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.

Comparison of ultrasonography and physical examination in the diagnosis of incisional hernia in a prospective study.

PURPOSE: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal surgery (incidence 2-20%). Diagnosis by physical examination is sometimes difficult, especially in small incisional hernias or in obese patients. The additional diagnostic value of standardized ultrasonography was evaluated in this prospective study. METHODS: A total of 456 patients participating in a randomized trial comparing two suture materials for closure of the abdominal fascia underwent physical examination and ultrasonography at 6-month intervals. Wound complaints and treatment of incisional hernia were also noted. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests (SPSS). Interest variability analysis was performed. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 31 months, 103 incisional hernias were found. A total of 82 incisional hernias were found by physical examination and an additional 21 with ultrasonography. Six of these additional hernias were symptomatic and only one of the additional hernias received operative treatment. The false-negative rates for physical examination and ultrasonography were 25.3 and 24.4%, respectively. Interest variability was low, with a Kappa of 0.697 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There are no clear diagnostic criteria for incisional hernia available in the literature. Standardized combination of ultrasonography with physical examination during follow-up yields a significant number of, mostly asymptomatic, hernias, which would not be found using physical examination alone. This is especially relevant in research settings.

Randomized clinical trial comparing polypropylene or polydioxanone for midline abdominal wall closure.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal surgery, often requiring surgical intervention. This prospective randomized trial compared suture materials for closure of the fascia after abdominal surgery. METHODS: In 456 patients the abdominal fascia was closed with either non-absorbable (polypropylene; Prolene(®)) or absorbable (polydioxanone; PDS(®)) suture material. Follow-up was by clinical examination and ultrasonography at 6-month intervals. Outcome measures were incisional hernia, surgical-site infection and suture sinus. RESULTS: Some 223 patients were analysed after closure with Prolene(®) and 233 after PDS(®) . Median follow-up was 32 and 31 months respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia between the groups: 20·2 per cent (45 of 223) for Prolene(®) and 24·9 per cent (58 of 233) with PDS(®) (P = 0·229). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a cumulative rate after 4 years of 23·7 and 30·2 per cent for Prolene(®) and PDS(®) respectively (P = 0·222). Secondary outcome measures showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: The incidence of incisional hernia in both groups was higher than expected from previous literature. There were no significant differences between the two suture methods. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN65599814 (http://www.clinical-trials.com).