Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communication in Genetic Counselling for Breast/Ovarian Cancer

  • Chapter
Communication in Cancer Care

Part of the book series: Recent Results in Cancer Research ((RECENTCANCER,volume 168))

Summary

Cancer genetic counselling represents a very special situation of interaction between the geneticist and the counselee, marked by a number of specificities that account for its complexity. Cancer genetic counselling has multiple repercussions, such as identification of a deleterious genetic mutation associated with a high probability of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer, the implementation of preventive measures ranging from close surveillance to the decision to perform mutilating prophylactic surgical procedures, or the impact of the information on the other members of the counselee’s family also concerned by the genetic risk. This chapter is based on a review of the literature that has been rapidly growing over recent years and on our clinical expertise as psycho-oncologists and geneticists. We will first present the reasons that make the information so critical. These reasons are both objective (complexity of the genetic information per se, difficulties of understanding the concept of risk) and subjective (information given to people with an emotionally charged family history and a perception of risks closely linked to their representation of cancer). At the same time, the counsellees are charged with the transmission of this information to members of their own family. We will then discuss the various modalities of communication in this setting. While unidirectional transfer of information from the geneticist to the counselee has been the preferred method in cancer genetics for a long time, a model based on patient-centered communication is more adequate in predictive medicine and allows shared decision making. In all cases, the different professionals involved in the process have to learn how to work in a performing cohesion. We also present the main guidelines on the subject and the various underlying objectives with regard to information delivery and the subject’s personal experience. Although the psychological impact of genetic counselling consultations raises a number of questions, the results of preliminary studies are reassuring, demonstrating psychological benefits. However, a number of aspects concerning communication in predictive medicine remain to be investigated and improved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S et al. (2003) Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case Series unselected for family history: a combine analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 72:1117–1130

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Audrain J, Schwartz MD, Lerman C, Hughes C, Peshkin BN, Biesecker B (1997) Psychological distress in women seeking genetic counseling for breast-ovarian cancer risk: the contributions of personality and appraisal. Ann Behav Med 19:370–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Biesecker BB, Peters KF (2001) Process studies in genetic counseling: peering into the black box. Am J Med Genet 106:191–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 7:225–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bleiker EM, Aaronson NK, Menko FH, Hahn DE, van Asperen CJ, Rutgers EJ, ten Kate LP, Leschot NJ (1997) Genetic counseling for hereditary cancer: a pilot study on experiences of patients and family members. Patient Educ Couns 32:107–116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bleiker E, Wigbout G, van Rens A, Verhoef S, van’t Veer, Aaronson N (2005) Withdrawal from genetic counselling for cancer. Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 3:19–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bottorff JL, Ratner PA, Johnson JL, Lovato CY, Joab SA (1998) Communicating cancer risk information: the challenges of uncertainty. Patient Educ Couns 33:67–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Brain K, Norman P, Gray J, Rogers C, Mansel R, Harper P (2002) A randomized trial of specialist genetic assessment: psychological impact on women at different levels of familial breast cancer risk. Br J Cancer 86:233–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brédart A, Autier P, Audisio RA, Geragthy J (1998) Psycho-social aspects of breast cancer susceptibility testing: a literature review. Eur J Cancer Care 7:174–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Butow PN, Lobb EA, Meiser B, Barratt A, Tucker KM (2003) Psychological outcomes and risk perception after genetic testing and counselling in breast cancer: a systematic review. Med J Aust 178:77–81

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Butow PN, Lobb EA (2004) Analyzing the process and content of genetic counseling in familial breast cancer consultations. J Genet Couns 13:403–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Public Health Policy (2004) Chapter 1: general principles Law reinforced n° 2004-800 of the 6th August 2004 related to bioethics. Biomedicine Agency

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eisinger F, Bressac B, Castaigne D, Cottu PH, Lansac J, Lefranc JP, Lesur A, Nogues C, Pierret J, Puy-Pernias S, Sobol H, Tardivon A, Tristant H, Villet R (2004) Identification and management of hereditary predisposition to cancer of the breast and the ovary (update 2004). Bull Cancer 91:219–237

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, Narod S, Goldgar D, Devilee P, Bishop DT, Weber B, Lenoir G, Chang-Claude J, Sobol H, Teare MD, Struewing J, Arason A, Scherneck S, Peto J, Rebbeck TR, Tonin P, Neuhausen S, Barkardottir R, Eyfjord J, Lynch H, Ponder BA, Gayther SA, Zelada-Hedman M et al. (1998) Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 62:676–689

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gil F, Mendez I, Sirgo A, Llort G, Blanco I, Cortes-Funes H (2003) Perception of breast cancer risk and surveillance behaviours of women with family history of breast cancer: a brief report on a Spanish cohort. Psycho-Oncology 12: 821–827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Green MJ, Peterson SK, Baker MW, Harper GR, Friedman LC, Rubinstein WS, Mauger DT (2004) Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 292:442–452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gurmankin AD, Domchek S, Stopfer J, Fels C, Armstrong K (2005) Patients’ resistance to risk information in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2. Arch Intern Med 165:523–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hallowell N, Murton F (1998) The value of written summaries of genetic consultations. Patient Educ Couns 35:27–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Holloway S, Porteous M, Cetnarskyj R, Anderson E, Rush R, Fry A, Gorman D, Steel M, Campbell H (2004) Patient satisfaction with two different models of cancer genetic services in south-east Scotland. Br J Cancer 90:582–589

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hopwood P (2000) Breast cancer risk perception: what do we know and understand? Breast Cancer Res 2:387–391

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hopwood P, van Asperen CJ, Borreani G, Bourret P, Decruyenaere M, Dishon S, Eisinger F, Evans DG, Evers-Kiebooms G, Gangeri L, Hagoel L, Legius E, Nippert I, Rennert G, Schlegelberger B, Sevilla C, Sobol H, Tibben A, Welkenhuysen M, Julian-Reynier C (2003a) Cancer genetics service provision: a comparison of seven European centres. Community Genet 6:192–205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hopwood P, Howell A, Lalloo F, Evans G (2003b) Do women understand the odds? Risk perceptions and recall of risk information in women with a family history of breast cancer. Community Genet 6:214–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hopwood P (2005) Psychosocial aspects of risk communication and mutation testing in familial breast-ovarian cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 17:340–344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Huiart L, Eisinger F, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Lasset C, Nogues C, Vennin P, Sobol H, Julian-Reynier C (2002) Effects of genetic consultation on perception of a family risk of breast/ovarian cancer and determinants of inaccurate perception after the consultation. J Clin Epidemiol 55:665–675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Julian-Reynier C, Welkenhuysen M, Hagoel L, Decruyenaere M, Hopwood P; CRISCOM Working Group (2003) Risk communication strategies: state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. Eur J Hum Genet 11:725–736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kelly K, Leventhal H, Andrykowski M, Toppmeyer D, Much J, Dermody J, Marvin M, Baran J, Schwalb M (2005) Using the common sense model to understand perceived cancer risk in individuals testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Psycho-oncology 14:34–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. King MC, Rowell S, Love SM (1993) Inherited breast and ovarian cancer. What are the risks? What are the choices? JAMA 269(:1975–1980

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lerman C, Schwartz M (1993) Adherence and psychological adjustment among women at high risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 28:145–155

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lerman C, Hughes C, Lemon SJ, Main D, Snyder C, Durham C, Narod S, Lynch HT (1998) What you don’t know can hurt you: adverse psychologic effects in members of BRCA1-linked and BRCA2-linked families who decline genetic testing. J Clin Oncol 16:1650–1654

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lobb EA, Butow P, Barratt A, Meiser B, Tucker K (2005) Differences in individual approaches: communication in the familial breast cancer consultation and the effect on patient outcomes. J Genet Couns 14:43–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lobb EA, Butow PN, Barratt A, Meiser B, Gaff C, Young MA, Haan E, Suthers G, Gattas M, Tucker K (2004) Communication and information-giving in high-risk breast cancer consultations: influence on patient outcomes. Br J Cancer 90:321–327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Lobb EA, Butow PN, Meiser B, Barratt A, Gaff C, Young MA, Kirk J, Gattas M, Gleeson M, Tucker K (2003) Women’s preferences and consultants’ communication of risk in consultations about familial breast cancer: impact on patient outcomes. J Med Genet 40:e56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lobb E, Butow P, Meiser B, Tucker K, Barratt A (2001) How do geneticists and genetic counsellors counsel women from high risk breast cancer families? J Genet Couns 10:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, Futreal PA, Harshman K, Tavtigian S, Liu Q, Cochran C, Bennett LM, Ding W, et al (1994) A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 266:66–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ong LM, de Haes JC, Hoos AM, Lammes FB (1995) Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 40:903–918

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Pieterse A, van Dulmen S, Ausems M, Schoemaker A, Beemer F, Bensing J (2005) QUOTE-gene(ca): development of a counselee-centered instrument to measure needs and preferences in genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. Psychooncology 14:361–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Richards MPM (1993) The new genetics: some issues for social scientists. Sociol Health 15:567–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Richards MPM, Hallowell N, Green JM, Murton F, Statham H (1995) Counseling families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a psychosocial perspective. J Genet Couns 4:219–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, Baker SM, Berlin M, McAdams M, Timmerman MM, Brody LC, Tucker MA (1997) The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 336:1401–1408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Tercyak KP, Peshkin BN, Streisand R, Lerman C (2001) Psychological issues among children of hereditary breast cancer gene (BRCA1/2) testing participants. Psycho-oncology 10:336–346

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Tercyak KP, Peshkin BN, DeMarco TA, Brogan BM, Lerman C (2002) Parent-child factors and their effect on communicating BRCA1/2 test results to children. Patient Educ Couns 47:145–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. van Dijk S, Otten W, van Asperen CJ, Timmermans DR, Tibben A, Zoeteweij MW, Silberg S, Breuning MH, Kievit J (2004a) Feeling at risk: how women interpret their familial breast cancer risk. Am J Med Genet 131:42–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. van Dijk S, van Asperen CJ, Jacobi CE, Vink GR, Tibben A, Breuning MH, Otten W (2004b) Variants of uncertain clinical significance as a result of BRCA1/2 testing: impact of an ambiguous breast cancer risk message. Genet Test 8:235–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J, Swift S, Seal S, Mangion J, Collins N, Gregory S, Gumbs C, Micklem G (1995) Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature 378:789–792

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psycho-Oncology Unit, Institut Curie, 26, rue d’Ulm, 75248, Paris Cedex 05, France

    S. Dolbeault MD, C. Flahault & A. Brédart PhD

  2. Genetic Oncology Service, Institut Curie, 26, rue d’Ulm, 75248, Paris Cedex 05, France

    D. Stoppa-Lyonnet MD, PhD

Authors
  1. S. Dolbeault MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Flahault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Stoppa-Lyonnet MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Brédart PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Médecin Chef de Service, Service de Psychiatrie de Liaison, CHUV, Rue du Bugnon 44, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Friedrich Stiefel MD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dolbeault, S., Flahault, C., Stoppa-Lyonnet, D., Brédart, A. (2006). Communication in Genetic Counselling for Breast/Ovarian Cancer. In: Stiefel, F. (eds) Communication in Cancer Care. Recent Results in Cancer Research, vol 168. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-30758-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-30758-3_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-30757-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-30758-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation