Literature DB >> 16325899

An intervention study of smoking cessation with feedback on genetic cancer susceptibility in Japan.

Hidemi Ito1, Keitaro Matsuo, Kenji Wakai, Toshiko Saito, Hiroshi Kumimoto, Katashi Okuma, Kazuo Tajima, Nobuyuki Hamajima.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether feedback of genetic information regarding an L-myc polymorphism, identified as impacting on tobacco-related cancer risk, has an influence on smoking cessation, an intervention study was conducted.
METHODS: We recruited smokers from first-visit outpatients at Aichi Cancer Center Hospital. Six hundred and seventeen participated and were allocated into two groups: the biomarker feedback group (BF) and the follow-up smoking status group (FS). The subjects were asked for their smoking status at enrolment and at 3- and 9-month follow-ups. BF subjects were notified about their L-myc genotype.
RESULTS: The smoking cessation rate at 9-month follow-up was essentially the same for both BF and FS cases, at 18.8% and 17.0%, respectively (P = 0.798). However, a difference in the rate was evident with non-cancer subjects (12.7% and 8.4%, respectively, P = 0.237), especially in females (15.0% and 4.2%, respectively, P = 0.024). The non-cancer subjects informed of their genotype were more likely to quit smoking than the FS patients; particularly in those having a risky genotype, this was significant (odds ratio: 2.87, P = 0.003). Again it was most prominent in females.
CONCLUSION: Feedback regarding an L-myc polymorphism did not impact on smoking cessation overall but appeared to benefit smokers without cancer. In addition, gender could affect the response to the feedback.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16325899     DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2005.10.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  26 in total

1.  Risk perceptions and family history of lung cancer: differences by smoking status.

Authors:  L S Chen; K A Kaphingst
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: a case study and practical recommendations for “genomic counseling”.

Authors:  Amy C Sturm; Kandamurugu Manickam
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Responses to online GSTM1 genetic test results among smokers related to patients with lung cancer: a pilot study.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Suzanne C O'Neill; Della Brown White; Gerold Bepler; Lori Bastian; Isaac M Lipkus; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: the role of coherence.

Authors:  Linda D Cameron; Theresa M Marteau; Paul M Brown; William M P Klein; Kerry A Sherman
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2011-06-23

5.  Genetic variation affects congenital heart defect susceptibility in offspring exposed to maternal tobacco use.

Authors:  Xinyu Tang; Charlotte A Hobbs; Mario A Cleves; Stephen W Erickson; Stewart L MacLeod; Sadia Malik
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2015-06-02

6.  Young smokers' interpretations of the estimated lung cancer risk associated with a common genetic variant of low penetrance.

Authors:  S C Sanderson; C M McBride; S C O'Neill; S Docherty; J Shepperd; I M Lipkus
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  The Impact of Receiving Predictive Genetic Information about Lynch Syndrome on Individual Colonoscopy and Smoking Behaviors.

Authors:  Joanne Soo-Min Kim; Peter C Coyte; Michelle Cotterchio; Louise A Keogh; Louisa B Flander; Clara Gaff; Audrey Laporte
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-08-15       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Behavioral and psychosocial responses to genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Rachel Nusbaum; Yasmin Salehizadeh; Gillian W Hooker; Beth N Peshkin; Morgan Butrick; William Tuong; Jeena Mathew; David Goerlitz; Mary B Fishman; Peter G Shields; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Genomics       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 5.736

9.  Explaining behavior change after genetic testing: the problem of collinearity between test results and risk estimates.

Authors:  Thomas R Fanshawe; A Toby Prevost; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green; David Armstrong; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2008-09

Review 10.  Understanding patient and provider perceptions and expectations of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Michael J Hall; Andrea D Forman; Susan V Montgomery; Kim L Rainey; Mary B Daly
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.454

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.