High-risk women’s risk perception after receiving personalized polygenic breast cancer risk information
Evidence is accumulating of the clinical utility of single nucleotide polymorphisms to effectively stratify risk of breast cancer. Yet for this personalized polygenic information to be translated to clinical practice, consideration is needed about how this personalized risk information should be communicated and the impact on risk perception. This study examined the psychosocial implications and the impact on risk perception of communicating personalized polygenic breast cancer risk to high-risk women. High-risk women with a personal history of breast cancer and an uninformative BRCA1/2 result were genotyped in the Variants in Practice study for 22 breast cancer single nucleotide polymorphisms. Participants in the highest quartile of polygenic breast cancer risk were invited to receive their individual research results. Two personalized visual risk communication tools were used to facilitate communication of the polygenic information. Participants subsequently undertook a semi-structured interview examining their experience of receiving their polygenic breast cancer risk and their breast cancer risk perception. Thirty-nine women opted to receive their results and were interviewed. The women described the risk communication tools as helpful as the tool enabled comparison of their personalized breast cancer risk to the general population. Participants incorporated the polygenic risk information into their breast cancer risk perception, which for some reawakened feelings of being at risk years after an uninformative BRCA1/2 result. However, few reported any detrimental emotional impact. The delivery of personalized polygenic breast cancer risk to high-risk women informed and modified their breast cancer risk perception with little emotional impact.
KeywordsBreast cancer risk Polygenic risk Single nucleotide polymorphism Risk perception Psychosocial
The authors would like to acknowledge all the women who took part in this study and gave their time so generously to participate in an interview. We would also like to acknowledge and thank the team in the Parkville Familial Cancer Centre at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre for accommodating the processes involved in this study. Many thanks to Rowan Forbes Shepherd, Maatje Scheepers-Joynt, and Victoria Rasmussen for their feedback on the manuscript.
Dr. Laura Forrest is funded by a postdoctoral fellowship from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia.
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5).
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Abel EK, Browner CH (1998) Selective compliance with biomedical authority and the uses of experiential knowledge. In: Lock M, Kaufert PA (eds) Pragmatic women and body politics. Cambridge Studies in Medical Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 310–326Google Scholar
- Bancroft EK et al (2014) “It’s all very well reading the letters in the genome, but it’s a long way to being able to write”: men’s interpretations of undergoing genetic profiling to determine future risk of prostate cancer. Fam Cancer 13:625–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-014-9734-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
- Hamajima N et al (2002) Alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer—collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 58,515 women with breast cancer and 95,067 women without the disease. Br J Cancer 87:1234–1245. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600596 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Henneman L, Timmermans DR, Bouwman CM, Cornel MC, Meijers-Heijboer H (2011) ‘A low risk is still a risk’: exploring women’s attitudes towards genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in order to target disease prevention. Public Health Genomics 14:238–247. https://doi.org/10.1159/000276543 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kurzenhauser S, Dieckmann A (2009) Risk communication: simple tools to foster understanding. In: Smoller JW, Sheidley BR, Tsuang MT (eds) Psychiatric genetics: applications in clinical practice. American Psychiatric Publishing, pp 47–65Google Scholar
- Li H et al (2016) Breast cancer risk prediction using a polygenic risk score in the familial setting: a prospective study from the Breast Cancer Family Registry and kConFab. Genet Med 19:30. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.43 https://www.nature.com/articles/gim201643#supplementary-information CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Mavaddat N et al (2015) Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants. J Natl Cancer Inst 107. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv036
- Strauss A, Corbin J (1994) Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks Sage Publications, California, pp 273–285Google Scholar
- Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, Haeberle L, Ziv E, Jensen MR, Brandt KR, Whaley DH, Olson JE, Heusinger K, Hack CC, Jud SM, Beckmann MW, Schulz-Wendtland R, Tice JA, Norman AD, Cunningham JM, Purrington KS, Easton DF, Sellers TA, Kerlikowske K, Fasching PA, Couch FJ (2015) The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 107:107. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yanes T, Meiser B, Young MA, Kaur R, Mitchell G, Barlow-Stewart K, Roscioli T, Halliday J, James P (2017) Psychosocial and behavioral impact of breast cancer risk assessed by testing for common risk variants: protocol of a prospective study. BMC Cancer 17:491. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3485-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Young MA et al (2017) Making sense of SNPs: women’s understanding and experiences of receiving a personalized profile of their breast cancer risks. J Genet Couns. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0162-z