Purpose: Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a hereditary cancer syndrome, characterized by a high risk of developing cancer at various sites and ages. To date, limited clinical benefits of genetic testing for LFS have been demonstrated, and there are concerns about the potential adverse psychosocial impact of genetic testing for LFS. In this study, we evaluated the uptake of genetic testing and the psychosocial impact of undergoing or not undergoing a genetic test for LFS. Patients and Methods: In total, 18 families with a p53 germline mutation in the Netherlands were identified. Eligible family members were invited to complete a self-report questionnaire assessing motives for undergoing or not undergoing genetic testing, LFS-related distress and worries, and health-related quality of life. Results: Uptake of presymptomatic testing was 55% (65 of 119). Of the total group, 23% reported clinically relevant levels of LFS-related distress. Carriers were not significantly more distressed than noncarriers or than those with a 50% risk who did not undergo genetic testing. Those with a lack of social support were more prone to report clinically relevant levels of distress (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5). Conclusion: Although preventive and treatment options for LFS are limited, more than half of the family members from known LFS families choose to undergo presymptomatic testing. An unfavorable genetic test result, in general, does not cause adverse psychological effects. Nonetheless, it is important to note that a substantial proportion of individuals, irrespective of their carrier status, exhibit clinically relevant levels of distress which warrant psychological support.

Objective: Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is characterized by multiple adenomas in the colorectum with a high risk to develop colorectal cancer. It is unclear whether individuals at risk of FAP experience distress due to this potentially life‐threatening disease. This nationwide study assessed: (1) the prevalence of psychological distress; and (2) the need for and use of specialized professional psychosocial support.Methods: In this cross‐sectional study, all individuals from families at high risk for FAP registered at the Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumours were invited to complete a questionnaire assessing, among other issues, generalized, cancer‐specific and FAP‐specific distress.Results: In total, 525 individuals completed the questionnaire. Approximately 20% of the respondents had moderate to severe levels of FAP‐specific distress. Levels of generalized distress were comparable to the general Dutch population. Significantly more individuals with a FAP diagnosis had frequent cancer worries than those at risk of FAP or non‐carriers (p=0.02). Distress levels were more strongly associated with psychosocial variables (e.g. perceived cancer risk), than with sociodemographic or clinical variables. Up to 43% of the variance in distress could be explained by all variables combined. Of those moderately to severely distressed, 26% had received specialized professional psychosocial support, while 30% of those did not receive the support they wanted.Conclusions: A substantial minority of individuals reported moderate to severe distress levels associated with FAP. However, only one‐third of those received specialized professional psychosocial support. We recommend the use of a screening questionnaire to identify individuals in need of such support. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background: Non-genetic healthcare professionals can provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic tests themselves, which is called mainstream genetic testing. In this systematic review, we determined whether mainstream genetic testing was feasible in daily practice while maintaining quality of genetic care. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for articles describing mainstream genetic testing initiatives in cancer care. Results: Seventeen articles, reporting on 15 studies, met the inclusion criteria. Non-genetic healthcare professionals concluded that mainstream genetic testing was possible within the timeframe of a routine consultation. In 14 studies, non-genetic healthcare professionals completed some form of training about genetics. When referral was coordinated by a genetics team, the majority of patients carrying a pathogenic variant were seen for post-test counseling by genetic healthcare professionals. The number of days between cancer diagnosis and test result disclosure was always lower in the mainstream genetic testing pathway than in the standard genetic testing pathway (e.g., pre-test counseling at genetics department). Conclusions: Mainstream genetic testing seems feasible in daily practice with no insurmountable barriers. A structured pathway with a training procedure is desirable, as well as a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer (IBC), but most DCIS lesions remain indolent. However, guidelines recommend surgery, often supplemented by radiotherapy. This implies overtreatment of indolent DCIS. The non-randomised patient preference LORD-trial tests whether active surveillance (AS) for low-risk DCIS is safe, by giving women with low-risk DCIS a choice between AS and conventional treatment (CT). Here, we aim to describe how participants are distributed among both trial arms, identify their motives for their preference, and assess factors associated with their choice. Data were extracted from baseline questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the distribution and characteristics of participants; thematic analyses to extract self-reported reasons for the choice of trial arm, and multivariable logistic regression analyses to investigate associations between patient characteristics and chosen trial arm. Of 377 women included, 76% chose AS and 24% CT. Most frequently cited reasons for AS were "treatment is not (yet) necessary" (59%) and trust in the AS-plan (39%). Reasons for CT were cancer worry (51%) and perceived certainty (29%). Women opting for AS more often had lower educational levels (OR 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.93) and more often reported experiencing shared decision making (OR 2.71; 95% CI, 1.37-5.37) than women choosing CT. The LORD-trial is the first to offer women with low-risk DCIS a choice between CT and AS. Most women opted for AS and reported high levels of trust in the safety of AS. Their preferences highlight the necessity to establish the safety of AS for low-risk DCIS.

Diagnostic tests are now available that allow genetic testing for several types of cancer. The aim of genetic counseling and testing for cancer is to educate individuals about cancer risk and cancer prevention, which it is hoped will lead to a reduction in morbidity and mortality. However, at this relatively early stage in the development of genetic counseling and testing programs, information is needed on the psychosocial impact of such programs on both the individual counselee and his/her family. This paper reviews the findings obtained during the past decade on the uptake of genetic testing, reasons for undergoing genetic testing, and the impact of genetic counseling and testing on feelings of distress and guilt. Specific attention is paid to experiences with prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy and the effectiveness of the uptake of and satisfaction with these risk-reducing procedures. In addition, the possible impact of genetic testing on insurance, work and future plans is discussed. Suggestions are given for translating research findings into psychosocial services and future research efforts.