Advertisement

Familial Cancer

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 447–457 | Cite as

Supporting disclosure of genetic information to family members: professional practice and timelines in cancer genetics

  • Benjamin Derbez
  • Antoine de Pauw
  • Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet
  • Sandrine de MontgolfierEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Disclosure of genetic information within families is one of the longstanding questions under scrutiny in the field of genetics. Most of the probands entrusted with family disclosure succeed in this task, but there are still many problematic cases where it proves difficult. How can professionals help probands disclose this information? What levers can they activate to foster the diffusion of genetic information within families? In the context of a new legal framework concerning this question in France, this paper offers a comprehensive view of the process of genetic counselling in a cancer genetics department. Based on an ethnographic study, it focuses on the interactions between professionals and probands during each step of the testing procedures in order to identify key times when the issue can be addressed. The results show that the question of family disclosure needs to be addressed before, during and after the test. Greater awareness of this continuum among professionals could help them foster family disclosure by supporting the probands at each stage of the testing procedure

Keywords

Family communication Genetic results Genetic counseling At-risk relatives Ethnographical study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the members of the genetics department of the Institut Curie (Paris hospital) directed by Professor D. Stoppa-Lyonnet for letting us conduct this survey.

Funding

The authors thank the Cancéropole – Ile-de-France and INCa for funding the research project ‘Family disclosure in human genetics: implications and implementation of family disclosure in familial genetic disorders 2013–2016’ (Grant 2013−130).

Supplementary material

References

  1. 1.
    Arribas-Ayllon M, Featherstone K, Atkinson P (2010) The practical ethics of genetic responsibility: non-disclosure and the autonomy of affect. Soc Theory Health 9(1):3–23. doi: 10.1057/sth.2009.22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnoy S, Tabak N (2007) Israeli nurses and genetic information disclosure. Nurs Ethics 14(3):280–294. doi: 10.1177/0969733007075862 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bradbury AR, Patrick-Miller L, Egleston BL, Olopade OI, Daly MB, Moore CW, Daugherty CK et al (2012) When parents disclose BRCA1/2 test results: their communication and perceptions of offspring response. Cancer 118(13):3417–3425. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26471 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruwer Z, Futter M, Ramesar R (2013) Communicating cancer risk within an African context: experiences, disclosure patterns and uptake rates following genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. Patient Educ Couns 92(1):53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.02.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chivers Seymour K, Addington-Hall J, Lucassen AM, Foster CL (2010) What facilitates or impedes family communication following genetic testing for cancer risk? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of primary qualitative research. J Genet Couns 19(4):330–342. doi: 10.1007/s10897-010-9296-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Audiffret Van Haecke D, de Montgolfier S (2016) Genetic test results and disclosure to family members: qualitative Interviews of Healthcare Professionals’ Perceptions of Ethical and Professional Issues in France. J Genet Couns 25(3):483–494. doi: 10.1007/s10897-015-9896-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Geus E, Aalfs CM, Verdam MGE, de Haes HCJM, Smets EMA (2014) Informing relatives about their hereditary or familial cancer risk: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 15:86. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-86 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dheensa S, Fenwick A, Shkedi-Rafid S, Crawford G, Lucassen A (2016) Health-care professionals’ responsibility to patients’ relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research. Genet Med 18:290–301. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.72 (with supplementary table S1 online)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dugan RB, Wiesner GL, Juengst ET, O’Riordan M, Matthews AL, Robin NH (2003) Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease: genetic counselors’ clinical experience. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 119C:27–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eeles RA (2000) Future possibilities in the prevention of breast cancer: intervention strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res 2(4):283–290CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farnos C, Rial-Sebbag E (2013) The genetic information to relatives in 2012, to a patient empowerment for the benefit of his relatives. Presented at the Medical Law Topical Seminar, Les études hospitalières, BordeauxGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forrest LE, Delatycki MB, Curnow L, Skene L, Aitken M (2010) Genetic health professionals and the communication of genetic information in families: practice during and after a genetic consultation. Am J Med Genet A 152 A(6):1458–1466. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33385 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaff CL, Clarke AJ, Atkinson P, Sivell S, Elwyn G, Iredale R, Edwards A et al (2007) Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: a systematic review. Eur J Human Genet 15(10):999–1011. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201883 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Godard B, Hurlimann T, Letendre M, Égalité N (2006) Guidelines for disclosing genetic information to family members: from development to use. Fam Cancer 5(1):103–116. doi: 10.1007/s10689-005-2581-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hodgson J, Gaff C (2013) Enhancing family communication about genetics: ethical and professional dilemmas. J Genet Couns 22(1):16–21. doi: 10.1007/s10897-012-9514-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kardashian A, Fehniger J, Creasman J, Cheung E, Beattie MS (2012) A Pilot study of the sharing risk information tool (ShaRIT) for families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 10(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/1897-4287-10-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lapointe J, Côté C, Bouchard K, Godard B, Simard J, Dorval M (2013) Life events may contribute to family communication about cancer risk following BRCA1/2 testing. J Genet Couns 22(2):249–257. doi: 10.1007/s10897-012-9531-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Latour B, Biezunski M (2005) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. La Découverte, ParisGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liao SM (2009) Is there a duty to share genetic information? J Med Ethics 35(5):306–309. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.027029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Law No. 2011–814 dated 7 July 2011 (art. 2) (2011) Code de la santé publique. L1131-1, JORFGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McClellan KA, Kleiderman E, Black L, Bouchard K, Dorval M, Simard J, Avard D et al (2013) Exploring resources for intrafamilial communication of cancer genetic risk: we still need to talk. Eur J Hum Genet 21(9):903–910. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.286 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mendes Á, Paneque M, Sousa L, Clarke A, Sequeiros J (2016) How communication of genetic information within the family is addressed in genetic counselling: a systematic review of research evidence. Eur J Human Genet 24(3):315–325. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parker M, Lucassen AM (2004) Genetic information: a joint account?. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 329(7458):165–167. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7458.165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pujol P, Lyonnet DS, Frebourg T, Blin J, Picot MC, Lasset C, Nogues C et al (2013) Lack of referral for genetic counseling and testing in BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndromes: a nationwide study based on 240,134 consultations and 134,652 genetic tests. Breast Cancer Res Treat 141(1):135–144. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2669-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schrag D, Kuntz KM, Garber JE, Weeks JC (2000) Benefit of prophylactic mastectomy for women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. JAMA 283(23):3070–3072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strauss AL (1987) Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stol YH, Menko FH, Westerman MJ, Janssens RM (2010) Informing family members about a hereditary predisposition to cancer: attitudes and practices among clinical geneticists. J Med Ethics 36:391–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Suthers GK, Armstrong J, McCormack J, Trott D (2006) Letting the family know: balancing ethics and effectiveness when notifying relatives about genetic testing for a familial disorder. J Med Genet 43(8):665–670Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weil J (2003) Psychosocial genetic counselling in the post non-directive area: a point of view. J Genet Couns 12:199–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilson BJ, Forrest K, van Teijlingen ER, McKee L, Haites N, Matthews E, Simpson SA (2004) Family communication about genetic risk: the little that is known. Commun Genet 7(1):15–24. doi: 10.1159/000080300 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wiseman M, Dancyger C, Michie S (2010) Communicating genetic risk information within families: a review. Fam Cancer 9(4):691–703. doi: 10.1007/s10689-010-9380-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Derbez
    • 1
  • Antoine de Pauw
    • 3
  • Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Sandrine de Montgolfier
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les enjeux Sociaux (IRIS)Paris Cedex 13France
  2. 2.Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC)CréteilFrance
  3. 3.Service de Génétique Oncologique, Institut CurieParisFrance
  4. 4.INSERM U830ParisFrance
  5. 5.Université Paris DescartesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations