Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2022 Jul;102(1):30-39.
doi: 10.1111/cge.14147. Epub 2022 May 16.

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

Affiliations
Observational Study

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

Anne Brédart et al. Clin Genet. 2022 Jul.

Abstract

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 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.

Keywords: BOADICEA; breast cancer risk estimates; genetic-specific psychosocial difficulties; risk communication; self-confidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dominique Stoppa‐Lyonnet declares the following conflict of interest: AstraZeneca is funding the French COVAR study coordinated by the Institut Curie and aiming to the classification of BRCA1/2 Variants of Unknown Significance. The Department of Genetics of the Institut Curie is performing genotyping (PRS) of MammoRisk®, Predilife. Dominique Stoppa‐Lyonnet and the Institut Curie have received honorarium for her participation in education meetings organized by AstraZeneca or Tesaro®. Rita Schmutzler declares the following conflict of interest: grants or contracts received from AstraZeneca, Amgen. Payment or honoraria received from AstraZeneca, JanssenCilag, Pfizer. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring board for AstraZeneca; MSD, GSK, Clovis Oncology Pfizer. Peter Devilee reports grants from EU Horizon2020 programme during the conduct of the study. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Design of the prospective cohort study [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Predicted values in counselees' breast cancer risk perception by change between BOADICEA BASIC and FULL estimates and according to age. To avoid multicollinearity in models with interaction, continuous variables are centered so values of age represent the deviation from the mean (i.e., −20 means someone who is 20 years younger than the average age of the participants; 40 means someone who is 40 years older than the average age) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Predicted values in counselees' difficulties in hereditary predisposition by change between BOADICEA BASIC and FULL estimates and according to age. To avoid multicollinearity in models with interaction, continuous variables are centered so values of age represent the deviation from the mean (i.e., −20 means someone who is 20 years younger than the average age of the participants; 40 means someone who is 40 years older than the average age) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209‐249. - PubMed
    1. Lilyquist J, Ruddy KJ, Vachon CM, Couch FJ. Common genetic variation and breast cancer risk‐past, present, and future. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2018;27:380‐394. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dorling L, Carvalho S, Allen J, et al. Breast cancer risk genes ‐ association analysis in more than 113,000 women. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:428‐439. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moretta J, Berthet P, Bonadona V, et al. The French genetic and cancer consortium guidelines for multigene panel analysis in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer predisposition. Bull Cancer. 2018;105:907‐917. - PubMed
    1. Kreienberg R, Albert U‐S, Follmann M, Kopp IB, Kühn T, Wöckel A. Interdisciplinary GoR level III guidelines for the diagnosis, therapy and follow‐up care of breast cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013;73:556‐583. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types