[Prevention of genetic diseases : the return of the family practitioner ?] / Prévention des maladies génétiques. Le retour du médecin de famille ?

BACKGROUND: Information to kin is one of the major ethical problems of the new genetics. In France, the revised bioethics law in 2011 created the possibility for patients to authorize professionals, under certain conditions, to directly contact their relatives at risk. Beyond this, other actors, such as GPs, could however play a role in this process. METHODS: Our article is based on an ethnographic-type sociological study by observations and semi-structured interviews with patients (n=59) and genetic professionals (n=16) that took place from 2014 to 2016 in three genetic hospital wards in France and Canada. It focuses particularly on genetic predispositions to breast and ovarian cancers as well as genetic hemochromatosis. RESULTS: Because of its position as a primary care specialist, the general practitioner can play a decisive role in the process of informing relatives about genetic disorders. Upstream of the genetic test, the generalist, thanks to his knowledge of the family context of his patients, can play a referral role towards a specialized consultation. Downstream, it can also ensure a more effective follow-up of the information procedures undertaken by its patients thanks to the medical follow-up that it carries out. CONCLUSION: The data collected during our study highlight the unprecedented place that could be that of the general practitioner in the field of prevention in genetics. At the articulation between primary care and highly specialized care, it is the figure of the "family" doctor who seems to be called here to be renewed by genetics.

Survey of primary care physicians' views about breast and ovarian cancer screening for true BRCA1/2 non-carriers.

Despite some controversy, true BRCA1/2 non-carriers are generally considered to be at an average risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Primary care physicians are then expected to encourage their non-carrier patients to adopt cancer screening practices appropriate to women of the same age in the general population. This study aimed to describe breast and ovarian cancer screening recommendations that primary care physicians would consider advisable for young true BRCA1/2 non-carriers. One hundred thirty-four family physicians and 123 gynecologists (response rate 45%) completed a cross-sectional mailed survey administered in the Province of Quebec, Canada. The survey included questions about basic genetic knowledge and screening recommendations for two fictitious cases (< 40 years), one carrier and one non-carrier, from a BRCA1/2 mutation-positive family. Screening exams considered advisable did not differ significantly between family physicians and gynecologists. More than 75% of physicians considered the cancer risks of true non-carriers to be comparable with that of the general population and 14% to be a little higher. Still, 53% would prescribe a biennial and or even an annual (27%) mammography to a non-carrier woman before the recommended starting age. Physician considerations of non-carriers' expectations or requests for screening were associated with more screening prescriptions. More than half of primary care physicians would recommend more mammography screenings than expected for a young true BRCA1/2 non-carrier. Personalized cancer risk assessment may help primary care physicians tailor screening of women from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families and allow these women to make more informed choices regarding cancer risk management options.

No evidence of excessive cancer screening in female noncarriers from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families.

BACKGROUND: In families with a proven BRCA1/2 mutation, women not carrying the familial mutation should follow the cancer screening recommendations applying to women in the general population. In the present study, we evaluated the cancer screening practices of unaffected noncarriers from families with a proven BRCA mutation, and we assessed the role of family history in their screening practices. METHODS: Self-report data were provided retrospectively by 220 unaffected female noncarriers for periods of up to 10 years (mean: 4.3 years) since disclosure of their BRCA1/2 genetic test result. A ratio for the annual frequency of breast and ovarian cancer screening exams (mammography, breast ultrasonography, breast magnetic resonance imaging, transvaginal or pelvic ultrasound, cancer antigen 125 testing) was calculated as number of screening exams divided by the number of years in the individual observation period. RESULTS: The annual average for mammography exams was 0.15, 0.4, 0.56, and 0.71 in women 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 years of age respectively. The uptake of other breast and ovarian cancer screening exams was very low. Mammography and breast ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were generally more frequent among participants with at least 1 first-degree relative affected by breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In most noncarriers, screening practices are consistent with the guidelines concerning women in the general population. When noncarriers adopt screening behaviours that are different from those that would be expected for average-risk women, those behaviours are influenced by their familial cancer history. IMPACT: Decision tools might help female noncarriers to be involved in their follow-up in accordance with their genetic status and their family history, while taking into account the benefits and disadvantages of cancer screening.

Characterization of a novel founder MSH6 mutation causing Lynch syndrome in the French Canadian population.

We identified an MSH6 mutation (c.10C>T, p.Gln4*) causing Lynch syndrome (LS) in 11 French Canadian (FC) families from the Canadian province of Quebec. We aimed to investigate the molecular and clinical implications of this mutation among FC carriers and to assess its putative founder origin. We studied 11 probands and 27 family members. Additionally 6433 newborns, 187 colorectal cancer (CRC) cases, 381 endometrial cancer (EC) cases and 179 additional controls, all of them from Quebec, were used. Found in approximately 1 of 400 newborns, the mutation is one of the most common LS mutations described. We have found that this mutation confers a greater risk for EC than for CRC, both in the 11 studied families and in the unselected cases: EC [odds ratio (OR) = 7.5, p < 0.0001] and CRC (OR = 2.2, p = 0.46). Haplotype analyses showed that the mutation arose in a common ancestor, probably around 430-656 years ago, coinciding with the arrival of the first French settlers. Application of the results of this study could significantly improve the molecular testing and clinical management of LS families in Quebec.