Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Familial Cancer
Published in: Familial Cancer 1/2019

01-01-2019 | Review

The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice

Authors: Fred H Menko, Jacqueline A ter Stege, Lizet E van der Kolk, Kiki N Jeanson, Winnie Schats, Daoud Ait Moha, Eveline M A Bleiker

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Following the identification in a proband of a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) or a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation in Lynch syndrome (LS) he or she will be asked to inform at-risk family members about the option for presymptomatic DNA testing. However, in clinical practice multiple factors may complicate the process of information sharing. We critically evaluated studies on the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in both syndromes. A search of relevant MeSH terms and key words in PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO yielded 795 articles published between 2001 and 2017. Thirty of these publications included outcome measures relevant for the current study. Based on information provided by the proband (15 studies) the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing ranged from 15 to 57% in HBOC, while one study in LS kindreds reported an uptake of 70%. Based on information provided by genetics centres (the remaining 15 studies) the uptake ranged from 21 to 44% in HBOC and from 41 to 94% in LS. However, when genetics centres contacted relatives directly a substantial number of additional family members could be tested. Proband-mediated provision of information to at-risk relatives is a standard procedure in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. However, the resulting uptake of presymptomatic testing is disappointing—an issue that is now urgent due to the increased use of genetic testing in clinical oncology. We propose that additional strategies should be introduced including the geneticist directly contacting relatives. The outcomes of these strategies should be carefully monitored and evaluated.
Literature
1.
2.
Golmard L, Delnatte C, Laugé A, Moncoutier V, Lefol C, Abidallah K et al (2016) Breast and ovarian cancer predisposition due to de novo BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Oncogene 35:1324–1327CrossRefPubMed
3.
Win AK, Jenkins MA, Buchanan DD, Clendenning M, Young JP, Giles GG et al (2011) Determining the frequency of de novo germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes. J Med Genet 48:530–534CrossRefPubMed
4.
Godard B, Hurlimann T, Letendre M, Égalité N, INHERIT BRCAs (2006) Guidelines for disclosing genetic information to family members: from development to use. Fam Cancer 5:103–116CrossRefPubMed
5.
Forrest LE, Delatycki MB, Skene L, Aitken M (2007) Communicating genetic information in families—a review of guidelines and position papers. Eur J Hum Genet 15:612–618CrossRefPubMed
6.
Dheensa S, Fenwick A, Shkedi-Rafid S, Crawford G, Lucassen A (2016) Health-care professionals’ responsibility to patients’ relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research. Genet Med 18:290–301CrossRefPubMed
7.
Derbez B, de Pauw A, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, de Montgolfier S (2017) Supporting disclosure of genetic information to family members: professional practice and timelines in cancer genetics. Fam Cancer 16:447–457CrossRefPubMed
8.
Menko FH, Aalfs CM, Henneman L, Stol Y, Wijdenes M, Otten E et al (2013) Informing family members of individuals with Lynch syndrome: a guideline for clinical geneticists. Fam Cancer 12:319–324CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Hughes C, Lerman C, Schwartz M, Peshkin BN, Wenzel L, Narod S et al (2002) All in the family: evaluation of the process and content of sisters’ communication about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results. Am J Med Genet 107:143–150CrossRefPubMed
11.
Blandy C, Chabal F, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Julian-Reynier C (2003) Testing participation in BRCA1/2-positive families: initiator role of index cases. Genet Test 7:225–233CrossRefPubMed
12.
Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A, Decruyenaere M, Denayer L, Legius E (2003) Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet 116A:11–19CrossRefPubMed
13.
McGivern B, Everett J, Yager GG, Baumiller RC, Hafertepen A, Saal HM (2004) Family communication about positive BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results. Genet Med 6:503–509CrossRefPubMed
14.
Wagner Costalas J, Itzen M, Malick J, Babb JS, Bove B, Godwin AK et al (2003) Communication of BRCA1 and BRCA2 results to at-risk relatives: a cancer risk assessment program’s experience. Am J Med Genet 119C:11–18CrossRefPubMed
15.
Sermijn E, Goelen G, Teugels E, Kaufman L, Bonduelle M, Neyns B et al (2004) The impact of proband mediated information dissemination in families with a BRCA1/2 gene mutation. J Med Genet 41:e23CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Landsbergen K, Verhaak C, Kraaimaat F, Hoogerbrugge N (2005) Genetic uptake in BRCA-mutation families is related to emotional and behavioral communication characteristics of index patients. Fam Cancer 4:115–119CrossRefPubMed
17.
Patenaude AF, Dorval M, DiGianni LS, Schneider KA, Chittenden A, Garber JE (2006) Sharing BRCA1/2 test results with first-degree relatives: factors predicting who women tell. J Clin Oncol 24:700–706CrossRefPubMed
18.
Finlay E, Stopfer JE, Burlingame E, Goldfeder Evans K, Nathanson KL, Weber BL et al (2008) Factors determining dissemination of results and uptake of genetic testing in families with known BRCA1/2 mutations. Genet Test 12:81–91CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Cheung EL, Olson AD, Yu TM, Han PZ, Beattie MS (2010) Communication of BRCA results and family testing in 1,103 high-risk women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:2211–2219CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Fehniger J, Lin F, Beattie MS, Joseph G, Kaplan C (2013) Family communication of BRCA1/2 results and family uptake of BRCA1/2 testing in a diverse population of BRCA1/2 carriers. J Genet Couns 22:603–612CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kegelaers D, Merckx W, Odeurs P, van den Ende J, Blaumeiser B (2014) Disclosure pattern and follow-up after the molecular diagnosis of BRCA/CHEK2 mutations. J Genet Couns 23:254–261CrossRefPubMed
22.
Healey E, Taylor N, Greening S, Wakefield CE, Warwick L, Williams R et al (2017) Quantifying family dissemination and identifying barriers to communication of risk information in Australian BRCA families. Genet Med 19:1323–1331CrossRefPubMed
23.
Stoffel EM, Ford B, Mercado RC, Punglia D, Kohlmann W, Conrad P et al (2008) Sharing genetic test results in Lynch syndrome: communication with close and distant relatives. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 6:333–338CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Aktan-Collan KI, Kääriäinen HA, Kolttola EM, Pylvänäinen K, Järvinen HJ, Haukkala AH et al (2011) Sharing genetic risk with next generation: mutation-positive parents’ communication with their offspring in Lynch Syndrome. Fam Cancer 10:43–50CrossRefPubMed
25.
Bodd TL, Reichelt J, Heimdal K, Møller P (2003) Uptake of BRCA1 genetic testing in adult sisters and daughters of known mutation carriers in Norway. J Genet Couns 12:405–417CrossRefPubMed
26.
Brooks L, Lennard F, Shenton A, Lalloo F, Ambus I, Ardern-Jones A et al (2004) BRCA1/2 predictive testing: a study of uptake in two centres. Eur J Hum Genet 12:654–662CrossRefPubMed
27.
Suthers GK, Armstrong J, McCormack J, Trott D (2006) Letting the family know: balancing ethics and effectiveness when notifying relatives about genetic testing for a familial disorder. J Med Genet 43:665–670CrossRefPubMed
28.
Cody N, Green A, McDevitt T, Lynch SA (2008) Cascade screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Ir Med J 101:140–142PubMed
29.
Holloway SM, Bernhard B, Campbell H, Lam WW (2008) Uptake of testing for BRCA1/2 mutations in South East Scotland. Eur J Hum Genet 16:906–912CrossRefPubMed
30.
Evans DGR, Binchy A, Shenton A, Hopwood P, Craufurd D (2009) Comparison of proactive and usual approaches to offering predictive testing for BRCA1/2 mutations in unaffected relatives. Clin Genet 75:124–132CrossRefPubMed
31.
Sanz J, Ramón y Cajal T, Torres A, Darder E, Gadea N, Velasco A et al (2010) Uptake of predictive testing among relatives of BRCA1 and BRCA2 families: a multicenter study in northeastern Spain. Fam Cancer 9:297–304CrossRefPubMed
32.
Yoon S-Y, Thong M-K, Taib NAM, Yip C-H, Teo S-H (2011) Genetic counseling for patients and families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in a developing Asian country: an observational descriptive study. Fam Cancer 10:199–205CrossRefPubMed
33.
Fischer C, Engel C, Sutter C, Zachariae S, Schmutzler R, Meindl A et al (2012) BRCA1/2 testing: uptake, phenocopies, and strategies to improve detection rates in initially negative families. Clin Genet 82:478–483CrossRefPubMed
34.
Sermijn E, Delesie L, Deschepper E, Pauwels I, Bonduelle M, Teugels E et al (2016) The impact of an interventional counselling procedure in families with a BRCA1/2 gene mutation: efficacy and safety. Fam Cancer 15:155–162CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Aktan-Collan K, Haukkala A, Pylvänäinen K, Järvinen HJ, Aaltonen LA, Peltomäki P et al (2007) Direct contact in inviting high-risk members of hereditary colon cancer families to genetic counselling and DNA testing. J Med Genet 44:732–738CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Tops CMJ, Dooijes D, Steyerberg EW, Kuipers EJ et al (2007) The use of genetic testing in hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: genetic testing in HNPCC, (A)FAP and MAP. Clin Genet 72:562–567CrossRefPubMed
37.
Bruwer Z, Futter M, Ramesar R (2013) Communicating cancer risk within an African context: experiences, disclosure patterns and uptake rates following genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. Patient Educ Couns 92:53–60CrossRefPubMed
38.
Barrow P, Green K, Clancy T, Lalloo F, Hill J, Evans DG (2015) Improving the uptake of predictive testing and colorectal screening in Lynch syndrome: a regional primary care study. Clin Genet 87:517–524CrossRefPubMed
39.
Seppälä TT, Pylvänäinen K, Mecklin J-P (2017) Uptake of genetic testing by the children of Lynch syndrome variant carriers across three generations. Eur J Hum Genet 25:1237–1245CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Daly MB, Montgomery S, Bingler R, Ruth K (2016) Communicating genetic test results within the family: is it lost in translation? A survey of relatives in the randomized six-step study. Fam Cancer 15:697–706CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Leenen CHM, den Heijer M, van der Meer C, Kuipers EJ, van Leerdam ME, Wagner A (2016) Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome: family communication and motivation. Fam Cancer 15:63–73CrossRefPubMed
42.
Schneider KA, Chittenden AB, Branda KJ, Keenan MA, Joffe S, Patenaude AF et al (2006) Ethical issues in cancer genetics: 1) Whose information is it? J Genet Couns 15:491–503CrossRefPubMed
43.
44.
Black L, McClellan KA, Avard D, Knoppers BM (2013) Intrafamilial disclosure of risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: points to consider. J Community Genet 4:203–214CrossRefPubMed
45.
George R, Kovak K, Cox SL (2015) Aligning policy to promote cascade genetic screening for prevention and early diagnosis of heritable diseases. J Genet Couns 24:388–399CrossRefPubMed
46.
Weaver M (2016) The double helix: applying an ethic of care to the duty to warn genetic relatives of genetic information. Bioethics 30:181–187CrossRefPubMed
47.
Mitchell C, Ploem MC, Chico V, Ormondroyd E, Hall A, Wallace S et al (2017) Exploring the potential duty of care in clinical genomics under UK Law. Med Law Int 17:158–182CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Dheensa S, Fenwick A, Lucassen A (2016) “Is this knowledge mine and nobody else’s? I don’t feel that.” Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine. J Med Ethics 42:174–179CrossRefPubMed
49.
Committee on Genetics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2017) Counseling about genetic testing and communication of genetic test results. Obstet Gynecol 129: e96-e101
50.
51.
Rothstein MA (2018) Reconsidering the duty to warn genetically at-risk relatives. Genet Med 20:285–290CrossRefPubMed
52.
53.
Montgomery SV, Barsevick AM, Egleston BL, Bingler R, Ruth K, Miller SM et al (2013) Preparing individuals to communicate genetic test results to their relatives: report of a randomized control trial. Fam Cancer 12:537–546CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Geus de E, Aalfs CM, Verdam MGE, de Haes HCJM, Smets EMA (2014) Informing relatives about their hereditary or familial cancer risk: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 15:86CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Hodgson J, Metcalfe S, Gaff C, Donath S, Delatycki MB, Winship I et al (2016) Outcomes of a randomised controlled trial of a complex genetic counselling intervention to improve family communication. Eur J Hum Genet 24:356–360CrossRefPubMed
56.
Ratnayake P, Wakefield CE, Meiser B, Suthers G, Price MA, Duffy J et al (2011) An exploration of the communication preferences regarding genetic testing in individuals from families with identified breast/ovarian cancer mutations. Fam Cancer 10:97–105CrossRefPubMed
57.
Kardashian A, Fehniger J, Creasman J, Cheung E, Beattie MS (2012) A pilot study of the sharing risk information tool (ShaRIT) for families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 10:4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Dilzell K, Kingham K, Ormond K, Ladabaum U (2014) Evaluating the utilization of educational materials in communicating about Lynch syndrome to at-risk relatives. Fam Cancer 13:381–389CrossRefPubMed
59.
Dheensa S, Lucassen A, Fenwick A (2018) Limitations and pitfalls of using family letters to communicate genetic risk: a qualitative study with patients and healthcare professionals. J Genet Couns 27:689–701CrossRef
60.
Forrest LE, Burke J, Bacic S, Amor DJ (2008) Increased genetic counseling support improves communication of information in families. Genet Med 10:167–172CrossRefPubMed
61.
Jasperson K (2013) Cascade genetic testing in Lynch syndrome: room for improvement. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 10:506–508CrossRefPubMed
62.
Hampel H (2016) Genetic counseling and cascade genetic testing in Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer 15:423–427CrossRefPubMed
63.
Mendes A, Paneque M, Sousa L, Clarke A, Sequeiros J et al (2016) How communication of genetic information within the family is addressed in genetic counselling: a systematic review of research evidence. Eur J Hum Genet 24:315–325CrossRefPubMed
64.
Katapodi MC, Viassolo V, Caiata-Zufferey M, Nikolaidis C, Bührer-Landolt R, Buerki N et al (2017) Cancer predisposition cascade screening for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer and Lynch syndromes in Switzerland: study protocol. JMIR Res Protoc 6:e184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
65.
Tung N, Domchek SM, Stadler Z, Nathanson KL, Couch F, Garber JE et al (2016) Counselling framework for moderate-penetrance cancer-susceptibility mutations. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 13:581–588CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Vos J, Jansen AM, Menko F, van Asperen CJ, Stiggelbout AM, Tibben A (2011) Family communication matters: the impact of telling relatives about unclassified variants and uninformative DNA-test results. Genet Med 13:333–341CrossRefPubMed
67.
Moghadasi S, Hofland N, Wouts JN, Hogervorst FBL, Wijnen JT, Vreeswijk MPG et al (2013) Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA1 and BRCA2 assessment of in silico analysis and a proposal for communication in genetic counselling. J Med Genet 50:74–79CrossRefPubMed
68.
Catenacci DVT, Amico AL, Nielsen SM, Geynisman DM, Rambo B, Carey GB et al (2015) Tumor genome analysis includes germline genome: are we ready for surprises? Int J Cancer 136:1559–1567CrossRefPubMed
69.
Kaufman B, Shapira-Frommer R, Schmutzler RK, Audeh MW, Friedlander M, Balmaňa J et al (2015) Olaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation. J Clin Oncol 33:244–250CrossRefPubMed
70.
Bednar EM, Oakley HD, Sun CC, Burke CC, Munsell MF, Westin SN et al (2017) A universal genetic testing initiative for patients with high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer and the implications for cancer treatment. Gynecol Oncol 146:399–404CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
71.
Mandelker D, Zhang L, Kemel Y, Stadler ZK, Joseph V, Zehir A et al (2017) Mutation detection in patients with advanced cancer by universal sequencing of cancer-related genes in tumor and normal DNA vs guideline-based germline testing. JAMA 318:825–835CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
72.
Narod S, Akbari MR (2018) Population-based genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Clin Oncol 36:517CrossRefPubMed
73.
Forrest LE, Young M-A (2016) Clinically significant germline mutations in cancer-causing genes identified through research studies should be offered to research participants by genetic counselors. J Clin Oncol 34:898–901CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice
Authors
Fred H Menko
Jacqueline A ter Stege
Lizet E van der Kolk
Kiki N Jeanson
Winnie Schats
Daoud Ait Moha
Eveline M A Bleiker
Publication date
01-01-2019
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-018-0089-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Familial Cancer 1/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Modified capture–recapture estimates of the number of families with Lynch syndrome in Central Ohio

Short Communication

Report of a bi-allelic truncating germline mutation in TP53

Original Article

Unsolicited information letters to increase awareness of Lynch syndrome and familial colorectal cancer: reactions and attitudes

Short Communication

Candidate susceptibility variants in angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma

Original Article

Cholesterol profile in women with premature menopause after risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy

Original Article

Outcome of thyroid ultrasound screening in FAP patients with a normal baseline exam
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits