Background: Targeted surveillance of at-risk individuals in families with increased risk of hereditary cancer is an effective prevention strategy if relatives are identified, informed and enrolled in screening programs. Despite the potential benefits, many eligible at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their cancer risk. This study describes the general public’s opinion on disclosure of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) risk information, as well as preferences on the source and the mode of information. Methods: A random sample of the general public was assessed through a Swedish citizen web-panel. Respondents were presented with scenarios of being an at-risk relative in a family that had an estimated increased hereditary risk of CRC; either 10% (moderate) or 70% (high) lifetime risk. A colonoscopy was presented as a preventive measure. Results were analysed to identify significant differences between groups using the Pearson’s chi-square (χ²) test. Results: Of 1800 invited participants, 977 completed the survey (54%). In the moderate and high-risk scenarios, 89.2 and 90.6% respectively, would like to receive information about a potential hereditary risk of CRC (χ2, p = .755). The desire to be informed was higher among women (91.5%) than men (87.0%, χ2, p = .044). No significant differences were found when comparing different age groups, educational levels, place of residence and having children or not. The preferred source of risk information was a healthcare professional in both moderate and high-risk scenarios (80.1 and 75.5%). However, 18.1 and 20.1% respectively would prefer to be informed by a family member. Assuming that healthcare professionals disclosed the information, the favoured mode of information was letter and phone (38.4 and 33.2%). Conclusions: In this study a majority of respondents wanted to be informed about a potential hereditary risk of CRC and preferred healthcare professionals to communicate this information. The two presented levels of CRC lifetime risk did not significantly affect the interest in being informed. Our data offer insights into the needs and preferences of the Swedish population, providing a rationale for developing complementary healthcare-assisted communication pathways to realise the full potential of targeted prevention of hereditary CRC.

Purpose: We describe levels of cancer worry in the general population as measured with the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS) and investigate the association with colonoscopy screening intentions in three colorectal cancer risk scenarios. Methods: The data were sourced through a population-based survey. Respondents (n = 943) completed an eight-item CWS and questions on colonoscopy screening interest at three hypothetical risk levels. Results: Respondents without a personal cancer history (n = 853) scored 9.46 on the six-item CWS (mean, SD 2.72). Mean scores were significantly higher in women (9.91, SD 2.89) as compared to men (9.06, SD 2.49, p < 0.001). Linear regression showed higher cancer worry in women and those with children when controlling for education, age group, and country of birth. High cancer worry (six-item CWS mean >12) was identified in 25% of women and in 17% of men. Among those, 71% would attend a colonoscopy screening compared to 52% of those with low cancer worry (p < 0.001, 5% CRC-risk). Conclusions: The distribution of cancer worry in a general population sample showed higher mean scores in women, and levels overlapped with earlier findings in cancer-affected samples. Respondents with high cancer worry were more inclined to undergo a colonoscopy screening, and intention increased with higher levels of hypothetical risk.

This study explores perceptions and preferences on receiving genetic risk information about hereditary cancer risk in members of the Swedish public. We conducted qualitative content analysis of five focus group discussions with participants (n = 18) aged between 24 and 71 years, recruited from various social contexts. Two prominent phenomena surfaced around the interplay between the three stakeholders involved in risk disclosure: the individual, healthcare, and the relative at risk. First, there is a genuine will to share risk information that can benefit others, even if this is difficult and causes discomfort. Second, when the duty to inform becomes overwhelming, compromises are made, such as limiting one’s own responsibility of disclosure or projecting the main responsibility onto another party. In conclusion, our results reveal a discrepancy between public expectations and the actual services offered by clinical genetics. These expectations paired with desire for a more personalized process and shared decision-making highlight a missing link in today’s risk communication and suggest a need for developed clinical routines with stronger healthcare–patient collaboration. Future research needs to investigate the views of genetic professionals on how to address these expectations to co-create a transparent risk disclosure process which can realize the full potential of personalized prevention.

Observational studies suggest that direct contact from healthcare to at-risk relatives may increase genetic counselling (GC) uptake as compared to family-mediated risk disclosure, but randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking. This study assessed whether the offer of direct letters to relatives at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) or Lynch syndrome increases GC uptake compared to family-mediated communication alone. Between 2020 and 2023, probands were randomly assigned to family-mediated disclosure (control) or family-mediated disclosure plus the offer of sending direct letters to at-risk relatives (intervention). The primary outcome was GC uptake within 12 months, measured as the proportion of eligible relatives at risk contacting a Swedish cancer genetics clinic. In total, 165 families (median: 4 eligible relatives, range: 1–26) were randomised to control (n = 79) or intervention (n = 86). GC uptake was 67% in controls and 71% in the intervention group (P = 0.23). After adjusting for predefined variables and covariates, there was still no significant difference between groups (OR: 1.24, CI: 0.79–1.95, P = 0.34). Distant relatives had lower uptake than first-degree relatives (OR: 0.27, CI: 0.18–0.40, P < 0.001), while female relatives had higher uptake than males (OR: 2.17, CI: 1.50–3.12, P < 0.001). This is the largest RCT so far investigating direct letters to relatives. GC uptake was high in both groups, and the intervention of direct letters did not show superiority over family-mediated communication alone. Direct letters to relatives may complement family-mediated disclosure in certain situations, but should not be implemented as a general procedure in cancer genetics practices.

Hereditary cancer risks can be effectively managed if at-risk relatives enroll in surveillance and preventive care. Family-mediated risk disclosure has internationally been shown to be incomplete, selective and leave over a third of eligible at-risk individuals without access to genetic counseling. We explored patients handling of cancer risk information in practice. We conducted twelve semi-structured interviews with patients who had completed their genetic counseling and been asked to disclose risk information to relatives. Questions were designed to investigate lived experiences of communicating hereditary risk and focused on disclosure strategies, intrafamilial interactions and emotional responses. Qualitative content analysis yielded five categories. These span personal fears, shared responsibilities, feeling of empowerment, innovative solutions and unmet needs. Patients put high value on collaboration with their genetic healthcare professionals but also solicited better overview of the counseling process and more personalized, case-tailored information. Our results add novel insights about the practical strategies employed by genetic counselees and their motivations behind disclosing hereditary risk information to relatives. A patient-centered cancer genetics care would clarify roles and responsibilities around risk disclosure, inform counselees about the process upfront and tailor information to offer case-specific data with the family's inheritance pattern explained.

Purpose: As genetic testing becomes increasingly integrated into routine care, understanding its impact on psychological well-being and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is essential. This study assessed HRQoL, anxiety and cancer worry following hereditary cancer testing in a Swedish clinical setting and identified predictors of these outcomes. Methods: Participants were recruited from four outpatient cancer genetics clinics across Sweden. Eligible individuals either carried a pathogenic variant or met clinical criteria for familial breast or colorectal cancer. Questionnaires were completed shortly after receiving test results and again 6 months later. HRQoL was measured using the RAND-36, anxiety using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and cancer worry using the Cancer Worry Scale. Outcomes were compared with age- and sex-adjusted Swedish population data. Predictors of outcomes were analysed using multivariable linear regression. Results: A total of 254 participants completed at least one questionnaire. HRQoL improved across all domains over 6 months, while anxiety and cancer worry declined. Participants without a recent cancer diagnosis had scores close to population norms at both time points. Those diagnosed within the previous year had lower HRQoL and higher anxiety and cancer worry, although they improved over time. Poorer outcomes were linked to a recent cancer diagnosis, being an index case, female sex and younger age, while education level and the test result itself were not associated with worse results. Conclusion: Genetic testing was not associated with substantial short- or medium-term negative effects on HRQoL, anxiety or cancer worry. Individual risk factors should be considered when offering psychosocial support. Plain English summary: Genetic testing is becoming more widely used, but earlier research on how testing affects everyday life often involved small groups or older data. Testing is also used in new ways today, which creates a need for updated studies to understand people’s experiences and to see who might need extra support. In this study, we examined quality of life, anxiety and cancer-related worry in people tested for hereditary breast, ovarian or colorectal cancer. They completed questionnaires shortly after receiving their results and again 6 months later. We compared their answers with those from the general Swedish population. Quality of life improved over time, and anxiety and cancer worry decreased. People without a recent cancer diagnosis had scores similar to population norms. Those with a recent diagnosis had lower scores but also improved. Younger people, women and those recently diagnosed with cancer reported more anxiety and worry and lower quality of life scores. Education level and the test result itself did not affect these outcomes. Overall, genetic testing did not appear to cause lasting negative effects. Support may be most helpful for people with these risk factors.