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
. 2024 Nov 20;24(1):9.
doi: 10.1007/s10689-024-00430-y.

Cascade genetic testing in hereditary cancer: exploring the boundaries of the Italian legal framework

Affiliations

Cascade genetic testing in hereditary cancer: exploring the boundaries of the Italian legal framework

Liliana Varesco et al. Fam Cancer. .

Abstract

Despite its clinical value, cascade genetic testing (CGT) in hereditary cancer syndromes remains underutilized for a number of reasons, including ineffective family communication of genetic risk information. Therefore, alternative strategies are being explored to improve CGT uptake rates; one such strategy is direct contact with at-risk relatives by healthcare professionals with proband consent. It is unclear how Italian laws and regulations pertaining to CGT-including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)-should be understood and implemented in the context of such alternative strategies. The authors constructed a hypothetical case about CGT, reviewed laws and regulations on informed consent, privacy, and the right not to know, and analyzed how those laws and regulations might apply to different communicative strategies relevant to the case and aimed at supporting CGT. A constitutionally consistent reading of Italian law and of the GDPR, an integral part of the Italian privacy framework, suggests that multiple communicative approaches may be legally permissible in Italy to support the CGT process. This includes direct contact by healthcare professionals with proband consent, provided certain conditions are met. Understanding the effectiveness of such approaches in improving CGT uptake will require further research efforts.

Keywords: Cascade genetic testing; Direct contact; GDPR; Hereditary cancer; Informed consent; Privacy; Right not to know.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Srinivasan S, Won NY, Dotson WD et al (2020) Barriers and facilitators for cascade testing in genetic conditions: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 28:1631–1644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00725-5 . - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Baroutsou V, Underhill-Blazey ML, Appenzeller-Herzog C, Katapodi MC (2021) Interventions facilitating family communication of genetic testing results and cascade screening in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer or lynch syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel) 13:925. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13040925 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Frey MK, Ahsan MD, Bergeron H et al (2022) Cascade testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: should we move toward direct relative contact? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 40:4129–4143. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.00303 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Baumann KE, Brodsky AL, Bhuptani B et al (2020) Why do patients decline cascade testing in families with an identified mutation associated with hereditary gynecologic cancers? Gynecol Oncol 159:257–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.442 - DOI
    1. Fehniger J, Lin F, Beattie MS et al (2013) Family communication of BRCA1/2 results and family uptake of BRCA1/2 testing in a diverse population of BRCA1/2 carriers. J Genet Couns 22:603–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9592-4 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources