Updated from their original publication in 2004, these cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of counseling at-risk individuals through genetic cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provide information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Essential components include the intake, cancer risk assessment, genetic testing for an inherited cancer syndrome, informed consent, disclosure of genetic test results, and psychosocial assessment. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.

Increasing demand for genetic services has resulted in the need to evaluate current service delivery models (SDMs) and consider approaches that improve access to and efficiency of genetic counseling (GC). This study aimed to describe SDMs currently used by the GC community. The NSGC membership was surveyed regarding the use of four SDMs: in-person GC, telephone GC, group GC, and telegenetics GC. Variables related to access and components of use were also surveyed, including: appointment availability, time-per-patient, number of patients seen, billing, and geographic accessiblity. Seven hundred one usable responses were received. Of these, 54.7 % reported using an in-person SDM exclusively. The remainder (45.3 %) reported using multiple SDMs. Telephone, group and telegenetics GC were used often or always by 8.0 %, 3.2 % and 2.2 % of respondents, respectively. Those using an in-person SDM reported the ability to see the highest number of patients per week (p < 0.0001) and were the most likely to bill in some manner (p < 0.0001). Those using telegenetic and telephone GC served patients who lived the furthest away, with 48.3 % and 35.8 %% respectively providing GC to patients who live >4 h away. This study shows that genetic counselors are incorporating SDMs other than traditional in-person genetic counseling, and are utilizing more than one model. These adaptations show a trend toward shorter wait time and shorter length of appointments. Further study is indicated to analyze benefits and limitations of each individual model and factors influencing the choice to adopt particular models into practice.

Colorectal and endometrial cancer are the characteristic tumors of the Lynch syndrome. We reviewed the available evidence on the occurrence of other types of cancer in the syndrome, aiming to identify those types that can be included in the tumor spectrum, based on this evidence. We chose to define the tumor spectrum as comprising the cancers for which Lynch syndrome patients are at elevated risk. We found sufficiently strong and consistent evidence to include gastric cancer, small bowel cancer, hepatobiliary tract cancer, upper urologic tract cancer, ovarian cancer, and brain tumors in this spectrum, in addition to colorectal and endometrial cancer. We predict that the spectrum will expand as additional studies are reported, especially as prospective studies of mutation carriers are completed.

The Service Delivery Model Task Force (SDMTF) was appointed in 2009 by the leadership of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) with a charge to research and assess the capacity of all existing service delivery models to improve access to genetic counseling services in the context of increasing demand for genetic testing and counseling. In approaching this charge, the SDMTF found that there were varying interpretations of what was meant by "service delivery models" and the group held extensive discussions about current practices to arrive at consensus of proposed definitions for current genetic service delivery models, modes of referral and components of service delivery. The major goal of these proposed definitions is to allow for conversations to begin to address the charge to the committee. We propose that current models of service delivery can be defined by: 1) the methods in which genetic counseling services are delivered (In-person, Telephone, Group and Telegenetics), 2) the way they are accessed by patients (Traditional referral, Tandem, Triage, Rescue and Self-referral) and 3) the variable components that depend upon multiple factors unique to each service setting. This report by the SDMTF provides a starting point whereby standardized terminology can be used in future studies that assess the effectiveness of these described models to overcome barriers to access to genetic counseling services.

BACKGROUND To the authors' knowledge, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC) is the most commonly occurring hereditary disorder that predisposes to colorectal carcinoma (CRC), accounting for approximately 2–7% of all CRC cases diagnosed in the U.S each year. Its diagnosis is wholly dependent on a meticulously obtained family history of cancer of all anatomic sites, with particular attention to the pattern of cancer distribution within the family. METHODS The objective of the current study was to illustrate various vexing problems that can deter the diagnosis of HNPCC and, ultimately, its management. This was an observational cohort study. Sixteen HNPCC and HNPCC‐like families were selected from a large resource of highly extended HNPCC families. High‐risk patients were selected from these HNPCC families. An ascertainment bias was imposed by the lack of a population‐based data set. Personal interviews and questionnaires were used for data collection. RESULTS There was an array of difficulties highlighted by limitations in compliance, lack of a clinical or molecular basis for an HNPCC diagnosis, ambiguous DNA findings, problems in genetic counseling, failure to meet Amsterdam or Bethesda criteria, small families, lack of medical and pathologic documentation, poor cooperation of family members and/or their physicians, cultural barriers, economic stress, frequent patient fear and anxiety, perception of insurance discrimination, and limited patient and/or physician knowledge regarding hereditary cancer. CONCLUSIONS The diagnosis and management of HNPCC is predicated on physician knowledge of its phenotypic and genotypic heterogeneity, in concert with the multifaceted problems that impact on patient compliance. Cancer 2004;100:53–64. © 2003 American Cancer Society.

When clinical gene testing emerged for BRCA1 and BRCA2, little was known about the efficacy of medical interventions. Potential barriers to uptake of testing were largely unexplored. Identification and referral of high-risk patients and families to genetic counseling can greatly enhance the care of the population at the highest risk for cancer. However, because premonitory physical stigmata are absent in most of these syndromes, an HBOC diagnosis may be missed unless a careful family history of cancer of the breast, ovary, or several integrally associated cancers is obtained.

The American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) performed a genetic counseling practice analysis (PA) to determine the content of the certification examination. The ABGC-appointed PA Advisory Committee worked with psychometricians to develop a survey which was distributed to 2,038 genetic counselors in the United States and Canada. The survey was also accessible on the ABGC website. Multiple criteria were used to establish the significance of the tasks included in the survey. A total of 677 responses were used in the analysis, representing a 37.1% corrected response rate. Five major content domains with 143 tasks were identified in the PA. New certification test specifications were developed on the basis of PA results and will be used in developing future examination forms. In keeping with credentialing standards, ABGC plans to conduct a PA on a regular basis so that the content of the examination reflects current practice.

Context: In hereditary cancer syndrome families with an identified cancer associated mutation, mutation testing changes the carrier risk status of the tested person and may change the carrier risk status of relatives.Objective: This study aimed to describe the change in the distribution of carrier risk status resulting from testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) families. Design: This was an observational cohort study. Patients: The cohort included members of 75 HBOC and 47 HNPCC families. Of the 10 910 cohort members, 1408 were tested for a mutation and learned their test results. Outcome measure: Carrier risk for all cohort members was assessed before and after mutation testing.Results: There was a change in carrier risk status in 2906 subjects after testing of 1408 family members. The most common type of carrier risk change, from at risk to non-carrier status, accounted for 77% of the risk changes; 12% were a change to known carrier status from a lower risk. Sixty percent of persons with a carrier risk status change were not themselves tested; their risk status changed because of a relative's test result. Conclusions: Carrier risk status changes from uncertainty to certainty (that is, to carrier or to non-carrier) account for 89% of risk changes resulting from testing. These risk changes affect cancer prevention recommendations, most commonly reducing their burden. Current practices do not ensure that untested family members are informed about changes in their carrier risk status which result from mutation testing of their relatives.