Literature DB >> 19318436

Risk information exposure and direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations among women with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

Stacy W Gray1, Cristin O'Grady, Lauren Karp, Daniel Smith, J Sanford Schwartz, Robert C Hornik, Katrina Armstrong.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) BRCA testing may expand access to genetic testing and enhance cancer prevention efforts. It is not known, however, if current DTC websites provide adequate risk information for informed medical decision making.
METHODS: A total of 284 women with a personal or family history of breast/ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to view a "mock" DTC commercial website [control condition (CC); n = 93] or the same "mock" website that included information on the potential risks of obtaining genetic testing online. Risk information was framed two ways: risk information attributed to expert sources (ES; n = 98) and unattributed risk information (URI; n = 93). Participants completed an online survey. End points were intentions to get BRCA testing, testing site preference, and beliefs about DTC BRCA testing.
RESULTS: The sample was 82% white, had a mean age of 39 years (range, 18-70 years) and had a mean education of 3 years of college. Women exposed to risk information had lower intentions to get BRCA testing than women in the CC [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 0.48; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.26-0.87; P = 0.016], and less positive beliefs about online BRCA testing (adjusted OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.86; P = 0.014). Women in the ES condition were more likely to prefer clinic-based testing than were women in the CC (adjusted OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.07-3.90; P = 0.030).
CONCLUSION: Exposing women to information on the potential risks of online BRCA testing altered their intentions, beliefs, and preferences for BRCA testing. Policy makers may want to consider the content and framing of risk information on DTC websites as they formulate regulation for this rapidly growing industry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19318436      PMCID: PMC2963112          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0825

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  59 in total

1.  Self-referred whole-body CT imaging: current implications for health care consumers.

Authors:  Judy Illes; Ellen Fan; Barbara A Koenig; Thomas A Raffin; Dylan Kann; Scott W Atlas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-09-06       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Genes on the Web--direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing.

Authors:  Adam J Wolfberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Genetic testing for a BRCA1 mutation: prophylactic surgery and screening behavior in women 2 years post testing.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Botkin; Ken R Smith; Robert T Croyle; Bonnie J Baty; Jean E Wylie; Debra Dutson; Anna Chan; Heidi A Hamann; Caryn Lerman; Jamie McDonald; Vickie Venne; John H Ward; Elaine Lyon
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2003-04-30       Impact factor: 2.802

5.  An interactive computer program can effectively educate patients about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  M J Green; B B Biesecker; A M McInerney; D Mauger; N Fost
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2001-09-15

6.  Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation.

Authors:  H A Llewellyn-Thomas; M J McGreal; E C Thiel; S Fine; C Erlichman
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Hereditary breast/ovarian and colorectal cancer genetics knowledge in a national sample of US physicians.

Authors:  L Wideroff; S T Vadaparampil; M H Greene; S Taplin; L Olson; A N Freedman
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2005-03-22       Impact factor: 6.318

8.  Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Authors:  Noah D Kauff; Jaya M Satagopan; Mark E Robson; Lauren Scheuer; Martee Hensley; Clifford A Hudis; Nathan A Ellis; Jeff Boyd; Patrick I Borgen; Richard R Barakat; Larry Norton; Mercedes Castiel; Khedoudja Nafa; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-05-20       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an international case-control study.

Authors:  Andrea Eisen; Jan Lubinski; Jan Klijn; Pal Moller; Henry T Lynch; Kenneth Offit; Barbara Weber; Tim Rebbeck; Susan L Neuhausen; Parviz Ghadirian; William D Foulkes; Ruth Gershoni-Baruch; Eitan Friedman; Gadi Rennert; Teresa Wagner; Claudine Isaacs; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Peter Ainsworth; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-10-20       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  ACMG statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  11 in total

1.  Public understanding of risks from gene-environment interaction in common diseases: implications for public communications.

Authors:  C M Condit; L Shen
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Update on Direct-to-Consumer Marketing in Oncology.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Gregory A Abel
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 3.840

Review 3.  Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: systematic review of the literature on user perspectives.

Authors:  Lesley Goldsmith; Leigh Jackson; Anita O'Connor; Heather Skirton
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 4.  Risky feelings: why a 6% risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2010-08-23

5.  The impact of risk information exposure on women's beliefs about direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations.

Authors:  S W Gray; R C Hornik; J S Schwartz; K Armstrong
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 4.438

6.  Personalized Medicine Through SNP Testing for Breast Cancer Risk: Clinical Implementation.

Authors:  Rebecca Howe; Talya Miron-Shatz; Yaniv Hanoch; Zehra B Omer; Cristina O'Donoghue; Elissa M Ozanne
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 7.  What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Authors:  Masahito Jimbo; Gurpreet K Rana; Sarah Hawley; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Karen Kelly-Blake; Donald E Nease; Mack T Ruffin
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers.

Authors:  Christina R Lachance; Lori A H Erby; Beth M Ford; Vincent C Allen; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 9.  Cancer genetic risk assessment for individuals at risk of familial breast cancer.

Authors:  Jennifer S Hilgart; Bernadette Coles; Rachel Iredale
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-02-15

10.  Design, methods, and participant characteristics of the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study, a prospective cohort study of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing customers.

Authors:  Deanna Alexis Carere; Mick P Couper; Scott D Crawford; Sarah S Kalia; Jake R Duggan; Tanya A Moreno; Joanna L Mountain; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 11.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.