Exploring family communication preferences in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a national Canadian survey

• Published in: Journal of community genetics Vol. 15; no. 4; pp. 387 - 400
• Main Authors: Burke, Kimberly, Dawson, Lesa, Hodgkinson, Kathleen, Wilson, Brenda J., Etchegary, Holly
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 24.07.2024
• Subjects: Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Epidemiology; Gene Function; Gene Therapy; Human Genetics; Public Health
• ISSN: 1868-310X; 1868-6001; 1868-6001
• DOI: 10.1007/s12687-024-00720-z

Background Individuals affected with cancer predisposition (CPS) syndromes such as BRCA1 , BRCA2 or Lynch syndrome (LS) are at an elevated risk of multiple cancers. Identifying high-risk individuals is important if they are to access risk-reducing strategies. Interventions such as risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants or regular colonoscopy for carriers of LS P/LP variants are highly effective and reduce mortality. Despite clear evidence that the identification of at-risk relatives has value, the uptake of cascade testing remains at approximately 50%. It is important to understand strategies and barriers to testing to facilitate communication in families identified as haveing a hereditary cancer syndrome, to improve uptake of counselling and testing. Method A national online survey of both Canadian probands (the first member in a family to have genetic testing and who were variant positive, regardless of a cancer diagnosis) and their at-risk relatives. Respondents were individuals affected with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and LS. The survey was constructed based on a review of the literature and authors’ feedback. Both open and closed-ended questions were used for items on demographic characteristics, risk perception, genetic test results and cancer diagnosis. Items on experiences with hereditary cancer risk communication, communication challenges, preferences and supports required were explored using a 5-point Likert scale. Results Responses indicated a high level of acceptance for the proband’s direct involvement in family communication with the support of a health care provider (67% among the probands given a family letter and 55–57% among those who were not given a family letter). Respondents without a personal history of cancer were more likely to endorse a health care professional’s help with family communication compared to those with a personal history of cancer ( p  = 0.031). Preferences for family member outreach also varied by education level, annual income, marital status and geographic location. Similarities were noted between the probands and relatives on communication outreach preferences. Conclusion While the family-mediated approach to communication remains the standard across many cancer genetics programs, participants note that additional support is necessary for dissemination of result information among relatives. Because family dynamics and communication vary widely, alternative options that retain the probands’ involvement in family communication but add support from a health care provider should be explored.