Patients' experiences with pre-test genetic counseling provided by breast cancer healthcare professionals: Results from a large prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Pre-test genetic counseling of patients with breast cancer is increasingly being offered by non-genetic healthcare professionals. We aimed to evaluate the experiences of patients with breast cancer receiving pre-test genetic counseling from a non-genetic healthcare professional (i.e., surgeon or nurse). METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received pre-test counseling from their surgeon or nurse (mainstream group), and patients who received pre-test counseling from a clinical geneticist (usual care group) were invited to participate in our multicenter study. Between September 2019 and December 2021, patients received a questionnaire after pre-test counseling (T0) and four weeks after receiving their test results (T1) to evaluate psychosocial outcomes, knowledge, discussed topics and satisfaction. RESULTS: We included 191 patients in our mainstream and 183 patients in our usual care group and received, respectively 159 and 145 follow-up questionnaires. Levels of distress and decisional regret were comparable in both groups. Decisional conflict was higher in our mainstream group (p = 0.01), but only 7% had clinically relevant decisional conflict (vs 2% in usual care group). The possible implications of a genetic test on (secondary) breast or ovarian cancer risks were less frequently discussed in our mainstream group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.000, respectively). In both groups knowledge about genetics was comparable, satisfaction was high and the majority of patients in both groups preferred to give both verbal and written consent for genetic testing. CONCLUSION: Mainstreamed genetic care provides sufficient information for the majority of breast cancer patients to decide about genetic testing with minimal distress.

Surgical Oncologists and Nurses in Breast Cancer Care are Ready to Provide Pre-Test Genetic Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Pre-test genetic counseling for patients with breast cancer is increasingly being provided by nongenetic healthcare professionals. We evaluated the attitudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy of surgeons, oncologists, and nurses regarding mainstream genetic testing and the feasibility to incorporate pre-test genetic counseling into routine care. METHODS: We offered an online training to healthcare professionals from 13 hospitals and implemented a mainstream genetic testing pathway in 11/13 (85%) hospitals. Questionnaires were sent before (T0) and 6 months after (T1) completing the training. Those who did not complete the training received a questionnaire to assess their motivations. RESULTS: In 11 hospitals, 80 (65%) healthcare professionals completed the training, of whom 70 (88%) completed both questionnaires. The attitudes, (perceived) knowledge and self-efficacy of healthcare professionals were high both at baseline and 6 months after completing the training. After 6 months, their perceived knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of a genetic test and implications for family members had significantly improved (p = 0.012 and p = 0.021, respectively). For the majority (89%), the time investment for pre-test genetic counseling was less than 15 min per patient and as expected or better. Healthcare professionals considered the total time investment feasible to incorporate mainstream genetic testing into their daily practice. The main barrier to complete the training was lack of time. The online training was considered useful, with a rating of 8/10. CONCLUSION: Surgical oncologists and nurses in breast cancer care feel well-equipped and motivated to provide pre-test genetic counseling after completion of an online training module.

[Genetic risk of mental illness: what do we know and how do we communicate this?] / Genetisch risico van psychiatrische ziekten: wat weten we en hoe communiceren we dat?

BACKGROUND: Insights from psychiatric genetics research and large international psychiatric genetics consortia are promising but still remain outside the realm of clinical practice.
AIM: To provide an overview of developments in the field of psychiatric genetics; and to offer guidance for health professionals how to assess and manage clinical implications of these developments.
METHOD: In this review, we address: recent developments in psychiatric genetics, with a focus on polygenic risk scores (PRS); ethical dilemmas associated with clinical application of PRS; and basic principles of genetic counseling for psychiatric disorders.
RESULTS: PRS are not yet ready for implementation in clinical practice because of limited predictive value and poor generalizability. In addition, it is still unclear how genetic risk and PRS can be communicated clearly to patients and families.
CONCLUSION: Advances in psychiatric genetics and increased availability of genetic risk scores may lead to questions from patients and families coping with psychiatric illness. These questions may be best addressed using psychiatric genetic counseling techniques. We recommend that psychiatrists have some basic knowledge of psychiatric genetics and know how to refer their patients to a clinical geneticist. Implementing a psychiatric genetics theme in training and education may be helpful.
.

[Guidelines on genetic testing in psychiatry: an overview]. / Leidraad genetisch testen in de psychiatrie.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, technological advances have led to the identification of numerous genetic variations that are associated with psychiatric symptoms. Establishing a genetic cause may provide patients and family members with an explanation for the problems and in specific cases allows targeted treatment of psychiatric and somatic (co)morbidity. At present, patients with psychiatric disorders are rarely referred for genetic testing. AIM: To provide an overview of literature and (inter)national guidelines in the field of genetic testing for patients with psychiatric disorder, and to present guidance on indications for genetic testing in clinical practice. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase focusing on articles with recommendations on genetic testing in psychiatric disorders. In addition, national and international guidelines on genetic testing in psychiatry were studied. The main findings were summarized in an infographic. RESULTS: Based on the current literature and (inter)national guidelines, patients with (comorbid) intellectual disability should always be referred to a clinical geneticist. Psychiatrists should consider genetic testing in patients with other psychiatric disorders if there are ‘red flags’ such as a positive family history, congenital abnormalities, developmental delay, dysmorphic features, movement disorders or cognitive decline. Psychiatrists may request genetic testing themselves or refer patients to clinical geneticists. CONCLUSION: Psychiatric disorders may be underpinned by a genetic anomaly, particularly in patients presenting with psychiatric as well as somatic symptomatology. Psychiatrists should recognize symptoms and warning signs indicative of an underlying genetic abnormality, and know when to refer their patients for genetic testing.

Polygenic risk scores for genetic counseling in psychiatry: Lessons learned from other fields of medicine.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may aid in the identification of individuals at-risk for psychiatric disorders, treatment optimization, and increase in prognostic accuracy. PRS may also add significant value to genetic counseling. Thus far, integration of PRSs in genetic counseling sessions remains problematic because of uncertainties in risk prediction and other concerns. Here, we review the current utility of PRSs in the context of clinical psychiatry. By comprehensively appraising the literature in other fields of medicine including breast cancer, Alzheimer's Disease, and cardiovascular disease, we outline several lessons learned that could be applied to future studies and may thus benefit the incorporation of PRS in psychiatric genetic counseling. These include integrating PRS with environmental factors (e.g. lifestyle), setting up large-scale studies, and applying reproducible methods allowing for cross-validation between cohorts. We conclude that psychiatry may benefit from experiences in these fields. PRS may in future have a role in genetic counseling in clinical psychiatric practice, by advancing prevention strategies and treatment decision-making, thus promoting quality of life for (potentially) affected individuals.

Genetic counseling of patients with ovarian carcinoma: acceptance, timing, and psychological wellbeing.

The new Dutch guidelines on hereditary and familial ovarian carcinoma recommend genetic testing of all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). With this study, we aimed to obtain insight into (1) the acceptance and timing of the offer of genetic counseling in women with EOC, (2) reasons for accepting or declining genetic counseling, and (3) psychological differences between women who did and did not have genetic counseling. A multicenter questionnaire survey was performed in patients with EOC in four Dutch oncology centers. The questionnaire addressed whether, how, and when genetic counseling was offered, women's arguments to accept or decline genetic counseling, and included the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). A total of 67 women completed the questionnaire, of which 43 had genetic counseling. Despite a wide variability in the timing of the offer of genetic counseling, 89% of the women were satisfied with the timing. No significant differences were found between the CWS and HADS scores for the timing of the offer of genetic counseling and whether or not women had genetic counseling. Taking the small sample size into account, the results tentatively suggest that genetic counseling may have limited impact on the psychosocial wellbeing of women with EOC. Therefore, we assume that implementation of the new guidelines offering genetic counseling to all patients with EOC will not cause considerable additional burden to these patients.

Evaluation of an online family history tool for identifying hereditary and familial colorectal cancer.

Identifying a hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome or familial CRC (FCC) in a CRC patient may enable the patient and relatives to enroll in surveillance protocols. As these individuals are insufficiently recognized, we evaluated an online family history tool, consisting of a patient-administered family history questionnaire and an automated genetic referral recommendation, to facilitate the identification of patients with hereditary CRC or FCC. Between 2015 and 2016, all newly diagnosed CRC patients in five Dutch outpatient clinics, were included in a trial with a stepped-wedge design, when first visiting the clinic. Each hospital continued standard procedures for identifying patients at risk (control strategy) and then, after a predetermined period, switched to offering the family history tool to included patients (intervention strategy). After considering the tool-based recommendation, the health care provider could decide on and arrange the referral. Primary outcome was the relative number of CRC patients who received screening or surveillance recommendations for themselves or relatives because of hereditary CRC or FCC, provided by genetic counseling. The intervention effect was evaluated using a logit-linear model. With the tool, 46/489 (9.4%) patients received a screening or surveillance recommendation, compared to 35/292 (12.0%) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat-analysis, accounting for time trends and hospital effects, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.58). A family history tool does not necessarily assist in increasing the number of CRC patients and relatives enrolled in screening or surveillance recommendations for hereditary CRC or FCC. Other interventions should be considered.

[DNA diagnostics in dementia]. / DNA-diagnostiek bij dementie.

- Thanks to next-generation sequencing several genes can be examined in one go. Since this method has been introduced, the possibilities for DNA diagnostics in patients with dementia have increased tremendously in recent years.- DNA diagnostics is indicated for patients with an Alzheimer's disease diagnosis before they are 60 years old, for all patients with frontotemporal dementia and for patients with a positive family history.- For 15% of the patients who visited the Alzheimer centre of the VUmc, in Amsterdam, the Netherlands DNA diagnostics indicated a clear monogenic cause.- Although a hereditary cause of dementia is often a hard message for patients and their families, this knowledge often provides them with more clarity with respect to the diagnosis and the course of the disease. In addition, family members may choose to carry out presymptomatic DNA testing.- The therapeutical consequences of DNA diagnostics are currently minimal; several studies are being carried out internationally in this area.

[Making better use of the clinical geneticist's expertise; treating physician could request a DNA test for most cancer patients]. / Expertise van klinisch geneticus beter benutten.

Eight university medical centres in the Netherlands have established clinical genetic services. Patients receive intensive, and therefore costly, genetic counselling before genetic testing takes place. In recent years the number of patients referred to clinical genetic services has risen dramatically, creating waiting-list backlogs. Knowing your carrier status in hereditary cancers, for instance for a BRCA1/2 mutation, can have consequences for surveillance, treatment, and prevention; however, 90% of patients with breast cancer do not have a mutation. We, therefore, argue that the pathway to genetic testing should be reconstructed in order to safeguard timely and adequate genetic testing for an increasing number of patients. The treating physician should be able to request a DNA test in carefully-selected patient-populations, and only refer patients for genetic counselling after a positive finding. Prerequisites for this 'mainstream pathway' are adequate training for medical specialists, good communication with genetics' departments, and guaranteed referral in uncertain or complex cases.

Colorectal cancer risk variants at 8q23.3 and 11q23.1 are associated with disease phenotype in APC mutation carriers.

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a dominantly inherited syndrome caused by germline mutations in the APC gene and characterized by the development of multiple colorectal adenomas and a high risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). The severity of polyposis is correlated with the site of the APC mutation. However, there is also phenotypic variability within families with the same underlying APC mutation, suggesting that additional factors influence the severity of polyposis. Genome-wide association studies identified several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are associated with CRC. We assessed whether these SNPs are associated with polyp multiplicity in proven APC mutation carriers. Sixteen CRC-associated SNPs were analysed in a cohort of 419 APC germline mutation carriers from 182 families. Clinical data were retrieved from the Dutch Polyposis Registry. Allele frequencies of the SNPs were compared for patients with <100 colorectal adenomas versus patients with ≥100 adenomas, using generalized estimating equations with the APC genotype as a covariate. We found a trend of association of two of the tested SNPs with the ≥100 adenoma phenotype: the C alleles of rs16892766 at 8q23.3 (OR 1.71, 95 % CI 1.05-2.76, p = 0.03, dominant model) and rs3802842 at 11q23.1 (OR 1.51, 95 % CI 1.03-2.22, p = 0.04, dominant model). We identified two risk variants that are associated with a more severe phenotype in APC mutation carriers. These risk variants may partly explain the phenotypic variability in families with the same APC gene defect. Further studies with a larger sample size are recommended to evaluate and confirm the phenotypic effect of these SNPs in FAP.

A multicentre comparative prospective blinded analysis of EUS and MRI for screening of pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and MRI are promising tests to detect precursors and early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in high-risk individuals (HRIs). It is unclear which screening technique is to be preferred. We aimed to compare the efficacy of EUS and MRI in their ability to detect clinically relevant lesions in HRI. DESIGN: Multicentre prospective study. The results of 139 asymptomatic HRI (>10-fold increased risk) undergoing first-time screening by EUS and MRI are described. Clinically relevant lesions were defined as solid lesions, main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and cysts ≥10 mm. Results were compared in a blinded, independent fashion. RESULTS: Two solid lesions (mean size 9 mm) and nine cysts ≥10 mm (mean size 17 mm) were detected in nine HRI (6%). Both solid lesions were detected by EUS only and proved to be a stage I PDAC and a multifocal pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia 2. Of the nine cysts ≥10 mm, six were detected by both imaging techniques and three were detected by MRI only. The agreement between EUS and MRI for the detection of clinically relevant lesions was 55%. Of these clinically relevant lesions detected by both techniques, there was a good agreement for location and size. CONCLUSIONS: EUS and/or MRI detected clinically relevant pancreatic lesions in 6% of HRI. Both imaging techniques were complementary rather than interchangeable: contrary to EUS, MRI was found to be very sensitive for the detection of cystic lesions of any size; MRI, however, might have some important limitations with regard to the timely detection of solid lesions.

Validation of an online questionnaire for identifying people at risk of familial and hereditary colorectal cancer.

We developed and validated an online questionnaire to document familial cancer history, in order to facilitate the detection of persons with a familial or hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. The development of the self-administered online questionnaire for the assessment of familial and hereditary CRC risk was based on nationwide criteria for referral to genetic specialists due to a Lynch syndrome suspicion, as well as existing criteria for surveillance colonoscopies because of an increased risk of familial CRC. The questionnaire was validated at a private colonoscopy center. Patients scheduled for colonoscopy were enrolled (n = 150). Performance of the questionnaire was assessed by comparing referrals based on questionnaire data against referral decisions based on full pedigree data. In a second validation phase, referrals based on questionnaire data were compared with referrals based on data collected in a telephone interview. We also calculated inter-observer agreement in referral decisions. In the first validation phase, the questionnaire had a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 55-98%) at a specificity of 98% (95% CI 87-100%) in identifying persons qualifying for referral. In the second validation phase, sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 63-100) at a specificity of 97% (95% CI 91-99%). In both validation phases an inter-observer agreement of 100% in referral decisions was achieved. The online questionnaire has a high sensitivity and specificity in identifying persons qualifying for referral because of suspected Lynch syndrome or familial CRC. Implementation of this tool in colonoscopy clinics can facilitate the detection of patients with hereditary or familial CRC.

Prenatal testing for Huntington's disease in the Netherlands from 1998 to 2008.

This study aims to give an overview of the number of prenatal tests for Huntington's disease (HD), test results, and pregnancy outcomes in the Netherlands between 1998 and 2008 and to compare them with available data from the period 1987 to 1997. A total of 126 couples underwent prenatal diagnosis (PND) on 216 foetuses: 185 (86%) direct tests and 31 (14%) exclusion tests. In 9% of direct tests the risk for the foetus was 25%. Four at-risk parents (4%) carried intermediate alleles. Ninety-one foetuses had CAG expansions ≥36% or 50% risk haplotypes: 75 (82%) were terminated for HD, 12 (13%) were carried to term; four pregnancies were miscarried, terminated for other reasons or lost to follow-up. Unaffected pregnancies (122 foetuses) resulted in the birth of 112 children. The estimated uptake of PND was 22% of CAG expansion carriers (≥36 repeats) at reproductive age. PND was used by two new subgroups: carriers of intermediate alleles and 50% at-risk persons opting for a direct prenatal test of the foetus. A significant number of HD expansion or 50% risk pregnancies were continued. Speculations were made on causative factors contributing to these continuations. Further research on these couples' motives is needed.

Association of PHB 1630 C>T and MTHFR 677 C>T polymorphisms with breast and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: results from a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The variable penetrance of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers suggests that other genetic or environmental factors modify breast cancer risk. Two genes of special interest are prohibitin (PHB) and methylene-tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), both of which are important either directly or indirectly in maintaining genomic integrity. METHODS: To evaluate the potential role of genetic variants within PHB and MTHFR in breast and ovarian cancer risk, 4102 BRCA1 and 2093 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 6211 BRCA1 and 2902 BRCA2 carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (CIMBA) were genotyped for the PHB 1630 C>T (rs6917) polymorphism and the MTHFR 677 C>T (rs1801133) polymorphism, respectively. RESULTS: There was no evidence of association between the PHB 1630 C>T and MTHFR 677 C>T polymorphisms with either disease for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers when breast and ovarian cancer associations were evaluated separately. Analysis that evaluated associations for breast and ovarian cancer simultaneously showed some evidence that BRCA1 mutation carriers who had the rare homozygote genotype (TT) of the PHB 1630 C>T polymorphism were at increased risk of both breast and ovarian cancer (HR 1.50, 95%CI 1.10-2.04 and HR 2.16, 95%CI 1.24-3.76, respectively). However, there was no evidence of association under a multiplicative model for the effect of each minor allele. CONCLUSION: The PHB 1630TT genotype may modify breast and ovarian cancer risks in BRCA1 mutation carriers. This association need to be evaluated in larger series of BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Evaluation of the XRCC1 gene as a phenotypic modifier in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Results from the consortium of investigators of modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2.

BACKGROUND: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in DNA repair are good candidates to be tested as phenotypic modifiers for carriers of mutations in the high-risk susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. The base excision repair (BER) pathway could be particularly interesting given the relation of synthetic lethality that exists between one of the components of the pathway, PARP1, and both BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this study, we have evaluated the XRCC1 gene that participates in the BER pathway, as phenotypic modifier of BRCA1 and BRCA2. METHODS: Three common SNPs in the gene, c.-77C>T (rs3213245) p.Arg280His (rs25489) and p.Gln399Arg (rs25487) were analysed in a series of 701 BRCA1 and 576 BRCA2 mutation carriers. RESULTS: An association was observed between p.Arg280His-rs25489 and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers, with rare homozygotes at increased risk relative to common homozygotes (hazard ratio: 22.3, 95% confidence interval: 14.3-34, P<0.001). This association was further tested in a second series of 4480 BRCA1 and 3016 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2. CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRETATION: No evidence of association was found when the larger series was analysed which lead us to conclude that none of the three SNPs are significant modifiers of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers.

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer in families referred for fumarate hydratase germline mutation analysis.

Heterozygous fumarate hydratase (FH) germline mutations cause hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC), an autosomal dominant syndrome characterized by multiple cutaneous piloleiomyomas, uterine leiomyomas and papillary type 2 renal cancer. The main objective of our study was to evaluate clinical and genetic data from families suspected of HLRCC on a nationwide level. All families referred for FH mutation analysis in the Netherlands were assessed. We performed FH sequence analysis and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Families with similar FH mutations were examined for haplotype sharing. In 14 out of 33 families, we identified 11 different pathogenic FH germline mutations, including 4 novel mutations and 1 whole-gene deletion. Clinical data were available for 35 FH mutation carriers. Cutaneous leiomyomas were present in all FH mutation carriers older than 40 years of age. Eleven out of 21 female FH mutation carriers underwent surgical treatment for symptomatic uterine leiomyomas at an average of 35 years. Two FH mutation carriers had papillary type 2 renal cancer and Wilms' tumour, respectively. We evaluated the relevance of our findings for clinical practice and have proposed clinical diagnostic criteria, indications for FH mutation analysis and recommendations for management.

The yield of first-time endoscopic ultrasonography in screening individuals at a high risk of developing pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 10-15% of all pancreatic cancers (PCs) may be hereditary in origin. We investigated the use of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the screening of individuals at high risk for developing PC. In this paper the results of first-time screening with EUS are presented. METHODS: Those eligible for screening in this study were first-degree family members of affected individuals from familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) families, mutation carriers of PC-prone hereditary syndromes, individuals with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, and mutation carriers of other PC-prone hereditary syndromes with clustering (> or =2 cases per family) of PC. All individuals were asymptomatic and had not undergone EUS before. RESULTS: Forty-four individuals (M/F 18/26), aged 32-75 years underwent screening with EUS. Thirteen were from families with familial atypical multiple-mole melanoma (FAMMM), 21 with FPC, 3 individuals were diagnosed with hereditary pancreatitis, 2 were Peutz-Jeghers patients, 3 were BRCA1 and 2 were BRCA2 mutation carriers with familial clustering of PC, and 1 individual had a p53 mutation. Three (6.8%) patients had an asymptomatic mass lesion (12, 27, and 50 mm) in the body (n=2) or tail of the pancreas. All lesions were completely resected. Pathology showed moderately differentiated adenocarcinomas with N1 disease in the two patients with the largest lesions. EUS showed branch-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN) in seven individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Screening of individuals at a high risk for PC with EUS is feasible and safe. The incidence of clinically relevant findings at first screening is high with asymptomatic cancer in 7% and premalignant IPMN-like lesions in 16% in our series. Whether screening improves survival remains to be determined, as does the optimal screening interval with EUS.

A comparison of counselee and counselor satisfaction in reproductive genetic counseling.

Important insights in the process of genetic counseling can be provided by establishing levels of satisfaction. The aim of our study was to compare counselees' and counselors' satisfaction with the initial consultation in reproductive genetic counseling and to gain insight into the factors associated with their contentment. One hundred and fifty-one women and 11 counselors participated in this study. Pre-test questionnaires included counselees' socio-demographic, physical and psychological characteristics, i.e. their degree of worry, expectations, preferred participation in decision making and experienced degree of control. Post-visit questionnaires asked for counselees' and counselors' satisfaction, counselees' participation in decision making and counselees' Perceived Personal Control (PPC). Little difference was found between counselees' and counselors' overall visit-specific satisfaction (mean 79 vs 74, respectively, on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100). The correlation between counselees' and counselors' satisfaction was medium sized (r = 0.26, p < 0.01). Counselees' satisfaction was positively associated with being pregnant and with their post-visit PPC. Counselors' satisfaction was positively associated with counselees' post-visit PPC. No other counselee and counselor related variables appeared to be associated with satisfaction, nor was the duration of the consultation. Our findings suggest that, although both groups were satisfied with the consultation, counselees and counselors do not always have equal perceptions of the consultation process and may form their evaluation in different ways. In the assessment of quality of care, evaluation of both counselees' and counselors' satisfaction deserves more attention.

Genetic counselling for familial conditions during pregnancy: a review of the literature published during the years 1989-2004.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counselling for familial conditions during pregnancy may have some disadvantages, such as time pressure and induced worry. However, little is known about the reasons for and consequences of this timing of genetic counselling. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide an overview of research aimed at the counselee's reasons for seeking genetic counselling during pregnancy and the medical-technical and procedural consequences thereof. METHODS: We searched the databases Medline and PsycINFO for primary research papers, reviews and case reports, published from 1989 to June 2004. RESULTS: No papers could be retrieved which explicitly addressed our research questions. However, 34 papers, out of a total of 399 papers, covered issues with some relevance to our research questions. Limited knowledge and alertness towards genetics and a greater apparent relevance of genetic issues during pregnancy seemed to explain, at least partly, the timing of referral during pregnancy. Literature on the consequences of this timing for the quality of the genetic counselling process appeared to be scarce. These consequences, therefore, remain unclear. CONCLUSION: In the literature, little attention is paid to the various aspects of the timing of genetic counselling for familial conditions during pregnancy. More research on this issue is important, with a view to improving the care of pregnant women and their children.

Multiplicity in polyp count and extracolonic manifestations in 40 Dutch patients with MYH associated polyposis coli (MAP).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the contribution of MYH associated polyposis coli (MAP) among polyposis families in the Netherlands, and the prevalence of colonic and extracolonic manifestations in MAP patients. METHODS: 170 patients with polyposis coli, who previously tested negative for APC mutations, were screened by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and direct sequencing to identify MYH germline mutations. RESULTS: Homozygous and compound heterozygous MYH mutations were identified in 40 patients (24%). No difference was found in the percentage of biallelic mutation carriers between patients with 10-99 polyps or 100-1000 polyps (29% in both groups). Colorectal cancer was found in 26 of the 40 patients with MAP (65%) within the age range 21 to 67 years (median 45). Complete endoscopic reports were available for 16 MAP patients and revealed five cases with gastro-duodenal polyps (31%), one of whom also presented with a duodenal carcinoma. Breast cancer occurred in 18% of female MAP patients, significantly more than expected from national statistics (standardised morbidity ratio = 3.75). CONCLUSIONS: Polyp numbers in MAP patients were equally associated with the attenuated and classical polyposis coli phenotypes. Two thirds of the MAP patients had colorectal cancer, 95% of whom were older than 35 years, and one third of a subset of patients had upper gastrointestinal lesions. Endoscopic screening of the whole intestine should be carried out every two years for all MAP patients, starting from age 25-30 years. The frequent occurrence of additional extraintestinal manifestations, such as breast cancer among female MAP patients, should be thoroughly investigated.