The dynamic buffering of social support on depressive symptoms and cancer worries in patients seeking cancer genetic counseling.

PURPOSE: Social support is a crucial protective factor against psychological concerns in patients with cancer. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the differential impacts of social support on cancer worries and depressive symptoms in patients undergoing genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. The current study utilized a high-volume database from a multi-site cancer genetics clinic to assess the impact of perceived social support on depressive symptoms and cancer worries among patients of different age groups (young versus older patients) and diagnosis status (diagnosed survivors versus undiagnosed). METHODS: 6,666 patients completed brief assessments of depressive symptoms, cancer worries, social support, and demographic questionnaires as part of routine clinical care between October 2016 and October 2020. Logistics and moderated regression were used to analyze the relationships between social support, depressive symptoms, and cancer worries. RESULTS: Increased social support was associated with fewer depressive symptoms and fewer cancer worries across all patients. Social support mitigated depressive symptoms most significantly for young adult patients with and without cancer. Social support mitigated cancer worries most significantly for young adults with cancer and older adults without cancer. CONCLUSIONS: While results were mixed, general findings upheld original hypotheses. Social support buffered depressive symptoms and cancer worries differentially for patients of different ages and different disease status. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Social support groups are beneficial for all patients and should be emphasized by cancer clinics. However, increasing patient-tailored and age-appropriate support networks will be crucial for managing depression and cancer worries for high-risk survivors: young adults with cancer.

Exploring Depressive Symptoms and Cancer Worries in a High-Volume Cancer Genetics Clinic: What Are the Roles of Age and Cancer Diagnosis?

Limited research has explored depression and cancer worries (CWs) among adolescents and young adults with cancer (AYAs) seeking genetic counseling. This study evaluated depressive symptoms and CWs among five groups: AYAs, adolescents and young adults without cancer (AYAWOCs), older adults with cancer (OAs), older adults without cancer (OAWOCs), and older adults diagnosed with cancer in their adolescent and young adult years (OA/AYAs). A retrospective data analysis was performed on 6524 patients, which found that AYAs reported significantly higher depressive symptoms and CWs compared with all other groups except OA/AYAs. These findings suggest that the intersection between age and cancer diagnosis is related to depressive symptoms and CWs.

Standardized applications for genetic counseling graduate programs: Opinions of program directors.

Genetic Counseling Graduate Programs (GCGPs) have progressively increased in number and class size, and implementation of the National Matching Services in 2018 was a major step toward streamlining the admissions process. Standardized applications (SAs), which have been incorporated into the admissions process for undergraduate studies as well as several professional graduate programs, could also be considered for GCGPs. In this study, we assessed the opinions of GCGP Program Directors (PDs) regarding the implementation of an SA for GCGP admissions processes. GCGP PDs participated in an anonymous online survey designed to evaluate interest in an SA and assess perceived implementation barriers. The survey collected GCGP and PD demographic information, data on current application components, and PD opinions of an SA. Thirty PDs were included in this study, and just over half (n = 16/30, 53.3%) reported their current application structure would allow for SA implementation. While 40% (n = 12/30) of respondents anticipated an SA would benefit GCGPs, an additional 23.3% (n = 7/30) anticipated no impact to GCGPs. Most respondents (n = 26/30, 86.6%) anticipated that an SA would be beneficial for GCGP applicants. The main perceived benefit to GCGPs was an efficient application process, while perceived benefits to applicants included decreased redundancy and increased application access. Perceived harms to GCGPs included more generic applications, while perceived harms to applicants included increased competition for admission to individual GCGPs. The most common SA implementation barrier cited by respondents was current administrative structures. This study demonstrates that while GCGP leadership largely perceives an SA to be beneficial for applicants, opinions on impact to GCGPs vary. While the majority of respondents perceive implementation of an SA to be feasible, there are implementation barriers that must be addressed. Interestingly, GCGP leadership had mixed perceptions about the structure of a hypothetical SA, and thus overall impact, demonstrating the need for further study.

Prevalence of Variant Reclassification Following Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing.

Importance: Variant reclassification is an important component of hereditary cancer genetic testing; however, there are few published data quantifying the prevalence of reclassification. Objective: Retrospective cohort study of individuals who had genetic testing from 2006 through 2016 at a single commercial laboratory. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort of individuals who had genetic testing between 2006 and 2016 at a single commercial laboratory was assessed. Variants were classified as benign, likely benign, variant of uncertain significance, likely pathogenic, or pathogenic. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for patients from the University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) Medical Center. Exposures: Hereditary cancer genetic testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequency of and time to amended reports; frequency and types of variant reclassification. Results: From 2006 through 2018, 1.45 million individuals (median [interquartile range] age at testing, 49 years [40.69-58.31 years], 95.6% women) had genetic testing, and 56.6% (n = 821 724) had a personal history of cancer. A total of 1.67 million initial tests were reported and 59 955 amended reports were issued due to variant reclassification. Overall, 6.4% (2868 of 44 777) of unique variants were reclassified. Reclassification to a different clinical category was rare among unique variants initially classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic (0.7%, 61 of 9112) or benign or likely benign (0.2%, 15 of 8995). However, 7.7% (2048 of 26 670) of unique variants of uncertain significance were reclassified: 91.2% (1867 of 2048) were downgraded to benign or likely benign (median time to amended report, 1.17 years), 8.7% (178 of 2048) were upgraded to pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (median time to amended report, 1.86 years). Because most variants were observed in more than 1 individual, 24.9% (46 890 of 184 327) of all reported variants of uncertain significance were reclassified. Conclusions and Relevance: Following hereditary cancer genetic testing at a single commercial laboratory, 24.9% of variants of uncertain significance were reclassified, which included both downgrades and upgrades. Further research is needed to assess generalizability of the findings for other laboratories, as well as the clinical consequences of the reclassification as a component of a genetic testing program.

Cancers associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations other than breast and ovarian.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported additional cancers associated with BRCA mutations; however, the type, magnitude of risk, and sex differences remain to be clarified. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of cancers other than breast and ovarian cancer in known mutation carriers. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved study identified 1072 patients who had genetic counseling at the authors' institution and tested positive for a deleterious BRCA mutation. The expected number of cancer cases was calculated from the number of individuals in the study sample multiplied by the cancer incidence rates for the general population. The expected and observed numbers of cases were calculated in 5-year intervals to accommodate different age-related incidence rates. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for each cancer type were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 1072 mutation carriers, 1177 cancers of 30 different cancer types were identified. Individuals with a BRCA1 mutation did not have a significant increase in cancers other than breast and ovarian cancer; however, a trend in melanoma was observed. Individuals with a BRCA2 mutation had significantly higher numbers of observed cases versus expected cases for pancreatic cancer in both men and women (SIR, 21.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.1-34.0; P < .001) and for prostate cancer in men (SIR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.0-10.1; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study uphold the current recommendations for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer screening of cancers other than breast and ovarian cancer by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Larger cohorts and collaborations are needed to further verify these findings.