The role of financial factors in acceptance of clinical BRCA genetic testing

Many women who are offered BRCA genetic testing by genetics professionals do not have the test, possibly for financial reasons. We explored financial factors implicated in non-uptake of BRCA testing in women who had received genetic counseling in a clinical setting. Specifically, we described financial factors (affordability, health insurance, other) involved with BRCA testing; compared nonfinancial factors (disease, sociodemographic, risk assessment) in women who did not have BRCA testing (nontesters) with women who had the test (testers); showed associations of financial and nonfinancial factors with BRCA testing; and identified predictors of non-uptake of BRCA testing. The sample of 100 women (64 nontesters and 36 testers) completed an anonymous mailed survey on financial factors; 52 of the nontesters answered questions about nonfinancial factors. Testers had significantly better affordability and insurance coverage (p < 0.001), more diagnoses of breast or ovarian cancer (p < 0.05) and higher rates of receiving post-counseling risk estimates (p < 0.05), than nontesters. Non-uptake was 5.5-fold more likely in women that could not afford full or partial payment for the test and was 15.5-fold more likely in women that did not recall receiving risk estimates post-counseling. For many women having risk factors for breast/ovarian cancer, affordability of BRCA testing and insurance coverage for the test remain problematic. Post-counseling reminders of risk estimates may contribute to uptake of testing.     

Impact of BRCA1 testing on women with cancer: a pilot study

We sought to understand better the impact of genetic testing and counseling in a group of women who had early breast cancer (age <50) or ovarian cancer and a family history of cancer. Thirty-five women underwent genetic counseling and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, Hereditary Cancer Clinic. Psychological assessment (IES and Hopkins Symptom Checklist) was made before counseling, and 1 month after genetic test results were reported to women. A statistically significant decrease in anxiety was evidenced 1 month after results were given (p = 0.024). Decreased intrusive thoughts related to genetic testing were seen only for those testing negative (p = 0.0003). Women diagnosed with cancer less than 1 year prior to genetic testing experienced the greatest cancer-specific distress (p = 0.01) and distress related to genetic testing (p = not significant). Satisfaction with the counseling and testing process was high. In conclusion, genetic testing and counseling can occur with little anxiety and stress. However, women less than 1 year from a cancer diagnosis will experience the greatest distress associated with genetic testing and counseling. Women who are considering genetic testing and counseling close to a diagnosis of cancer may require greater psychological support.     

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.     

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.     

Management updates for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation

In most cases of families with breast and ovarian cancer, the pattern of cancers in the family can be attributed to mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Genetic testing for these cancer susceptibility genes typically takes place in the context of comprehensive genetic counseling. Strategies have been developed for the medical management of women at high risk of developing breast cancer, including options for screening and prophylactic surgery. BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers are recommended to undergo prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy by age 35-40 years or when childbearing is complete. This surgery significantly reduces the risk of ovarian cancer and also reduces the risk of breast cancer when performed in premenopausal mutation carriers. For breast cancer management, BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers are offered the options of increased surveillance, with or without chemoprevention, or prophylactic surgery. Currently, BRCA carrier status is not used as an independent prognostic factor regarding systemic treatment options.     

Knowledge, attitudes, and utilization of BRCA1/2 testing among women with early-onset breast cancer

A total of 2,400 questionnaires were mailed to members of two mid-Atlantic breast cancer awareness/support groups to investigate the association between attitudes, knowledge, and use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with early-onset breast cancer. Of the 493 (21%) questionnaires returned, 406 respondents had a diagnosis of breast cancer, of whom 248 were diagnosed prior to age 50 and included in the analyses. Eighty-three percent (206/248) of these women had heard of BRCA1/2 testing and 12.5% (31/248) had undergone BRCA1/2 testing. Among women who had heard of BRCA1/2 testing, women who had been tested were younger (p = 0.03), more likely to have a college education (p = 0.03), more likely to have a family member who had undergone BRCA1/2 testing (p = 0.005), and had greater knowledge, more positive attitudes, and fewer negative attitudes about BRCA1/2 testing (p = 0.02, p = 0.004, and p = 0.004, respectively). In this sample, knowledge regarding BRCA1/2 testing is high, but uptake of genetic testing is low. Lack of information regarding how genetic testing might alter health-care decisions and fear about the genetic testing procedure, its costs, and possible false-positive results are associated with low uptake of genetic testing. Further education regarding these specific points may enhance the use of genetic testing.     

What does my doctor think? Preferences for knowing the doctor's opinion among women considering clinical testing for BRCA1/2 mutations

The traditional emphasis on nondirectiveness in genetic counseling has become increasingly controversial with the rapid expansion of genetic testing in clinical medicine. This study was done to determine whether women considering clinical testing for BRCA1/2 mutations want to know their health care providers' opinions about whether or not they should undergo testing. Participating in the study was a retrospective cohort of 335 women who participated in a university-based clinic offering breast cancer risk assessment, genetic counseling, and BRCA1/2 testing between January, 1996, and April, 1998. A total of 242 women (77%) wanted to know if the doctors at the Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Evaluation Program (BCREP) thought they should be tested, 28 women (9%) were unsure, and 46 women (14%) did not want a BCREP doctor's opinion on testing. A total of 158 women (49%) wanted to know if their primary doctor thought they should be tested, 31 women (10%) were unsure, and 130 women (41%) did not want to know. Desire to know the opinion of the BCREP doctors was inversely associated with having undergone BRCA1/2 testing (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.95) and having a breast cancer diagnosis (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.99). Desire to know their primary doctor's opinion was inversely associated with having undergone BRCA1/2 testing (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.92). Our study suggests that over three-quarters of women who considered clinical testing for BRCA1/2 mutations wanted to know the opinions of the cancer genetics doctors and almost half wanted to know their primary doctor's opinion about whether or not they should undergo testing. These results support the use of models of genetic counseling that allow for sharing the health care providers' opinions when desired by the patient.     

Screening for 185delAG in the Ashkenazim.

A study was initiated to assess interest, educational effectiveness, and implications of genetic testing for the common BRCA1 mutation, 185delAG, in the Ashkenazim. Of 333 individuals who attended group sessions, 309 (92%) participated in the study. Participants were categorized as having negative family history (67%), positive family history (defined, by a relaxed criterion, as one first-degree relative or two second-degree relatives with breast [premenopausal] or ovarian cancer) (22%), positive personal history (7%), and both positive personal history and positive family history (4%). Group education was effective, as shown by the improvement in participant scores from pre- to posteducation tests. For the 289 individuals (94%) who requested testing, the major reasons included concern for their own risk, concern for the risk of their children, and desire to learn about surveillance options. The most common reason given by participants who declined testing was concern about health insurance. Six participants found to be heterozygous for the 185delAG mutation received results and were offered genetic counseling. Participants had consented for additional testing without receiving results and were screened for the 6174delT mutation in BRCA2, and seven were found to be positive. All identified carriers reported at least one first- or second-degree relative with a history of breast or ovarian cancer, although they did not all meet our study criteria for positive family history. Given these outcomes, we conclude that screening for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility is most appropriate for individuals with a positive personal or positive family cancer history. We propose a guideline for future studies designed to identify individuals who may benefit from genetic testing for inherited breast and ovarian cancer.     

The prevalence of common BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among Ashkenazi Jews

Three founder mutations in the cancer-associated genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 occur frequently enough among Ashkenazi Jews to warrant consideration of genetic testing outside the setting of high-risk families with multiple cases of breast or ovarian cancer. We estimated the prevalence of these founder mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the general population of Ashkenazi Jews according to age at testing, personal cancer history, and family cancer history. We compared the results of anonymous genetic testing of blood samples obtained in a survey of >5,000 Jewish participants from the Washington, DC, area with personal and family cancer histories obtained from questionnaires completed by the participants. In all subgroups defined by age and cancer history, fewer mutations were found in this community sample than in clinical series studied to date. For example, 11 (10%) of 109 Jewish women who had been given a diagnosis of breast cancer in their forties carried one of the mutations. The most important predictor of mutation status was a previous diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer. In men and in women never given a diagnosis of cancer, family history of breast cancer before age 50 years was the strongest predictor. As interest in genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the Jewish community broadens, community-based estimates such as these help guide those seeking and those offering such testing. Even with accurate estimates of the likelihood of carrying a mutation and the likelihood of developing cancer if a mutation is detected, the most vexing clinical problems remain.     

Progress of a Comprehensive Familial Cancer Genetic Counseling Program in the Era of BRCA1 and BRCA2

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have an increased risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. Technical advances in genetic testing have increased the need for genetic counseling services; therefore, we have developed a counseling program for these individuals. The purpose of this study is to characterize this population, assess level of interest in genetic testing, and evaluate our program over a 5-year period. Our Familial Cancer Genetic Counseling Program was established in November, 1994. Information was collected prospectively, with comprehensive evaluation including complete pedigree, risk assessment, and counseling by a genetic counselor, geneticist, and oncologist. Data were collected on risk level, and subsequent recommendations for screening and/or genetic testing. There were 824 contacts recorded from November, 1994, through August, 1999. To date, 162 families have undergone comprehensive genetic evaluation and counseling. 90 (56%) were seen for a concerning family history and 72 (44%) were seen due to a personal history of malignancy. The majority of families had a significant level of risk with 126 (78%) families having two and 70 (43%) families having three affected first-degree relatives. Of the 162 families who received full counseling, 125 (77%) met criteria to recommend BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing. At this time, 30 of the 162 (18%) have had genetic testing. A brief phone contact or clinic visit is useful to screen individuals so that counseling can be directed toward truly high-risk families. In our program, the majority of families counseled were eligible for BRCA1/BRCA2 testing, but only 18% have elected to proceed at this time.     

Recruitment, genetic counseling, and BRCA testing for underserved women at a public hospital

Genetic counseling and testing for heritable susceptibility to breast cancer caused by mutations in BRCA genes are largely unavailable to underserved women in the United States. Starting in 2002 the UCSF Cancer Risk Program offered this service free of charge to poor and medically indigent women at San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH). One recruitment strategy was a single-page questionnaire in four languages administered to women waiting for mammograms at SFGH. This report analyzes our first 3 years of experience with the recruitment questionnaire and compares the patient demographics and BRCA test results at SFGH with a more typical population undergoing genetic counseling and testing at UCSF's Mt. Zion Hospital (MZH). To our knowledge this is the first comprehensive clinical service for hereditary breast cancer in a U.S. public hospital. The ethnic mix of all 350 patients counseled was Caucasian 49% (approximately 20% of Caucasians reported Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry), Latina, 26%; African American, 13%; and Asian/other, 12%. Compared to the MZH population, SFGH patients were more ethnically diverse, less educated and more likely to be unemployed. Of 72 patients tested for BRCA mutations, 51 (71%) were negative, 5 were BRCA1 positive, and 12 were BRCA2 positive. Four (1 Caucasian, 1 Latina, 2 African American) had a total of 13 BRCA variants of unknown significance (VUS). The ratio of BRCA1/BRCA2 positive SFGH patients (5/12) was reversed compared to MZH (119/91). We evaluated 4573 recruitment questionnaires and 280 (6%) were judged to represent a high risk of heritable cancer. After additional screening and referral negotiation, 74 were scheduled for counseling. We judged the recruitment questionnaire to be a feasible, efficient, and reasonably cost-effective way to identify women at high risk of hereditary cancer in a traditionally underserved population. Underserved populations present special challenges for genetic counselors because of large, geographically dispersed families, cultural taboos about cancer diagnoses, and social marginalization. Despite these complexities, the clinical service at SFGH has been well accepted by patients and staff. Our successful venture can serve as a model for other public hospitals contemplating this clinical service.     

Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 have recently been identified on the human genome. Women who carry a mutation of one of these genes have a greatly increased chance of developing breast and ovarian cancer, and they usually develop the disease at a much younger age, compared with normal individuals. Women can be tested to see whether they are carriers. A woman who undergoes genetic counseling before testing can be told the probabilities that she is a carrier, given her family history. In this paper we develop a model for evaluating the probabilities that a woman is a carrier of a mutation of BRCA1 and BRCA2, on the basis of her family history of breast and ovarian cancer in first- and second-degree relatives. Of special importance are the relationships of the family members with cancer, the ages at onset of the diseases, and the ages of family members who do not have the diseases. This information can be elicited during genetic counseling and prior to genetic testing. The carrier probabilities are obtained from Bayes's rule, by use of family history as the evidence and by use of the mutation prevalences as the prior distribution. In addressing an individual's carrier probabilities, we incorporate uncertainty about some of the key inputs of the model, such as the age-specific incidence of diseases and the overall prevalence of mutations. There is some evidence that other, undiscovered genes may be important in explaining familial breast cancer. Users of the current version of the model should be aware of this limitation. The methodology that we describe can be extended to more than two genes, should data become available about other genes.     

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.     

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation analysis of 208 Ashkenazi Jewish women with ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is a component of the autosomal-dominant hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome and may be due to a mutation in either the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. Two mutations in BRCA1 (185delAG and 5382insC) and one mutation in BRCA2 (6174delT) are common in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. One of these three mutations is present in approximately 2% of the Jewish population. Each mutation is associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer, and it is expected that a significant proportion of Jewish women with ovarian cancer will carry one of these mutations. To estimate the proportion of ovarian cancers attributable to founding mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the Jewish population and the familial cancer risks associated with each, we interviewed 213 Jewish women with ovarian cancer at 11 medical centers in North America and Israel and offered these women genetic testing for the three founder mutations. To establish the presence of nonfounder mutations in this population, we also completed the protein-truncation test on exon 11 of BRCA1 and exons 10 and 11 of BRCA2. We obtained a detailed family history on all women we studied who had cancer and on a control population of 386 Ashkenazi Jewish women without ovarian or breast cancer. A founder mutation was present in 41.3% of the women we studied. The cumulative incidence of ovarian cancer to age 75 years was found to be 6.3% for female first-degree relatives of the patients with ovarian cancer, compared with 2.0% for the female relatives of healthy controls (relative risk 3.2; 95% CI 1.5-6.8; P=.002). The relative risk to age 75 years for breast cancer among the female first-degree relatives was 2.0 (95% CI 1.4-3.0; P=.0001). Only one nonfounder mutation was identified (in this instance, in a woman of mixed ancestry), and the three founding mutations accounted for most of the observed excess risk of ovarian and breast cancer in relatives.     

Factors determining dissemination of results and uptake of genetic testing in families with known BRCA1/2 mutations

BACKGROUND: Uptake of genetic testing remains low, even in families with known BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations, despite effective interventions to reduce risk. We report disclosure and uptake patterns by BRCA1/2-positive individuals to at-risk relatives, in the setting of no-cost genetic counseling and testing. METHODS: Relatives of BRCA1/2-positive individuals were offered cost-free and confidential genetic counseling and testing. If positive for a BRCA1/2 mutation, participants were eligible to complete a survey about their disclosure of mutation status and the subsequent uptake of genetic testing by at-risk family members. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen of 142 eligible individuals responded to the survey (81%). Eighty-eight (77%) of those surveyed disclosed results to all at-risk relatives. Disclosure to first-degree relatives (FDRs) was higher than to second-degree relatives (SDRs) and third-degree relatives (TDR) (95% vs. 78%; p < 0.01). Disclosure rates to male versus female relatives were similar, but reported completion of genetic testing was higher among female versus male FDRs (73% vs. 49%; p < 0.01) and SDRs (68% vs. 43%; p < 0.01), and among members of maternal versus paternal lineages (63% vs. 0%; p < 0.01). Men were more likely than women to express general difficulty discussing positive BCRA1/2 results with at-risk family members (90% vs. 70%; p = 0.03), while women reported more emotional distress associated with disclosure than men (48% vs. 13%; p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: We report a very high rate of disclosure of genetic testing information to at-risk relatives. However, uptake of genetic testing among at-risk individuals was low despite cost-free testing services, particularly in men, SDRs, and members of paternal lineages. The complete lack of testing among paternally related at-risk individuals and the lower testing uptake among men signify a significant barrier to testing and a challenge for genetic counselors and physicians working with high-risk groups. Further research is necessary to ensure that family members understand their risk and the potential benefits of genetic counseling.     

BRCA2 gene mutations in Slovenian male breast cancer patients

Male breast cancer (MBC) is a rare disease, comprising less than 1% of breast cancer patients in Slovenia. Some inherited cases are due to the mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. There is no information available about the frequency of BRCA gene mutations in Slovenian MBC population. The purpose of this study was to characterize BRCA germline mutations in Slovenian MBC patients. Forty-one patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana between 1970 and 2006 were proposed to take part in this study. Of them, 27 agreed to follow a genetic counseling session and 25 patients agreed to provide a blood sample for genetic testing. The BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from the MBC patients were screened for four highly recurrent mutations in the Slovenian population. When an additional breast cancer case or an ovarian cancer was present in the family, a more extended analysis was performed. No BRCA1 mutations were found. A BRCA2 gene mutation was identified in four MBC patients. Three of them carried the Slovenian founder mutation IVS16-2A>G. All four mutations were confined to the patients with a family history of breast cancer. Among the MBC patients with a family history of breast cancer in the first- or second-degree relatives, the frequency of BRCA2 gene mutation was 50%. The median age of the patients with a BRCA2 gene mutation was 60 years, not significantly different from those without a mutation. The BRCA2 mutations were diagnosed in 16% of our MBC patients.     

Evaluation of the needs of male carriers of mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 who have undergone genetic counseling

To date, the concerns of men at risk of inheriting a BRCA1 mutation or a BRCA2 mutation have received little attention. It had been anticipated that few men would be interested in predictive testing when a BRCA mutation was identified in their family. However, these men are often affected emotionally by diagnoses of breast cancer in their relatives and may themselves harbor fears that cancer will develop. Male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations are at increased risk of development of cancers of several types, including those of the breast and prostate. We conducted an evaluation of the needs and experiences of 59 male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations followed at either the University of Toronto or Creighton University. We assessed their motivations for seeking genetic counseling and testing, involvement in family discussions of breast and ovarian cancer, risk perception, changes in cancer-screening practices, and overall satisfaction with the genetic-counseling process. The principal motivation for seeking genetic counseling was concern for their daughters. The majority (88%) of men participated in family conversations about breast and ovarian cancer, and 47% participated in conversations about prophylactic surgery. Most men believed that they were at increased risk of development of cancer (prostate, breast, colorectal, and skin cancers). However, fewer than one-half (43%) of the men with no previous diagnosis of cancer stated that their prostate cancer-surveillance practices had changed after they had received genetic test results. More than one-half (55%) had intrusive thoughts about their cancer risk. Although levels of satisfaction were high, practitioners should be aware of (a) potential pressures influencing men to request predictive testing, (b) the difficulties that men encounter in establishing surveillance regimens for breast and prostate cancer, and (c) the general lack of information about men's particular experiences in the medical community.     

Screening for genomic rearrangements in families with breast and ovarian cancer identifies BRCA1 mutations previously missed by conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis or sequencing

The frequency of genomic rearrangements in BRCA1 was assessed in 42 American families with breast and ovarian cancer who were seeking genetic testing and who were subsequently found to be negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 coding-region mutations. An affected individual from each family was tested by PCR for the exon 13 duplication (Puget et al. 1999a) and by Southern blot analysis for novel genomic rearrangements. The exon 13 duplication was detected in one family, and four families had other genomic rearrangements. A total of 5 (11. 9%) of the 42 families with breast/ovarian cancer who did not have BRCA1 and BRCA2 coding-region mutations had mutations in BRCA1 that were missed by conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis or sequencing. Four of five families with BRCA1 genomic rearrangements included at least one individual with both breast and ovarian cancer; therefore, 4 (30.8%) of 13 families with a case of multiple primary breast and ovarian cancer had a genomic rearrangement in BRCA1. Families with genomic rearrangements had prior probabilities of having a BRCA1 mutation, ranging from 33% to 97% (mean 70%) (Couch et al. 1997). In contrast, in families without rearrangements, prior probabilities of having a BRCA1 mutation ranged from 7% to 92% (mean 37%). Thus, the prior probability of detecting a BRCA1 mutation may be a useful predictor when considering the use of Southern blot analysis for families with breast/ovarian cancer who do not have detectable coding-region mutations.     

First BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene testing implemented in the health care system of Stockholm

The aim of the study was to optimize the criteria for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene testing and to improve oncogenetic counseling in the Stockholm region. Screening for inherited breast cancer genes is laborious and a majority of tested samples turn out to be negative. The frequencies of mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes differ across populations. Between 1997 and 2000, 160 families with breast and/or ovarian cancer were counseled and screened for mutations in the two genes. Twenty-five BRCA1 and two BRCA2 disease-causing mutations were found. Various factors associated with the probability of finding a BRCA1 mutation in the families were estimated. Age of onset in different generations and other malignancies were also studied. Families from our region in which both breast and ovarian cancer occur were likely to carry a BRCA1 mutation (34%). In breast-only cancer families, mutations were found only in those with very early onset. All breast- only cancer families with a mutation had at least one case of onset before 36 years of age and a young median age of onset (<43 years). Other malignancies than breast and ovarian cancers did not segregate in the BRCA1 families and surveillance for other malignancies is not needed, in general. Decreasing age of onset with successive generations was common and must be taken into account when surveillance options are considered.     

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.