Sari Lieberman1,2, Amnon Lahad1,3, Ariela Tomer1,2, Sivan Koka2, Malka BenUziyahu2, Aviad Raz4, Ephrat Levy-Lahad5,6. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. 2. Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Clalit Health Services, Jerusalem, Israel. 4. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel. 5. Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. lahad@szmc.org.il. 6. Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. lahad@szmc.org.il.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Population BRCA1/BRCA2 screening identifies carriers irrespective of family history, yet this information is actionable for relatives. We examined familial communication rates and cascade testing in the screening setting and assessed sociodemographic and psychosocial predictors. METHODS: Participants in a BRCA1/BRCA2 screening study of healthy Ashkenazi Jews self-administered a family communication questionnaire. Intent to communicate was determined before genetic status was known, along with result communication (carriers and noncarriers) 6 months and 2 years after enrollment. Carriers underwent in-depth interviews and provided cascade testing information. RESULTS: In total, 88% (524/595) of questionnaire responders and 97% (30/32) of carriers informed at least one relative. In multivariate analysis, family history (P = 0.005) and greater Satisfaction With Health Decision scores (P < 0.001) predicted communication of results. Among carriers' adult first- and second-degree relatives, 71 (48%) had cascade testing, more commonly performed in first- (58%) than in second-degree relatives (26%, P = 0.0002), and in females (56%) vs. males (36%, P = 0.02). At least 11% remained uninformed. CONCLUSION: Familial communication rates and characteristics in a screening setting parallel those reported by Cancer Genetics clinics. Universal screening circumvents dependence on familial disclosure. However, our finding that satisfaction-a potentially modifiable factor-predicts communication, raises the hypothesis that improving the testing experience could facilitate familial communication.
PURPOSE: Population BRCA1/BRCA2 screening identifies carriers irrespective of family history, yet this information is actionable for relatives. We examined familial communication rates and cascade testing in the screening setting and assessed sociodemographic and psychosocial predictors. METHODS: Participants in a BRCA1/BRCA2 screening study of healthy Ashkenazi Jews self-administered a family communication questionnaire. Intent to communicate was determined before genetic status was known, along with result communication (carriers and noncarriers) 6 months and 2 years after enrollment. Carriers underwent in-depth interviews and provided cascade testing information. RESULTS: In total, 88% (524/595) of questionnaire responders and 97% (30/32) of carriers informed at least one relative. In multivariate analysis, family history (P = 0.005) and greater Satisfaction With Health Decision scores (P < 0.001) predicted communication of results. Among carriers' adult first- and second-degree relatives, 71 (48%) had cascade testing, more commonly performed in first- (58%) than in second-degree relatives (26%, P = 0.0002), and in females (56%) vs. males (36%, P = 0.02). At least 11% remained uninformed. CONCLUSION: Familial communication rates and characteristics in a screening setting parallel those reported by Cancer Genetics clinics. Universal screening circumvents dependence on familial disclosure. However, our finding that satisfaction-a potentially modifiable factor-predicts communication, raises the hypothesis that improving the testing experience could facilitate familial communication.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ashkenazi Jews; BRCA1/2; cascade testing; familial communication; population screening
Authors: Swetha Srinivasan; Nae Yeon Won; W David Dotson; Sarah T Wright; Megan C Roberts Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Julia Wynn; Hila Milo Rasouly; Tania Vasquez-Loarte; Akilan M Saami; Robyn Weiss; Sonja I Ziniel; Paul S Appelbaum; Ellen Wright Clayton; Kurt D Christensen; David Fasel; Robert C Green; Heather S Hain; Margaret Harr; Christin Hoell; Iftikhar J Kullo; Kathleen A Leppig; Melanie F Myers; Joel E Pacyna; Emma F Perez; Cynthia A Prows; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Gemme Campbell-Salome; Richard R Sharp; Maureen E Smith; Georgia L Wiesner; Janet L Williams; Carrie L Blout Zawatsky; Ali G Gharavi; Wendy K Chung; Ingrid A Holm Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 2.717
Authors: Maria I Carlo; Veda N Giri; Channing J Paller; Wassim Abida; Joshi J Alumkal; Tomasz M Beer; Himisha Beltran; Daniel J George; Elisabeth I Heath; Celestia S Higano; Rana R McKay; Alicia K Morgans; Akash Patnaik; Charles J Ryan; Edward M Schaeffer; Walter M Stadler; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Noah D Kauff; Jacob Vinson; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Heather H Cheng Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-08-16
Authors: Marleah Dean; Ann L Tezak; Sabrina Johnson; Joy K Pierce; Anne Weidner; Kate Clouse; Tuya Pal; Deborah Cragun Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2021-01-05