The psychological aspects of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in cancer patients (diagnostic genetic testing) have so far received less attention than predictive genetic testing in unaffected persons. Our study is aimed at gaining insight into the psychological aspects of diagnostic genetic testing and at formulating practical recommendations for counseling. Cancer patients often play a key role in the communication of information to relatives because they were the first individuals to be tested in the family. The present article focuses on the communication to close and distant relatives about the hereditary cancer, the genetic test and its result. Participants previously diagnosed with breast and/or ovarian cancer, with a family history of these cancers and who requested DNA-testing, were eligible for the study. Of the 83 eligible patients who could be contacted, 63 participated (response rate = 76%). Twenty-six participants were members of a family where a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation was detected. The DNA-analysis in the family of 37 participants had not revealed any mutation. Data were collected by semi-structured interviews and psychological tests and questionnaires. The dissemination of information was largely focused on first-degree relatives. Communication to distant relatives about the genetic test and its result was problematic. Other than the genetic test result and age as "objective" predictors of informing distant relatives, little and/or superficial contact seemed to be the major subjective barrier to informing distant relatives. Furthermore, the knowledge about HBOC of these messengers reveals several shortcomings. Communication within the family should receive special attention during counseling.

BackgroundHuntington's disease (HD) is a fatal inherited neurodegenerative disease, caused by a

The aim of this study was to describe reproductive decisions in mutation carriers after predictive testing for Huntington's disease (HD) and to identify factors that play a role in decision-making. In -2004 individuals received a predictive test result; 89 of them were carriers and seven received an equivocal result. Quantitative data on reproductive behaviour have been collected during all follow-up contacts. The follow-up time in this study was 1-16 years (mean: 7.1 years). Qualitative data on reproductive decisionmaking have been collected by the means of semistructured interviews during the 5-year follow-up study. For 46 carriers and two persons with an equivocal result, family planning was one of the motives for predictive testing. In this group, slightly more than half of the carriers (58%) had chosen to have children with prenatal diagnosis or preimplantation genetic diagnosis and about one in three (35%) decided to have no children anymore after the test. A minority (7%) was undecided or had no children for other reasons. Factors playing a role in the decision-making process were the carrier's sex, ethical issues about PD and PGD, the strength of the desire to have children, illness representations including personal experiences with HD in the family and the technological imperative. Some of these elements were in conflict and induced ambivalence towards reproductive choices. The results illustrate the complexity of the decision-making process and the necessity of in-depth counselling. Counselling should pay special attention to conflicting values and beliefs and to all kinds of pressure.

The paper reports on a 5-year longitudinal study on psychological distress after predictive testing for Huntington's disease (HD) and on correlates of post-test distress. Psychometric tests and questionnaires were used. The tested persons were invited to participate in the follow-up study; the uptake rate was 75% (24 carriers, 33 non-carriers). Three time points were included: baseline, 1 year and 5 years posttest. Five years after the test, mean distress scores of both carriers and non-carriers were within the normal range. Carriers did not differ from non-carriers with regard to mean general distress. Compared to non-carriers, however, carriers had significantly less positive feelings (P50.001) and were more consciously avoiding HD-related situations and thoughts (P50.01). These findings reflect the carriers' conscious and unconscious attempt to escape from pessimism and to minimise negative consequences of the test result. Psychological distress 5 years post-test was significantly associated with ego-strength (P50.05 to P50.001). Except for intrusion and avoidance, distress was also associated with test motivation (P50.05 to P50.01). Compared with baseline level, mean depression, general and specific anxiety had significantly decreased 1 year and 5 years post-test (P50.05 to 0.01). This evolution was independent of the test result. However, based on test motivation, a subgroup of tested persons having long lasting psychological distress could be identified, also irrespective of test result. Persons who asked the test to get rid of the uncertainty, without being able to specify implications for substantial life areas, had more psychological distress before and after the test than those who wanted the test for specific reasons (P50.001 to P50.0001). Moreover, the pattern of post-test anxiety differed over time, depending on the test motivation (P50.05). The findings suggest that pre-and post-test counselling should pay special attention to persons with lower ego-strength and with an unspecified test motivation, because they are at higher risk for long-term psychological distress, independently of the test result.

For people at risk for Huntington's disease, the anxiety and uncertainty about the future may be very burdensome and may be an obstacle to personal decision making about important life issues, for example, procreation. For some at risk persons, this situation is the reason for requesting predictive DNA testing. The aim of this paper is two-fold. First, we want to evaluate whether knowing one's carrier status reduces anxiety and uncertainty and whether it facilitates decision making about procreation. Second, we endeavour to identify pretest predictors of psychological adaptation one year after the predictive test (psychometric evaluation of general anxiety, depression level, and ego strength). The impact of the predictive test result was assessed in 53 subjects tested, using pre-and post-test psychometric measurement and self-report data of follow up interviews. Mean anxiety and depression levels were significantly decreased one year after a good test result; there was no significant change in the case of a bad test result. The mean personality profile, including ego strength, remained unchanged one year after the test. The study further shows that the test result had a definite impact on reproductive decision making.Stepwise multiple regression analyses were used to select the best predictors of the subject's post-test reactions. The results indicate that a careful evaluation of pretest ego strength, depression level, and coping strategies may be helpful in predicting post-test reactions, independently of the carrier status. Test result (carrier/ non-carrier), gender, and age did not significantly contribute to the prediction. About one third of the variance of posttest anxiety and depression level and more than half of the variance of ego strength was explained, implying that other psychological or social aspects should also be taken into account when predicting individual post-test reactions. (3 Med Genet 1996;33:737-743)