Julia Dick1, Viktoria Aue1, Simone Wesselmann2, Anne Brédart3,4, Sylvie Dolbeault3,5, Peter Devilee6, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet7, Rita K Schmutzler1, Kerstin Rhiem1. 1. Center for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 2. German Cancer Society (DKG), Berlin, Germany. 3. Supportive Care Department, Psycho-Oncology Unit, Institut Curie, Paris, France. 4. University Paris Descartes, Boulogne-Billancourt, France. 5. Centre de Recherche en Épidémiologie et Santé des Populations (CESP), University Paris-Sud, UVSQ, INSERM, University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif Cedex, France. 6. Departments of Human Genetics and Pathology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. 7. Cancer Genetic Clinic, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, germline testing of women with a risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer has increased rapidly. This is due to lower costs for new high-throughput sequencing technologies and the manifold preventive and therapeutic options for germline mutation carriers. The growing demand for genetic counseling meets a shortfall of counselors and illustrates the need to involve the treating clinicians in the genetic testing process. This survey was undertaken to assess their state of knowledge and training needs in the field of genetic counseling and testing. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey within the European Bridges Study (Breast Cancer Risk after Diagnostic Gene Sequencing) was conducted among physician members (n = 111) of the German Cancer Society who were primarily gynecologists. It was designed to examine their experience in genetic counseling and testing. RESULTS: Overall, the study revealed a need for training in risk communication and clinical recommendations for persons at risk. One-third of respondents communicated only relative disease risks (31.5%) instead of absolute disease risks in manageable time spans. Moreover, almost one-third of the respondents (31.2%) communicated bilateral and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy as an option for healthy women and unilateral-diseased breast cancer patients without mutations in high-risk genes (e.g. BRCA1 or BRCA2). Most respondents expressed training needs in the field of risk assessment models, the clinical interpretation of genetic test results, and the decision-making process. CONCLUSION: The survey demonstrates a gap of genetic and risk literacy in a relevant proportion of physicians and the need for appropriate training concepts.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, germline testing of women with a risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer has increased rapidly. This is due to lower costs for new high-throughput sequencing technologies and the manifold preventive and therapeutic options for germline mutation carriers. The growing demand for genetic counseling meets a shortfall of counselors and illustrates the need to involve the treating clinicians in the genetic testing process. This survey was undertaken to assess their state of knowledge and training needs in the field of genetic counseling and testing. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey within the European Bridges Study (Breast Cancer Risk after Diagnostic Gene Sequencing) was conducted among physician members (n = 111) of the German Cancer Society who were primarily gynecologists. It was designed to examine their experience in genetic counseling and testing. RESULTS: Overall, the study revealed a need for training in risk communication and clinical recommendations for persons at risk. One-third of respondents communicated only relative disease risks (31.5%) instead of absolute disease risks in manageable time spans. Moreover, almost one-third of the respondents (31.2%) communicated bilateral and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy as an option for healthy women and unilateral-diseased breast cancer patients without mutations in high-risk genes (e.g. BRCA1 or BRCA2). Most respondents expressed training needs in the field of risk assessment models, the clinical interpretation of genetic test results, and the decision-making process. CONCLUSION: The survey demonstrates a gap of genetic and risk literacy in a relevant proportion of physicians and the need for appropriate training concepts.
Authors: Christopher P Childers; Kimberly K Childers; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; James Macinko Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Christian F Singer; D Gareth Evans; Henry T Lynch; Claudine Isaacs; Judy E Garber; Susan L Neuhausen; Ellen Matloff; Rosalind Eeles; Gabriella Pichert; Laura Van t'veer; Nadine Tung; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Fergus J Couch; Wendy S Rubinstein; Patricia A Ganz; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Gail Tomlinson; Joellen Schildkraut; Joanne L Blum; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christoph Engel; Christine Fischer; Silke Zachariae; Karolin Bucksch; Kerstin Rhiem; Jutta Giesecke; Natalie Herold; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Verena Hübbel; Monika Maringa; Simone Reichstein-Gnielinski; Eric Hahnen; Claus R Bartram; Nicola Dikow; Sarah Schott; Dorothee Speiser; Denise Horn; Eva M Fallenberg; Marion Kiechle; Anne S Quante; Anne-Sophie Vesper; Tanja Fehm; Christoph Mundhenke; Norbert Arnold; Elena Leinert; Walter Just; Ulrike Siebers-Renelt; Stefanie Weigel; Andrea Gehrig; Achim Wöckel; Brigitte Schlegelberger; Stefanie Pertschy; Karin Kast; Pauline Wimberger; Susanne Briest; Markus Loeffler; Ulrich Bick; Rita K Schmutzler Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Kathleen Moore; Nicoletta Colombo; Giovanni Scambia; Byoung-Gie Kim; Ana Oaknin; Michael Friedlander; Alla Lisyanskaya; Anne Floquet; Alexandra Leary; Gabe S Sonke; Charlie Gourley; Susana Banerjee; Amit Oza; Antonio González-Martín; Carol Aghajanian; William Bradley; Cara Mathews; Joyce Liu; Elizabeth S Lowe; Ralph Bloomfield; Paul DiSilvestro Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bernadette A M Heemskerk-Gerritsen; Matti A Rookus; Cora M Aalfs; Margreet G E M Ausems; Johanna M Collée; Liesbeth Jansen; C Marleen Kets; Kristien B M I Keymeulen; Linetta B Koppert; Hanne E J Meijers-Heijboer; Thea M Mooij; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Hans F A Vasen; Maartje J Hooning; Caroline Seynaeve Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Anne Brédart; Jean-Luc Kop; Antonis C Antoniou; Alex P Cunningham; Antoine De Pauw; Marc Tischkowitz; Hans Ehrencrona; Sylvie Dolbeault; Léonore Robieux; Kerstin Rhiem; Douglas F Easton; Peter Devilee; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Rita Schmutlzer Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.375