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 ... 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
Purpose: Counselees' preferences are considered important for the choice of risk communication format and for improving patient-centered care. We here report on counselees' preferences for how... Show morePurpose: Counselees' preferences are considered important for the choice of risk communication format and for improving patient-centered care. We here report on counselees' preferences for how risks are presented in familial breast cancer counseling and the impact of this preferred format on their understanding of risk.Patients and Methods: As part of a practice-based randomized controlled trial, 326 unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer received their lifetime risk in one of five presentation formats after standard genetic counseling in three Dutch familial cancer clinics: 1) in percentages, 2) in frequencies ("X out of 100"), 3) in frequencies plus graphical format (10x10 human icons), 4) in frequencies and 10-year age-related risk and 5) in frequencies and 10-year age-related risk plus graphical format. Format preferences and risk understanding (accuracy) were assessed at 2-week follow-up by a questionnaire, completed by 279/326 women.Results: The most preferred risk communication formats were numbers combined with verbal descriptions (37%) and numbers only (26%). Of the numerical formats, most (55%) women preferred percentages. The majority (73%) preferred to be informed about both lifetime and 10-year age-related risk. Women who had received a graphical display were more likely to choose a graphical display as their preferred format. There was no significant effect between the intervention groups with regard to risk accuracy. Overall, women given risk estimates in their preferred format had a slightly better understanding of risk.Conclusion: The results suggest that the accuracy of breast cancer risk estimation is slightly better for women who had received this information in their preferred format, but the risk format used had no effect on women's risk accuracy. To meet the most frequent preference, counselors should consider providing a time frame of reference (eg, risk in the next 10 years) in a numerical format, in addition to lifetime risk. Show less
