Predictive BRCA testing is offered to asymptomatic individuals to predict future risk where a variant has been identified in a relative. It is uncertain whether all eligible relatives access testing, and whether this is related to health care inequalities. Our aim was to analyse trends and inequalities in uptake of testing, and identify predictors of testing and time-to-receipt of testing. A database from April 2010 to March 2017 was collated. Multivariate analysis explored individual associations with testing. Predictor variables included gender, BRCA test type, cancer history, Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and education status. To evaluate factors associated with time-to-testing, a Cox proportional-hazards (CP) model was used. Of 779 tests undertaken, 336 (43.1%) were identified with a BRCA variant. A total of 537 (68.9%) were female and in 83.4% (387/464) of probands, predictive testing was received by relatives. Analysis identified inequalities since decreased testing was found when the proband was unaffected by cancer (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06–0.33). Median time-to-testing was 390 days (range, 0–7090 days) and the CP model also identified inequalities in the hazard ratio (HR) for testing for people aged >40 was higher than for aged <40 (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20–1.67) and BRCA2 testing was higher than for BRCA1 testing (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.18–1.64). Reduced testing was found when probands were unaffected by cancer and time-to-testing was found to vary by age and BRCA1/2 test. Given limited study sample size, further research is recommended to examine inequalities in predictive BRCA testing.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $33.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Chornokur G, Amankwah EK, Schildkraut JM, Phelan CM. Global ovarian cancer health disparities. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:258–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.12.016.
Rosenthal ET, Evans B, Kidd J, Brown K, Gorringe H, van Orman M, et al. Increased identification of candidates for high-risk breast cancer screening through expanded genetic testing. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:561–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.10.003.
Castro E, Goh C, Olmos D, Saunders E, Leongamornlert D, Tymrakiewicz M, et al. Germline BRCA mutations are associated with higher risk of nodal involvement, distant metastasis, and poor survival outcomes in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1748–57. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.43.1882.
Cavanagh H, Rogers KMA. The role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in prostate, pancreatic and stomach cancers. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2015;13:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-015-0038-x.
Stoppa-Lyonnet D. The biological effects and clinical implications of BRCA mutations: Where do we go from here?. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:S3–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2016.93.
Hartmann LC, Lindor NM. The role of risk-reducing surgery in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:454–68. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1503523.
Paluch-Shimon S, Cardoso F, Sessa C, Balmana J, Cardoso MJ, Gilbert F, et al. Prevention and screening in BRCA mutation carriers and other breast/ovarian hereditary cancer syndromes: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for cancer prevention and screening. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:v103–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw327.
National Breast Cancer Foundation Inc. Genetic testing for breast cancer. https://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/genetic-testing-for-breast-cancer. [Accessed 10/12/2020].
Yurgelun MB, Hiller E, Garber JE. Population-wide screening for germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: Too much of a good thing?. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3092–5. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.60.8596.
Mahon SM. Cancer risks for men with BRCA1/2 mutations. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014;41:99–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689.
Rauscher EA, Dean M. “I’ve just never gotten around to doing it”: men’s approaches to managing BRCA-related cancer risks. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101:340–5.
NICE. Familial breast cancer: the classification and care of people at risk of familial breast cancer and management of breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer. Clinical Guideline 164. London; 2013. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG164.
Evans JP, Skrzynia C, Burke W. The complexities of predictive genetic testing. BMJ. 2001;322:1052–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7293.1052.
Gabai-Kapara E, Lahad A, Kaufman B, Friedman E, Segev S, Renbaum P, et al. Population-based screening for breast and ovarian cancer risk due to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:14205–10. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1415979111.
Sayani A. Inequities in genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer: implications for public health practice. J Community Genet. 2018;1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-018-0370-8.
Holloway SM, Bernhard B, Campbell H, Cetnarskyj R, Lam WWK. Inequality of use of cancer genetics services by members of breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer families in South East Scotland. Fam Cancer. 2008;7:259–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-008-9184-x.
Cragun D, Bonner D, Kim J, Akbari MR, Narod SA, Gomez-Fuego A, et al. Factors associated with genetic counseling and BRCA testing in a population-based sample of young Black women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;151:169–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3374-7.
Yusuf RA, Rogith D, Hovick SRA, Peterson SK, Burton-Chase AM, Fellman BM, et al. Attitudes toward molecular testing for personalized cancer therapy. Cancer. 2015;121:243–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28966.
Mai PL, Vadaparampil ST, Breen N, McNeel TS, Wideroff L, Graubard BI. Awareness of cancer susceptibility genetic testing: the 2000, 2005, and 2010 national health interview surveys. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46:440–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.01.002.
Finney Rutten LJ, Gollust SE, Naveed S, Moser RP. Increasing public awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic tests: Health care access, internet use, and population density correlates. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2012;2012:6–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/309109.
Heck JE, Franco R, Jurkowski JM, Sheinfeld Gorin S. Awareness of genetic testing for cancer among United States hispanics: the role of acculturation. Community Genet. 2008;11:36–42. https://doi.org/10.1159/000111638.
Butrick M, Kelly S, Peshkin BN, Luta G, Nusbaum R, Hooker GW, et al. Uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a randomized trial of telephone counseling. Genet Med. 2015;17:467–75. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.125.
Pagan J, Su D, Li L, Armstrong K, Asch DA. Racial and ethnic disparities in awareness of genetic testing for cancer risk. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37:524–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.07.021.
Molster C, Charles T, Samanek A, O’Leary P. Australian study on public knowledge of human genetics and health. Public Health Genom. 2009;12:84–91. https://doi.org/10.1159/000164684.
Haga SB, O’Daniel JM, Tindall GM, Lipkus IR, Agans R. Survey of U.S. public attitudes towards pharmacogenetic testing. Pharmacogenomics J. 2012;12:197–204. https://doi.org/10.1530/ERC-14-0411.
Whitehead M. The concepts and principles of equity and health. Health Promot Int. 1991;6:217–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/6.3.217.
Department for Communities and Local Government. The english index of multiple deprivation (IMD) 2015—guidance. 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-ofdeprivation-2015. Accessed 2 May 2020.
Klein J, Moeschberger M. Survival analysis: techniques for censored and truncated data. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2003.
Hess KR. Graphical methods for assessing violations of the proportional hazards assumption in cox regression. Stat Med. 1995;14:1707–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780141510.
Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2393.
D’Andrea E, Marzuillo C, De Vito C, Di Marco M, Pitini E, Vacchio MR, et al. Which BRCA genetic testing programs are ready for implementation in health care? A systematic review of economic evaluations. Genet Med. 2016;18:1171–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.29.
Singh K, Lester J, Karlan B, Bresee C, Geva T, Gordon O. Impact of family history on choosing risk-reducing surgery among BRCA mutation carriers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:329.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.01.026.
Metcalfe K, Eisen A, Senter L, Risch HA, Rosen B, Murphy J, et al. International trends in the uptake of cancer risk reduction strategies in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Br J Cancer. 2019;121:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0446-1.
MacLeod R, Beach A, Henriques S, Knopp J, Nelson K, Kerzin-Storrar L. Experiences of predictive testing in young people at risk of Huntington’s disease, familial cardiomyopathy or hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;22:396. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.143.
Brunstrom K, Murray A, McAllister M. Experiences of women who underwent predictive BRCA 1/2 mutation testing before the age of 30. J Genet Couns. 2016;25:90–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-015-9845-5.
Healey E, Taylor N, Greening S, Wakefield CE, Warwick L, Williams R, et al. Quantifying family dissemination and identifying barriers to communication of risk information in Australian BRCA families. Genet Med. 2017;19:1323–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.52.
Fehniger J, Lin F, Beattie MS, Joseph G, Kaplan C. Family communication of BRCA1/2 results and family uptake of BRCA1/2 testing in a diverse population of BRCA1/2 carriers. J Genet Couns. 2013;22:603–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9592-4.
Cheung EL, Olson AD, Yu TM, Han PZ, Beattie MS. Communication of BRCA results and family testing in 1,103 high-risk women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2010;19:2211–9. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0325.
Lieberman S, Lahad A, Tomer A, Koka S, BenUziyahu M, Raz A, et al. Familial communication and cascade testing among relatives of BRCA population screening participants. Genet Med. 2018;20:1446–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2018.26.
Menko FH, ter Stege JA, van der Kolk LE, Jeanson KN, Schats W, Moha DA, et al. The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice. Fam Cancer. 2019;18:127–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-018-0089-z.
Sermijn E, Delesie L, Deschepper E, Pauwels I, Bonduelle M, Teugels E, et al. The impact of an interventional counselling procedure in families with a BRCA1/2 gene mutation: efficacy and safety. Fam Cancer. 2016;15:155–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-015-9854-4.
Black L, McClellan KA, Avard D, Knoppers BM. Intrafamilial disclosure of risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: points to consider. J Community Genet. 2013;4:203–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-012-0132-y.
George R, Kovak K, Cox SL. Aligning policy to promote cascade genetic screening for prevention and early diagnosis of heritable diseases. J Genet Couns. 2015;24:388–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9805-5.
Mitchell C, Goodwin D, Ploem C, Bell J, Hennekam R, Wallace S, et al. Exploring the potential duty of care in clinical genomics under UK law. Med Law Int. 2017;17:158–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0968533217721966.
Rothstein MA. Reconsidering the duty to warn genetically at-risk relatives. Genet Med. 2018;20:285–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.257.
Dheensa S, Lucassen A, Fenwick A. Limitations and pitfalls of using family letters to communicate genetic risk: a qualitative study with patients and healthcare professionals. J Genet Couns. 2018;27:689–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0164-x.
King M-C, Lahad A, Levy-Lahad E. Proposed shift in screening for breast cancer-reply. JAMA. 2015;313:525–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17442.
King M-C, Levy-Lahad E, Lahad A. Population-based screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2: 2014 Lasker Award. JAMA. 2014;312:1091–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.12483.
This study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast (NIHR CLAHRC NWC). The investigators were solely responsible for the content and the decision to submit the paper for publication. The funding source had no role in the selection, critical appraisal, or synthesis of evidence. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
HRA REC 227795/17CAG0183 approved.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Martin, A.P., Downing, J., Collins, B. et al. Examining the uptake of predictive BRCA testing in the UK; findings and implications. Eur J Hum Genet 29, 699–708 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00783-9