As genetic testing for cancer is integrated into the routine clinical
management of cancer patients and their high-risk relatives, oncologists
and nurses will undoubtedly be called upon to provide genetic
information. Evidence for this comes from recent studies documenting
a very high level of interest in genetic testing among cancer
patients, their relatives, and members of the general population
[1-4]. Preliminary data suggest that among high-risk family members,
these self-reported intentions usually translate into actual utilization
of genetic testing . To meet this demand for genetic information,
cancer-care providers will be challenged to expand their current
repertoire of skills and services.
An important concern surrounding the clinical application of genetic
technology is the psychological impact of communicating test results
[6,7]. How should providers counsel their patients about cancer
risks and the meaning of genetic test results? Although similar
concerns have been noted in the context of predictive genetic
testing for other late-onset diseases, such as Huntington's disease,
testing for cancer susceptibility raises unprecedented psychological
One example is the issue of uncertainty. The need to reduce uncertainty
has been commonly cited by prospective participants in genetic
testing programs as a reason for being tested [8,9]. In the cancer
domain, however, both carriers and noncarriers of mutations
face significant ambiguity and uncertainty about whether and when
cancer will develop.
A second issue concerns the appropriateness of the traditional
nondirective stance of genetic counseling . Cancer, unlike
Huntington's disease, is potentially preventable and can be treated
effectively if detected early. Therefore, a comprehensive cancer-risk
counseling program must not only educate patients to facilitate
informed decisions but also promote long-term changes in risk-related
health behaviors and surveillance patterns. In our view, this
goal cannot and will not be achieved without addressing the beliefs,
emotions, and relationships that influence these behaviors.
The purpose of this paper is to address some of the emerging psychological
issues and challenges posed by genetic testing for cancer risk.
First, we present a description of the psychological characteristics
of individuals who are likely to come forward for such testing.
Next, we describe the range of possible adverse emotional reactions,
with particular attention to the possible impact of distress on
prevention and surveillance behaviors. In addition, we address
issues surrounding the genetic counseling process and family coping
and adaptation. Finally, suggestions for managing the psychological
sequelae of genetic testing are offered.
With the cloning of the BRCA1 gene for hereditary breast-ovarian
cancer (HBOC)  and the hMLH1 and hMSH2 genes for hereditary
nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) [12-14], the availability
of direct mutation testing is imminent. The funding of grants
to establish pilot predictive testing programs for cancer has
made genetic testing available on an experimental basis .
Although recent consensus statements do not advocate population
screening , relatives of cancer patients and persons at increased
risk have been targeted for recruitment into pilot predictive
Previous studies of individuals at increased risk for cancer can
inform us about the psychological profile of this target population.
Heightened anxiety is cited most widely as a feature of women
at increased risk for breast cancer. One study of women who, on
their own initiative, participated in a breast cancer surveillance
program found that over one-fourth of them exhibited psychological
distress severe enough to warrant clinical intervention .
A recent study of first-degree female relatives of breast cancer
patients  documented a wide range of self-reported traumatic
stress symptoms, ranging from intrusive thoughts (53%) to sleep
disturbances (22%). Stress-related impairment in the ability to
perform routine daily activities was reported by 30% of women.
Women with a family history of ovarian cancer may be especially
vulnerable to psychological distress. The protracted morbidity
and high mortality associated with this disease generates anguish
and apprehension in unaffected female relatives of patients .
High-risk women who have information-seeking coping styles may
be especially prone to adverse emotional reactions [2,20]. Their
efforts to attenuate distress by consuming relevant information
only seem to heighten their sense of vulnerability and anxiety
The subset of high-risk individuals who opt for genetic testing
for cancer susceptibility may be the most psychologically vulnerable.
Among relatives of ovarian cancer patients, those who were most
interested in BRCA1 testing also were the most anxious and distressed
. These findings contrast with studies of predictive testing
for Huntington's disease, in which persons who came forward for
testing were the most well-adjusted . In other words, self-selection
for Huntington's disease testing produced a very high-functioning
sample of participants.
This discrepancy may reflect fundamental differences in the natural
history of Huntington's disease and cancer. Unlike Huntington's
disease, cancer is potentially preventable and can be treated
effectively if detected early. Empirical data from actual pilot
testing programs is necessary to elucidate more fully the characteristics
of high-risk individuals who present for genetic testing for cancer
risk. Nevertheless, the data reported to date indicate clearly
that clinicians who offer genetic testing should incorporate psychological
screening and services into their programs.
Before implementing a genetic testing program, a clinician must
consider the time and resources necessary to provide a minimal
standard of care. In the case of counseling, the amount of time
can be substantial. In a BRCA1 testing program at the University
of Utah, for example, initial visits with the genetic counselor
typically last 2 hours or more. One reason is that laypeople have
little or no prior knowledge of genetics. In addition, there are
a number of relatively unique aspects of inherited cancer that
must be explained (eg, incomplete penetrance, etiologic heterogeneity).
Finally, it is important that clinicians encourage patients' questions
and provide adequate opportunities for them to express their concerns.
Given the complexity of genetic information, the communication
process must be carefully considered. Several studies of patient-provider
communication have shown that patients immediately forget or misunderstand
much of what they are told . Physicians tend to overestimate
their patients' knowledge and adherence to recommended health
practices [23,24]. In addition, they underestimate both the amount
of time they spend informing patients and the desire of patients
for more information . Deficiencies in patient-provider communication
may increase the likelihood of psychological adjustment problems
in patients at risk for cancer .
Certified genetic counselors can play a unique, critical role
in providing effective patient education. Because their training
and experience focus precisely on the task at hand, they are often
in a better position to explain inheritance and the meaning of
test results than are physicians.
A common practice among genetic counselors that may be unfamiliar
to oncologists is the use of detailed follow-up letters that reiterate
information communicated during a counseling session. We endorse
this strategy strongly, especially since effective patient education
materials for cancer genetic testing have yet to be developed.
When a team approach is used, oncologists' time may be best spent
on specific discussions of the medical options that may be faced
by mutation carriers. The genetic counselor or nurse oncologist
can then serve as an ongoing liaison between the physician and
patient as additional questions arise.
1. Struewing J, Lerman C, Kase R, et al: Anticipated uptake and
impact of genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer
families. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 4:169-173, 1995.
2. Lerman C, Daly M, Masny A, et al: Attitudes about genetic testing
for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 12:843-850,
3. Lerman C, Seay J, Balshem A, et al: Interest in genetic testing
among first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients. Am J Med
Genet 57:385-392, 1995.
4. Croyle RT, Lerman C: Interest in genetic testing for colon
cancer susceptibility: Cognitive and emotional correlates. Prev
Med 22:284-292, 1993.
5. Lynch HT, Watson P, Conway TA, et al: DNA screening for breast/ovarian
cancer susceptibility on linked markers: A family study. Arch
Intern Med 153:1979-1987, 1993.
6. Li FP, Garber JE, Friend SH, et al: Recommendations on predictive
testing for germ line p53 mutations among cancer-prone individuals.
J Natl Cancer Inst 84:1156-1160, 1992.
7. Lerman C, Croyle R: Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility:
Behavioral science issues. J Natl Cancer Inst 17:63-66, 1995.
8. Meissen G, Mastromauro CA, Kiely DK, et al: Understanding the
decision to take the predictive test for Huntington Disease. Am
J Med Genet 39:404-410, 1991.
9. Zerres K, Stephe M: Attitudes to early diagnosis of polycystic
kidney disease. Lancet 2:1395, 1986.
10. Lerman C, Croyle R: Psychological issues in genetic testing
for breast cancer susceptibility. Arch Intern Med 154:609-616,
11. Miki Y, Swensen J, Shalluck-Eidens D, et al: A strong candidate
for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science
12. Fishel R, Lescoe MK, Rao MRS, et al: The human mutator gene
homolog MSH2 and its association with hereditary nonpolyposis
colon cancer. Cell 75:1027-1038, 1993.
13. Lindblom A, Tannergard P, Werelius B, et al: Genetic mapping
of a second locus predisposing to hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal
cancer. Nat Genet 5:279-282, 1993.
14. Peltomaki P, Aaltonen L, Sistonen P, et al: Genetic mapping
of a locus predisposing to human colorectal cancer. Science 260:810-812,
15. NIH News: NIH Components Take on Issues Related to Genetic
Testing for Cancer Risk, pp 1-4. US Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health,
October 3, 1994.
16. ASHG Committee on BRCA1 Testing: Recommendations on genetic
testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. Am J Hum
Genet 55:ii-iv, 1994.
17. Kash KM, Holland JC, Halper MS, et al: Psychological distress
and surveillance behaviors of women with a family history of breast
cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:24-30, 1992.
18. Lerman C, Daly M, Sands C, et al: Mammography adherence and
psychological distress among women at risk for breast cancer.
J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1074-1080, 1993.
19. Schwartz MD, Lerman C, Miller SM, et al: Coping disposition,
perceived risk, and psychological distress among women at increased
risk for ovarian cancer. Health Psychol 14:232-235, 1995.
20. Wardle FJ, Collins W, Pernet AL, et al: Psychological impact
of screening for familial ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:653-657,
21. Bloch M, Fahy M, Fox S, et al: Predictive testing for Huntington
disease: II. Demographic characteristics, life-style patterns,
attitudes, and psychosocial assessments of the first fifty-one
test candidates. Am J Med Genet 32:217-224, 1989.
22. Ley P: Memory for medical information. Br J Soc Clin Psychol
23. Meichenbaum D, Turk DC: Facilitating Treatment Adherence:
A Practitioner's Handbook. New York, Plenum Press, 1987.
24. Guttman N: Patient-practitioner information exchange as an
asymmetrical social encounter: Do patients actually know what
their practitioners think they know? in Schement JR, Ruben BD
(eds): Between Communication and Information: Information and
Behavior, vol 4, pp 293-317. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction, 1993.
25. Waitzkin H: Information giving in medical care. J Health Soc
Behav 26:81-101, 1985.
26. Lerman C, Daly M, Walsh WP, et al: Communication between patients
with breast cancer and health care providers: Determinants and
implications. Cancer 72:2612-2620, 1993.
27. Biesecker BB, Boehnke M, Calzone K, et al: Genetic counseling
for families with inherited susceptibility to breast and ovarian
cancer. JAMA 269:1970-1974, 1993.
28. Glanz K, Lerman C: Psychosocial impact of breast cancer: A
critical review. Ann Behav Med 14:204-212, 1992.
29. Andersen BL: Psychological interventions for cancer patients
to enhance the quality of life.
J Consult Clin Psychol 60:552-568, 1992.
30. Huggins M, Bloch M, Wiggins S, et al: Predictive testing for
Huntington disease in Canada: Adverse effects and unexpected results
in those receiving a decreased risk. Am J Med Genet 42:508-515,
31. Tibben A, Duivenvoorden HJ, Vegter-van der Vlis M, et al:
Presymptomatic DNA testing for Huntington disease: Identifying
the need for psychological intervention. Am J Med Genet 48:137-144,
32. Wiggins S, Whyte P, Huggins M, et al: The psychological consequences
of predictive testing for Huntington's disease. N Engl J Med 327:1401-1405,
33. Croyle RT, Lerman C: Psychological impact of genetic testing,
in Croyle R (ed): Psychosocial Effects of Screening for Disease
Prevention and Detection. New York, Oxford University Press.
34. Nielson AC, Williams TA: Depression in ambulatory medical
patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 37:999-1004, 1980.
35. Frets PG, Verhage F, Niermeijer MF: Characteristics of the
postcounseling reproductive decision-making process: An explorative
study. Am J Med Genet 40:298-303, 1991.
36. Janis IL, Mann L: Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis
of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. New York, The Free Press,
37. Lerman C, Lustbader E, Rimer B, et al: Effects of individualized
breast cancer risk counseling: A randomized trial. J Natl Cancer
Inst (in press).
38. Blalock SJ, DeVellis BM, Sandler RS: Participation in fecal
occult blood screening: A critical review. Prev Med 16:9-18, 1987.
39. Rimer BK: Understanding the acceptance of mammography by women.
Ann Behav Med 14:197-203, 1992.
40. Compas BE, Worsham NL, Epping-Jordan JE, et al: When mom or
dad has cancer: Markers of psychological distress in cancer patients,
spouses, and children. Health Psychol 13:507-515, 1994.
41. Lichtman RR, Taylor SE, Wood JV, et al: Relations with children
after breast cancer: The mother-daughter relationship at risk.
J Psychosoc Oncol 2:1-19, 1984.
42. Kessler S: Forgotten person in the Huntington disease family.
Am J Med Genet 48:145-150, 1993.
43. Sharpe NF: Informed consent and Huntington disease: A model
for communication. Am J Med Genet 50:239-246, 1994.
44. Siminoff LA, Abeloff MD: Doctor-patient communication about
breast cancer adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 7:1192-1200, 1989.
45. Merz JF, Fischhoff B: Informed consent does not mean rational
consent. J Leg Med 11:321-350, 1990.
46. Sharpe NF: Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: A
legal perspective. Am J Med Genet 50:234-238, 1994.
47. Rainey LC: Effects of preparatory patient education on radiation
oncology patients. Cancer 56:1056-1061, 1985.
48. Falek A: Sequential aspects of coping and other issues in
decision making in genetic counseling, in Emery AH, Pullen, IM
(eds.): Psychological Aspects of Genetic Counseling, pp 23-36.
London, Academic Press, 1984.
49. Kessler S (ed.): Genetic Counseling: Psychological Dimensions.
New York, Academic Press, 1979.
50. Carver CS, Pozo CP, Harris SD, et al: How coping mediates
the effect of optimism on distress: A study of women with early
stage breast cancer. J Pers Soc Psychol 65:375-390, 1993.
51. King MC, Rowell S, Love SM: Inherited breast and ovarian cancer:
What are the risks? What are the choices? JAMA 269:1975-1980,
52. Lynch HT, Smyrk TC, Watson P, et al: Genetics, natural history,
tumor spectrum, and pathology of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal
cancer: An updated review. Gastroenterol 104:1535-1549, 1993.
53. Owens RG, Ashcroft JJ, Leinster SJ, et al: Informal decision
analysis with breast cancer patients: An aid to psychological
preparation for surgery. J Psychosoc Oncol 5:23-33, 1987.
54. American Board of Medical Genetics, Inc: Bulletin of Information-Description
of Examinations. National Board of Medical Examiners, 1992.
55. Ostrer H, Allen W, Crandall LA, et al: Insurance and genetic
testing: Where are we now? Am J Hum Genet 52:565-577, 1993.
56. Billings PR, Kohn MA, Cuevas M, et al: Discrimination as a
consequence of genetic testing. Am J Hum Genet 50: 476-482, 1992.
57. Andrews LB: Legal and ethical issues raised by the human genome
project. Houston Law Review, vol 29 (spring), pp 149-184, 1992.
58. Powers M: Publication-related risks to privacy: The ethical
implications of pedigree studies. IRB: Rev Hum Subj Res 15:7-11,
59. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Genetic Screening: Ethical
Issues. London, Nuffield Counsel, 1993.
60. De Wert G: Predictive testing for Huntington disease and the
right not to know: Some ethical reflections. Birth Defects 28:133-138,
61. Croyle RT (ed.): Psychosocial Effects of Screening for Disease
Prevention and Detection. New York, Oxford University Press, 1995.