. Emphasis should be placed on the importance of screening even when genetic test results are negative.     

Motivations and concerns of women considering genetic testing for breast cancer: a comparison between affected and at-risk probands

Since the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, there has been an increasing demand for breast cancer risk assessment programs. In an effort to understand and serve the population such programs target better, several studies have identified factors influencing high-risk women to pursue breast cancer risk assessment and genetic testing services; none, however, has focused on how the motivations and concerns of at-risk women may differ from their previously affected counterparts, who are typically the initial members of their families to undergo genetic testing. The majority of both previously affected and unaffected women felt that preventative surgery decisions, surveillance practices, the assessment of children's risks, and increased breast cancer anxiety were "more important" or "very important" issues regarding their thoughts about genetic testing. Significantly more affected women deemed family members' opinions "more" or "very important" (p < 0.01). Opinions concerning insurance and employment discrimination did not vary significantly between groups; however, a larger percentage of affected women felt this issue was of importance. Although all issues above should be addressed with women seeking cancer risk assessment and genetic testing, this research may help health care providers to gain a greater understanding of how the motivators and concerns of high-risk women can differ with personal cancer status so that referral, counseling, and education can be executed optimally.     

Parental attitudes toward genetic testing for pediatric deafness

Recent molecular genetic advances have resulted in genetic testing becoming an option for deaf individuals and their families. However, there is little information about the interest in such testing. To investigate this issue, parents with normal hearing who have one or more deaf children were surveyed about their attitudes toward diagnostic, carrier, and prenatal genetic testing for deafness. This population was chosen because it represents the majority of individuals who are encountered in clinical practice, given that 90%-95% of deaf individuals are born to persons with normal hearing. Of 328 surveys distributed, 96 were completed and returned. Of the respondents, 96% recorded a positive attitude toward genetic testing for deafness, including prenatal testing, although none would use this information to terminate an affected pregnancy. All respondents had a poor understanding of genetics, with 98% both incorrectly estimating the recurrence risk of deafness and misunderstanding the concept of inheritance. Notably, these findings were similar in the group who had had genetic testing for their children and in the group who had not, suggesting either that the parents who received genetic testing did not receive genetic counseling or that the counseling was not effective. On the basis of these results, it was concluded that this population is interested in the use of genetic testing and that testing should not be done without first providing formal genetic counseling. Appropriate counseling can help parents to understand the risks, benefits, and limitations of genetic testing.     

Attitude toward genetic testing for cancer risk in Istanbul

To identify attitudes toward genetic testing, and the effects of this information on decisions regarding issues such as pregnancy, abortion, and prophylactic surgery, several subsets of the Turkish population were surveyed in hospital settings. Individuals (n = 179) chosen arbitrarily from four different subsets of a Turkish population were asked to participate in a confidential 23-question survey. Survey participants were familiar with the concept of cancer being a familial disease (85.5%), and 84.7% of them expressed interest in genetic testing to determine cancer risk, 83.9% would have their fetuses tested for such cancer risk, 65.1% would terminate their pregnancies, 92.2% would have their children tested if they were determined to have an increased cancer risk, 71.9% would agree to undergo prophylactic oophorectomy or orchiectomy and 67.6% would have mastectomy/prostatectomy should there be an increased cancer risk to these organs. It appears that at least the sampled segment of a Turkish population is willing to undergo genetic testing to determine if they are at increased risk for cancer. The feasibility and acceptance of genetic testing and the influence of education and genetic counseling in the Turkish people should further be evaluated with a larger stratified sample of the population.     

Information needs of mothers regarding communicating BRCA1/2 cancer genetic test results to their children

Mothers who participate in genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer risk must decide if, when, and how to ultimately share their BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) test results with their minor-age children. One of the primary aides for mothers in making this decision is cancer genetic counseling. However, counseling is limited in how well it can educate mothers about such decisions without the availability of resources that are specific to family communication and genetic testing per se. In an effort to fill this gap and identify mothers most likely to benefit from such resources, surveys were conducted with 187 mothers undergoing BRCA1/2 testing who had children 8-21 years old. Data were collected weeks after genetic testing but prior to mothers' learning of their test results; quantitative assessments of informational resource needs (i.e., speaking with previous BRCA1/2 testing participants who are parents regarding their experiences, reading educational literature about options and what to expect, speaking with a family counselor, attending a family support group, and self-nominated other resources), testing motivations, decision making vigilance, and decisional conflict regarding communicating test results to children were included. Mothers' most-to-least frequently cited information resource needs were: literature (93.4%), family counseling (85.8%), prior participants (79.0%), support groups (53.9%), and other (28.9%; e.g., pediatricians and psychologists). Seventy-eight percent of mothers were interested in accessing three or more resources. In multivariate regression analyses, testing motivations (beta = 0.35, p = 0.03), decision-making vigilance (beta = 0.16, p = 0.00), and decisional conflict (beta = 0.10, p = 0.00) were associated with mothers' need level; mothers with a greater interest in testing to learn about their children's risks, those with more vigilant decision-making styles, and those with higher decisional conflict had the greatest need. In conjunction with enhanced genetic counseling focusing on family disclosure, educational literature, and psychosocial support may promote improved outcomes.     

Assessing and managing breast cancer risk: clinical tools for advising patients

Using breast cancer risk assessment tools and going through the process of assessing breast cancer risk can answer many women's questions about what puts them at relatively higher or lower risk. This effectively engages both the clinician and the patient in a discussion about breast cancer, the chances of getting it, and the family's involvement--making the process as important as the actual tools. Examples of selected case histories demonstrate risk assessment using available tools such as the Gail-NCI and the Claus models. For some women, such as those considering tamoxifen or prophylactic surgeries, it may be desirable to prescreen for the inheritance of hereditary mutations and to follow with genetic testing, if indicated. Testing for mutations of breast cancer susceptibility genes or for their diminished expression adds to our ability to assess breast cancer risk at an individual level. The literature contains general interventions that are widely accepted to reduce the severity and the burden of breast cancer, and these are brought together here. The risk assessment process is an important part of a risk reduction program and can help motivate women to engage in prevention activities. This paper uses 2 hypothetical but fact-based and typical case histories to discuss the utility of risk assessment tools for informing women about their options.     

Factors associated with an individual's decision to withdraw from genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: implications for counseling

Our study aimed to examine why individuals withdraw from genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. We explored the characteristics of 334 individuals from high-risk breast and ovarian cancer families who declined genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations, when, and why they did so. Individuals who declined genetic testing were older, and a greater proportion had never developed breast or ovarian cancer. Fifty one per cent (51.1%) of individuals withdrew after the first genetic counseling session. Most of those who declined were afraid of the psychological effects of genetic testing (36.3%). The next most-cited explanations concerned logistic problems such as a limited ability to travel, lack of time, personal issues, advanced age, or health problems (21.7%). The third category included individuals who did not see any advantage in being tested (14.5%). Insurability was a concern (5.9%), mainly for men. Surprisingly, confidentiality was not a frequently reported issue (1.3%). Sixty eight per cent (68%) of individuals belonging to a family in which at least one individual has been tested withdrew after the presence of a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation in a relative was disclosed, compared to 42% after the disclosure of a nonconclusive test result in at least one relative. Concern about the psychological effects of the result was still one of the major reasons. Several factors may influence an individual's decision to decline genetic testing; a greater understanding of these issues may help health professionals to better meet the needs and concerns of individuals from high-risk families, thus possibly improving their health outcomes.     

Subjective and objective risk of breast cancer in Ashkenazi Jewish individuals at risk for BRCA1/2 mutations

The aims of the study were to (1) examine the differences between subjective and objective estimates of the risk of breast cancer in those being tested for BRCA1/2 mutations, (2) explore new ways to conceptualize risk, and (3) examine the change in subjective risk of developing breast cancer throughout the process of genetic counseling and testing. Participants were 86 Ashkenazi Jewish women with a family or personal history indicating risk for BRCA1/2 mutations. Surveys to assess subjective risk of breast cancer (percentage risk, projected age of onset, and survival time) were administered before counseling, after counseling, and after receipt of test results. Subjective percentage risk of breast cancer was compared to estimated objective risk to determine accuracy. Those with no personal history of cancer receiving positive results became more accurate from post-counseling to post-result. Those receiving positive results increased their estimate of their percentage risk, and those receiving uninformative negative results decreased their estimate of their percentage risk from post-counseling to post-result. Those without a personal history of cancer decreased in perceived risk from post-counseling to post-result. No change in projected age of onset of breast cancer or survival time with breast cancer was seen from pre- to post-counseling or from post-counseling to post-result, and no change in accuracy or in percentage risk of breast cancer was seen from pre- to post-counseling. Individuals use information from genetic counseling to form estimates of percentage risk following receipt of test results; however, projected age of onset and survival time with breast cancer, areas not targeted by genetic counseling that may be more closely linked to health behavior, do not change.     

Genetic testing for disease susceptibilities: consequences for genetic counseling

The role of genetic counseling in future testing for inherited susceptibilities for common diseases is debated. Currently, genetic testing, ideally supported by genetic counseling, is most often used to modify the assessment of genetic risk of Mendelian-inherited disease in high-risk individuals for the purpose of personal decision-making. By contrast, it is anticipated that genetic testing will be used to identify increased disease susceptibility in low-risk individuals for the purpose of instituting medical or lifestyle interventions to modify risk for future disease.     

Colorectal cancer cases and relatives of cases indicate similar willingness to receive and disclose genetic information

Context: Recent developments in genetic testing allow us to detect individuals with inherited susceptibility to some cancers. Genetic testing to identify carriers of cancer-related mutations may help lower risk by encouraging preventive behaviors and surveillance. This study assessed willingness of colon cancer cases and relatives to receive genetic information that may indicate an increased risk for cancer, to whom they would disclose genetic information, and whether receiving genetic test results may influence future prevention behaviors among individuals enrolled in the Seattle Colorectal Cancer Family Registry. Methods: Incident invasive colorectal cancer cases were identified from the Puget Sound Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry. In 2007, a sequential sample of cases and relatives (n = 147) were asked to respond to a questionnaire addressing study aims. The questionnaire was administered during a baseline or 5-year follow-up interview. Results: Patterns of response to each statement were similar between colorectal cancer cases and relatives. Both colorectal cases (95%) and relatives (95%) reported willingness to receive genetic information. Nearly all participants would tell their doctor the results of a genetic test (99% of cases; 98% of relatives), and all married participants would tell their spouses. Cases (96%) anticipated being slightly more likely than relatives (90%) to change their cancer screening behavior, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.33). Conclusions: A high percentage of both colorectal cancer cases and relatives sampled from the Seattle Colorectal Cancer Family Registry are interested in identifying their genetic status, discussing their genetic status with their family and doctor, and adopting behavioral changes that may reduce cancer risk.     

Diagnostic genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients: women's looking back on the pre-test period and a psychological evaluation

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.     

Variants of uncertain clinical significance as a result of BRCA1/2 testing: impact of an ambiguous breast cancer risk message

The identification of an increasing number of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUCS) in genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer poses serious problems for genetic counseling, because no data are available about the psychosocial impact of discussing such an unclear risk message. The current study is the first to present data on how test applicants actually understand and cope with such a result if communicated by a geneticist. We compared 10 women who received a VUCS result with 34 women who carried the deleterious mutation, 37 women who did not carry the deleterious mutation or 'true negatives,' and 160 women who received a so-called inconclusive result before and after test disclosure. Women, with whom a VUCS result was discussed, reported quite a high level of comprehension of the result. In addition, compared with the pretest measures, they did not report a higher level of perceived risk (p = 0.58) and even reported a decrease in breast cancer distress (p = 0.03). They were very comparable to women who received an inconclusive result on all post-disclosure measures. Our results suggest that discussing a VUCS result in genetic counseling does not give rise for concern.     

Copy Number Variation Analysis in Familial BRCA1/2-Negative Finnish Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Background

Inherited factors predisposing individuals to breast and ovarian cancer are largely unidentified in a majority of families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). We aimed to identify germline copy number variations (CNVs) contributing to HBOC susceptibility in the Finnish population.

Methods

A cohort of 84 HBOC individuals (negative for BRCA1/2-founder mutations and pre-screened for the most common breast cancer genes) and 36 healthy controls were analysed with a genome-wide SNP array. CNV-affecting genes were further studied by Gene Ontology term enrichment, pathway analyses, and database searches to reveal genes with potential for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition. CNVs that were considered to be important were validated and genotyped in 20 additional HBOC individuals (6 CNVs) and in additional healthy controls (5 CNVs) by qPCR.

Results

An intronic deletion in the EPHA3 receptor tyrosine kinase was enriched in HBOC individuals (12 of 101, 11.9%) compared with controls (27 of 432, 6.3%) (OR = 1.96; P = 0.055). EPHA3 was identified in several enriched molecular functions including receptor activity. Both a novel intronic deletion in the CSMD1 tumor suppressor gene and a homozygous intergenic deletion at 5q15 were identified in 1 of 101 (1.0%) HBOC individuals but were very rare (1 of 436, 0.2% and 1 of 899, 0.1%, respectively) in healthy controls suggesting that these variants confer disease susceptibility.

Conclusion

This study reveals new information regarding the germline CNVs that likely contribute to HBOC susceptibility in Finland. This information may be used to facilitate the genetic counselling of HBOC individuals but the preliminary results warrant additional studies of a larger study group.