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.     

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 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.     

Referral and experience with genetic testing among women with early onset breast cancer

The purpose of this study was to determine whether physicians refer women with early onset breast cancer for genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, and how women respond to being offered testing and use the results. A web-based survey was distributed to 1221 women with early onset breast cancer. The survey included 158 questions divided into the following sections: demographics, family history of cancer, medical history, treatment history, and experience with genetic testing. Of 551 women diagnosed since 1993 who responded to the survey (45.1%), less than half (45%, n = 246) had ever discussed genetic testing with their physician and/or been referred to see a genetic counselor. Women with a family history of cancer (53%) and Ashkenazi Jewish women (81%) were more likely to have been referred. Of those who had discussed testing, 60% had undergone or were interested in testing. Overall 92 women were tested and 19 (20.6%) of these tested positive for a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Fourteen (74%) who tested positive subsequently underwent prophylactic surgery. Satisfaction with counseling and the decision to be tested was high. Among women who were not offered testing, the fact that the test had not been offered by their physician (89%), and fear of discrimination (83%) were the two most frequently cited factors for lack of interest in testing. A substantial number of women are not being referred to genetic counseling and/or testing after a diagnosis of early onset breast cancer. Among those who were tested, there was high interest in prophylactic surgery after confirmation of a BRCA1/2 mutation.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer risk after genetic counseling and decision support: a qualitative comparison between hereditary cancer types

This study aimed to qualitatively assess individuals' attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer risk after genetic counseling and decision support. As part of a larger study, 78 women considering genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) risk and 22 individuals considering genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) completed an open-ended table of their perceived pros and cons of genetic testing. The most frequently reported pros were "to help manage my risk of developing cancer," "to help my family," and "to know my cancer risk." With regards to risk management, the HBOC group perceived genetic testing as most helpful in informing their general risk management practices, while the HN-PCC group focused on the potential to clarify their need for bowel cancer screening, suggesting that patients' perceptions of the benefits of genetic testing may differ across cancer syndromes. Individuals in both groups expressed concern about the potential psychological impact of genetic testing. We also found that some affected individuals may not fully comprehend the meaning of their potential test results. Eliciting patients' perceived pros and cons during genetic counseling is likely to be a valuable tool for improving patient care. This data also provides an improved evidence base for the development of patient education tools.     

Genetic testing for women previously diagnosed with breast/ovarian cancer: examining the impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation searching

This study sought to investigate the impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation searching on women previously diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer. In-depth interviews were undertaken with 30 women who had undergone a BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation search within the clinical setting. The main reasons reported for undergoing mutation searching were: to provide genetic information for other family members, general altruism, curiosity about the aetiology of cancer, and to provide information to facilitate risk management decisions. In the main, the process of undergoing genetic testing was not experienced as anxiety provoking. The benefit of receiving a result confirming the presence of a genetic mutation was seen as an end to uncertainty, whereas the costs included difficulties in disclosing information to kin and potentially increased anxiety about one's own or others' cancer risks. Women receiving an inconclusive test result reported a range of emotional reactions. There was evidence that some women misunderstood the meaning of this result, interpreting it as definitive confirmation that a cancer-predisposing mutation was not present within the family. It is concluded that women with cancer who participate in BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing need to receive clear information about the meaning and implications of the different types of test results. Some recommendations for clinical practice are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

Telephone genetic counseling for high-risk women undergoing BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing: rationale and development of a randomized controlled trial

Genetic counseling and testing, particularly for adult onset conditions, has become increasingly available over the last decade, and it is expected that this trend will continue as additional genes are identified and as such testing diffuses into mainstream clinical care. To meet the increased demand for services, it will become necessary to explore alternative avenues to traditional face-to-face genetic counseling. One such modality is the use of telephone genetic counseling (TGC), which is easy to implement and still allows for comprehensive service delivery. Although TGC has been used with increased frequency, there is a paucity of data about its effectiveness and impact on important patient outcomes. This paper provides an overview of the evolution of telephone counseling in nongenetics and genetics settings. The rationale and aims of the largest randomized clinical trial to be performed with this mode of counseling in the context of cancer susceptibility testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are also explained. In addition, procedural aspects of the genetic counseling intervention and the novel tools developed to facilitate this process and to ensure adequate counselor training and quality assurance are described.     

The need for anonymous genetic counseling and testing.

Concerns are mounting about the risks of genetic discrimination resulting from the release of predictive and presymptomatic genetic test results to employers, insurers, and others. The ability to keep this information confidential is questionable, particularly in view of the expansion of electronic medical databases. One solution is to afford individuals access to anonymous genetic counseling and testing. Probands would be identified only by a code that would not reveal personal information, and test results would be stored, retrieved, and released solely on the basis of this code. The experience with anonymous HIV testing, while not completely analogous, suggests that such an approach would be both practical and effective.     

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.     

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.