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
. 2022 Apr;17(2):153-158.
doi: 10.1159/000517021. Epub 2021 Jun 17.

Recommendation and Acceptance of Counselling for Familial Cancer Risk in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Cases

Karin Kast  1 , Julia Häfner  2   3   4 , Evelin Schröck  3   4   5   6 , Arne Jahn  3   4   5   6 , Carmen Werner  7 , Cornelia Meisel  2   3   4 , Pauline Wimberger  2   3   4
Affiliations

Recommendation and Acceptance of Counselling for Familial Cancer Risk in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Cases

Karin Kast et al. Breast Care (Basel). 2022 Apr.

Abstract

Background: In clinical routine, not every patient who is offered genetic counselling and diagnostics in order to investigate a familial cancer risk predisposition opts for it. Little is known about acceptance of counselling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in Germany.

Methods: All primary breast cancer cases and patients with DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) treated at the University Hospital of Dresden between 2016 and 2019 were included. The number of tumor board recommendations for genetic counselling on the basis of the GC-HBOC risk criteria was recorded. Acceptance was analyzed by number of cases with counselling in the GC-HBOC-Center Dresden.

Results: Of 996 primary breast cancer and DCIS cases, 262 (26.3%) were eligible for genetic counselling. Recommendation for genetic counselling was accepted by 64.1% (168/262). Of these 90.5% (152/168) opted for molecular genetic analysis. The acceptance rate for counselling increased between 2016 and 2019 from 58.3 to 72.6%. Altogether, 20.4% (31/152) patients were found to carry a pathogenic variant in the breast cancer genes BRCA1 or BRCA2.

Conclusion: Acceptance of recommendation is increasing as clinical consequences augment. Optimization in providing information about hereditary cancer risk and in accessibility of counselling and testing is required to further improve acceptance of recommendation.

Keywords: Acceptance; Breast cancer; Counselling; Genetic; Recommendation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Sporadic and hereditary cases of breast cancer or DCIS and germline BRCA status of eligible patients with genetic analysis.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Acceptance of recommendation of genetic counselling at the University Hospital Dresden (% rounded to full numbers).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Katz SJ, Kurian AW, Morrow M. Treatment Decision Making and Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer: Mainstreaming Mutations. JAMA. 2015;314((10)):997–8. - PubMed
    1. Hafertepen L, Pastorino A, Morman N, Snow J, Halaharvi D, Byrne L, et al. Barriers to genetic testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: Do surgeons limit testing? Am J Surg. 2017;214((1)):105–10. - PubMed
    1. Rhiem K, Bücker-Nott HJ, Hellmich M, Fischer H, Ataseven B, Dittmer-Grabowski C, et al. Benchmarking of a checklist for the identification of familial risk for breast and ovarian cancers in a prospective cohort. Breast J. 2019;25((3)):455–60. - PubMed
    1. Bellcross CA, Peipins LA, McCarty FA, Rodriguez JL, Hawkins NA, Hensley Alford S, et al. Characteristics associated with genetic counseling referral and BRCA1/2 testing among women in a large integrated health system. Genet Med. 2015;17((1)):43–50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Menko FH, Ter Stege JA, van der Kolk LE, Jeanson KN, Schats W, Moha DA, et al. The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice. Fam Cancer. 2019;18((1)):127–35. - PubMed