Literature DB >> 17308889

Patient preferences regarding recontact by cancer genetics clinicians.

Constance A Griffin1, Jennifer E Axilbund, Ann Marie Codori, Ginny Deise, Betty May, Cheryl Pendergrass, Miriam Tillery, Jill D Trimbath, Francis M Giardiello.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ongoing advances in cancer genetics lead to new opportunities for early disease detection, predictive genetic testing and potential interventions. Limited information exists on patient preferences concerning recontact to provide updated information. We evaluated colon cancer genetics patient preferences concerning recontact about advances in medical genetics.
METHODS: Information was mailed to 851 individuals seen at the Colon Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and to participants in a colon cancer gene testing study seen during an 8-year period. Information provided included description of advances in gene testing technology, discovery of MSH6 and MYH genes, detailed fact sheets and a survey of patient preferences for notification and potential uses of new information.
RESULTS: Most patients wanted an ongoing relationship with genetics providers (63%), reinitiated by genetics providers (65%) and contact only with information specifically relevant to them (51%). Most preferred personalized letters as the means of contact (55%). Reasons for and against recontact and circumstances in which individuals would pursue additional genetic testing were also tabulated. There were few statistically significant differences in the responses between clinic and study participants.
CONCLUSION: Patients evaluated in a colon cancer risk assessment clinic want updated information at a rate similar to those who participated in a colon cancer gene testing study. These findings have implications for the consultative nonlongitudinal nature of such clinics and suggest patient preferences for personally-tailored information could be labor intensive.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17308889     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-007-9117-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  25 in total

1.  Genetic counseling outcomes: perceived risk and distress after counseling for hereditary colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Ann-Marie Codori; Tracy Waldeck; Gloria M Petersen; Diana Miglioretti; Jill D Trimbath; Miriam A Tillery
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  The duty to recontact: attitudes of genetics service providers.

Authors:  J L Fitzpatrick; C Hahn; T Costa; M J Huggins
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Expanding the physician's duty of care: a duty to recontact?

Authors:  Martin Letendre; Béatrice Godard
Journal:  Med Law       Date:  2004

4.  Correlates of psychologic distress in colorectal cancer patients undergoing genetic testing for hereditary colon cancer.

Authors:  S W Vernon; E R Gritz; S K Peterson; C I Amos; C A Perz; W F Baile; P M Lynch
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.267

5.  Lower incidence of colorectal cancer and later age of disease onset in 27 families with pathogenic MSH6 germline mutations compared with families with MLH1 or MSH2 mutations: the German Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Consortium.

Authors:  Jens Plaschke; Christoph Engel; Stefan Krüger; Elke Holinski-Feder; Constanze Pagenstecher; Elisabeth Mangold; Gabriela Moeslein; Karsten Schulmann; Johannes Gebert; Magnus von Knebel Doeberitz; Josef Rüschoff; Markus Loeffler; Hans K Schackert
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-10-13       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Physician assessment of family cancer history and referral for genetic evaluation in colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Shilpa Grover; Elena M Stoffel; Laoti Bussone; Elizabeth Tschoegl; Sapna Syngal
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 11.382

7.  Autosomal recessive colorectal adenomatous polyposis due to inherited mutations of MYH.

Authors:  Julian R Sampson; Sunil Dolwani; Sian Jones; Diana Eccles; Anthony Ellis; D Gareth Evans; Ian Frayling; Sheila Jordan; Eamonn R Maher; Tony Mak; Julie Maynard; Francesca Pigatto; Joan Shaw; Jeremy P Cheadle
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-07-05       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Identification and characterization of genomic rearrangements of MSH2 and MLH1 in Lynch syndrome (HNPCC) by novel techniques.

Authors:  Hidewaki Nakagawa; Heather Hampel; Albert de la Chapelle
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.878

9.  Acceptors and rejectors of an invitation to undergo breast screening compared with those who referred themselves.

Authors:  P Hobbs; A Smith; W D George; R A Sellwood
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1980-03       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  MYH mutations in patients with attenuated and classic polyposis and with young-onset colorectal cancer without polyps.

Authors:  Liang Wang; Linnea M Baudhuin; Lisa A Boardman; Kelle J Steenblock; Gloria M Petersen; Kevin C Halling; Amy J French; Ruth A Johnson; Lawrence J Burgart; Kari Rabe; Noralane M Lindor; Stephen N Thibodeau
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  8 in total

1.  Returning individual research results: development of a cancer genetics education and risk communication protocol.

Authors:  J Scott Roberts; David I Shalowitz; Kurt D Christensen; Jessica N Everett; Scott Y H Kim; Leon Raskin; Stephen B Gruber
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Kyle B Brothers; Sara Fitzgerald-Butt; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Leila Jamal; Cynthia A James; Gail P Jarvik; Jennifer B McCormick; Tanya N Nelson; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Julie Richer; Emmanuelle Souzeau; Jason L Vassy; Jennifer K Wagner; Howard P Levy
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Disclosing individual CDKN2A research results to melanoma survivors: interest, impact, and demands on researchers.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; J Scott Roberts; David I Shalowitz; Jessica N Everett; Scott Y H Kim; Leon Raskin; Stephen B Gruber
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-02-09       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Impact of a genetic diagnosis of a mitochondrial disorder 5-17 years after the death of an affected child.

Authors:  A C Sexton; M Sahhar; D R Thorburn; S A Metcalfe
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Variants of uncertain significance in newborn screening disorders: implications for large-scale genomic sequencing.

Authors:  Alekhya Narravula; Kathryn B Garber; S Hussain Askree; Madhuri Hegde; Patricia L Hall
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  "I wish that there was more info": characterizing the uncertainty experienced by carriers of pathogenic ATM and/or CHEK2 variants.

Authors:  Kathryn G Reyes; Cheyla Clark; Meredith Gerhart; Ainsley J Newson; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  Uptake of genetic testing and long-term tumor surveillance in von Hippel-Lindau disease.

Authors:  Astrid Rasmussen; Elisa Alonso; Adriana Ochoa; Irene De Biase; Itziar Familiar; Petra Yescas; Ana-Luisa Sosa; Yaneth Rodríguez; Mireya Chávez; Marisol López-López; Sanjay I Bidichandani
Journal:  BMC Med Genet       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 2.103

Review 8.  Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Ellen Otten; Mirjam Plantinga; Erwin Birnie; Marian A Verkerk; Anneke M Lucassen; Adelita V Ranchor; Irene M Van Langen
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 8.822

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.