Leiden University Scholarly Publications

Persistent URL of this record https://hdl.handle.net/1887/3563685

In Collections

This item can be found in the following collections:

Bredart, A.; Pauw, A. de; Tuchler, A.; Lakeman, I.M.M.; Anota, A.; Rhiem, K.; ... ; Dolbeault, S. (2022)

Genetic clinicians' confidence in BOADICEA comprehensive breast cancer risk estimates and counselees' psychosocial outcomes: a prospective study

Article / Letter to editor
Counseling for familial breast cancer focuses on communicating the gene test result (GENE) to counselees, but risk prediction models have become more complex by including non-genetic risk factors (NGRF) and polygenic risk scores (PRS). We examined genetic clinicians' confidence in counseling and counselees' psychosocial outcomes, using the BOADICEA risk prediction tool with different categories of risk factors as input. A prospective observational study in Dutch, French and German genetic clinics was performed including 22 clinicians, and 406 of 460 (88.3%) eligible cancer-unaffected women at high breast cancer risk assessed at pre-test and 350 (76.1%) at post-test. We performed multilevel analyses accounting for the clinician, and counselees' characteristics. Overall, risk estimates category by GENE versus GENE+ NGRF, or GENE+NGRF+PRS differed in 11% and 25% of counselees, respectively. In multilevel analyses, clinicians felt less confident in counseling when the full model...Show moreCounseling for familial breast cancer focuses on communicating the gene test result (GENE) to counselees, but risk prediction models have become more complex by including non-genetic risk factors (NGRF) and polygenic risk scores (PRS). We examined genetic clinicians' confidence in counseling and counselees' psychosocial outcomes, using the BOADICEA risk prediction tool with different categories of risk factors as input. A prospective observational study in Dutch, French and German genetic clinics was performed including 22 clinicians, and 406 of 460 (88.3%) eligible cancer-unaffected women at high breast cancer risk assessed at pre-test and 350 (76.1%) at post-test. We performed multilevel analyses accounting for the clinician, and counselees' characteristics. Overall, risk estimates category by GENE versus GENE+ NGRF, or GENE+NGRF+PRS differed in 11% and 25% of counselees, respectively. In multilevel analyses, clinicians felt less confident in counseling when the full model provided lower breast cancer risks than GENE (i.e., in 8% of cases). Older counselees expressed higher breast cancer risk perception and worries about the hereditary predisposition when the full model provided higher breast cancer risks than GENE only. Genetic clinicians appear confident with breast cancer risk comprehensive models, which seem only to affect perceptions of older counselees.Show less
BOADICEA
breast cancer risk estimates
genetic-specific psychosocial difficulties
risk communication
self-confidence
All authors
Bredart, A.; Pauw, A. de; Tuchler, A.; Lakeman, I.M.M.; Anota, A.; Rhiem, K.; Schmutzler, R.; Asperen, C.J. van; Devilee, P.; Stoppa-Lyonnet, D.; Kop, J.L.; Dolbeault, S.
Date
2022-05-16
Journal
Clinical Genetics
Volume
102
Issue
1
Pages
30 - 39
DOI
doi:10.1111/cge.14147