Key Points
• Inherited component of cancer risk may be subdivided into rare, high penetrance genes conferring a strong susceptibility to certain cancers, which may account for about 5% of cases, uncommon, moderately penetrant genes conferring a moderate risk increase, and common polymorphisms which alter disease risk a small amount.
• There are two types of genetic test for a strong inherited cancer susceptibility: a test for a mutation in an affected person (diagnostic) and a test for a known mutation in a family in an unaffected relative (predictive).
• There may be one of three outcomes of a diagnostic genetic test:
-
(1)
The test may reveal a pathogenic mutation, which explains the disease in the proband and allows genetic tests to be offered to their close relatives.
-
(2)
The test may not reveal a pathogenic mutation, so no genetic test will be available for close relatives, and no explanation will have been found for the cancer. However, other (probably lower penetrance) predisposing genes could still have contributed to the aetiology of the cancer.
-
(3)
A sequence change may be detected whose significance may not be clear, necessitating further tests to clarify this. Such variants are not uncommon.
• Genetic counselling for predictive and diagnostic testing follows clear protocols, including pre-test counselling with a discussion of the important consequences and options for management of a mutation carrier, the interpretation of results, and insurance and other relevant issues. The genetic test is followed by a results appointment and post-test counselling and support, as appropriate.
• Genetic testing for moderate risk susceptibility gene mutations are not in common use in the health service because the relative risk conferred is generally insufficient to warrant alterations in clinical management.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Antoniou AC, Cunningham AP, Peto J, et al. The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer 2008; 98: 1457–1466.
Broadstock M, Michie S, Marteau T. Psychological consequences of predictive genetic testing: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 2000; 8: 731–738.
Butow PN, Lobb EA, Meiser B, et al. Psychological outcomes and risk perception after genetic testing and counselling in breast cancer: a systematic review. MJA 2003; 178: 77–81.
Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerta A, et al. Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet 2003; 116A: 11–19.
Costalas JW, Itzen M, Malick J, et al. Communication of BRCA1 and BRCA2 results to at-risk relatives: a cancer risk assessment program’s experience. Am J Med Genet 2003; 119C: 11–18.
Daly MB, Barsevick A, Miller SM, et al. Communicating genetic test results to the family: a six-step, skills-building strategy. Fam Community Health 2001; 24: 13–26.
Evans DGR, Lalloo F. Risk assessment and management of high risk familial breast cancer. J Med Genet 2002; 39: 865–871.
Evans DG, Eccles DM, Rahman N, et al. A new scoring system for the chances of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation outperforms existing models including BRCAPRO. J Med Genet 2004; 41(6): 474–480.
Tutt A, Ashworth A. Can genetic testing guide treatment in breast cancer? Eur J Cancer 2008; 44: 2774–2780.
Goldgar DE, Easton DE, Deffenbaugh AM, et al. Integrated evaluation of DNA sequence variants of unknown clinical significance: application to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 2004; 75(4): 535–544.
Hampel H, Sweet K, Westman JA, et al. Referral for cancer genetics consultation: a review and compilation of risk assessment criteria. J Med Genet 2004; 41: 81–91.
Harris M, Winship I, Spriggs M. Controversies and ethical issues in cancer-genetics clinics. Lancet Oncol 2005; 6: 301–310.
Hughes C, Lerman C, Schwartz M, et al. All in the family: evaluation of the process and content of sisters’ communication about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results. Am J Med Genet 2002; 107: 143–150.
Kelly KM, Sweet K. In search of a familial cancer risk assessment tool. Clin Genet 2007; 71(1): 76–83.
McGivern B, Everett J, Yager GG, et al. Family communication about positive BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results. Genet Med 2004; 6(6): 503–509.
Papouli E, Cejka P, Jiricny J. Dependence of the cytotoxicity of DNA-damaging agents on the mismatch repair status of human cells. Cancer Res 2004; 64(10): 3391–3394.
Parker M, Lucassen A. Concern for families and individuals in clinical genetics. J Med Ethics 2003; 29: 70–73.
Pharoah PD, Antoniou AC, Easton DF, et al. Polygenes, risk prediction, and targeted prevention of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008; 358(26): 2796–2803.
Ratnam K, Low JA. Current development of clinical inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in oncology. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13(5): 1383–1388.
Schwartz MD, Lerman C, Brogan B, et al. Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 counseling and testing on newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2004; 15(10): 1823–1829.
Sermijn E, Goelen G, Teugels E, et al. The impact of proband mediated information dissemination in families with a BRCA1/2 gene mutation. J Med Genet 2004; 41(3): e23.
Smith KR, Zick CD, Mayer RN, et al. Voluntary disclosure of BRCA1 mutation test results. Genet Test 2002; 6(2): 89–92.
Stratton MR, Rahman N. The emerging landscape of breast cancer susceptibility. Nat Genet 2008; 40(1): 17–22.
Tomlinson IP, Webb E, Carvajal-Carmona L, et al. A genome-wide association study identifies colorectal cancer susceptibility loci on chromosomes 10p14 and 8q23.3. Nat Genet 2008; 40(5): 631–637.
Trepanier A, Ahrens M, Mckinnon W, et al. Genetic cancer risk assessment and counselling: recommendations of the national society of genetic counsellors. J Genet Couns 2004; 13(2): 83–114.
Weitzel JN, McCaffrey SM, Nedelcu R, et al. Effect of genetic cancer risk assessment on surgical decisions at breast cancer diagnosis. Arch Surg 2003; 138(12): 1323–1328.
Working party of the Clinical Genetics Society (UK). The genetic testing of children. J Med Genet 1994; 31: 785–797.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hodgson, S.V. (2010). Genetic Counselling for Common Diseases, Cancer Susceptibility as Paradigm. In: Kristoffersson, U., Schmidtke, J., Cassiman, J. (eds) Quality Issues in Clinical Genetic Services. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3919-4_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3919-4_37
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3918-7
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3919-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)