Literature DB >> 19740045

Is uptake of genetic testing for colorectal cancer influenced by knowledge of insurance implications?

Louise A Keogh1, Christine M van Vliet, David M Studdert, Judith A Maskiell, Finlay A Macrae, D James St John, Clara L Gaff, Mary Anne Young, Melissa C Southey, Graham G Giles, Doreen A Rosenthal, John L Hopper, Mark A Jenkins.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether knowledge of insurance implications influenced uptake of genetic testing by participants in a research study of the causes of colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of uptake of genetic testing by participants in the population-based Victorian Colorectal Cancer Family Study during two periods: from 1999 to 2003, when participants were not informed of any potential effect of genetic testing conducted during the study on their eligibility for new insurance policies; and from 2003 to 2006, when the protocol was changed to provide participants with information on the potential effect of genetic testing on insurance eligibility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Uptake of genetic testing for germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes at a family cancer clinic.
RESULTS: The proportion of participants who declined genetic testing among those informed of insurance implications was more than double the proportion among those without this knowledge (29/59 [49%] v 9/47 [19%]; P = 0.002). This difference could not be explained statistically by adjusting for measured putative predictors.
CONCLUSION: Identification of people with a mutation in an MMR gene has clinical importance, and such screening may be a cost-effective way to reduce the burden of colorectal cancer in the community. If people are choosing not to obtain genetic information because of how it will affect their eligibility for insurance, reforms to existing insurance practices are indicated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19740045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  23 in total

1.  Public attitudes towards genomic risk profiling as a component of routine population screening.

Authors:  S G Nicholls; B J Wilson; S M Craigie; H Etchegary; D Castle; J C Carroll; B K Potter; L Lemyre; J Little
Journal:  Genome       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 2.166

2.  Choosing not to undergo predictive genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: expanding our understanding of decliners and declining.

Authors:  Louise A Keogh; Heather Niven; Alison Rutstein; Louisa Flander; Clara Gaff; Mark Jenkins
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-02-14

3.  Consumer attitudes towards the establishment of a national Australian familial cancer research database by the Inherited Cancer Connect (ICCon) Partnership.

Authors:  Laura Forrest; Gillian Mitchell; Letitia Thrupp; Lara Petelin; Kate Richardson; Lyon Mascarenhas; Mary-Anne Young
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-08-18

4.  Discussions about predictive genetic testing for Lynch syndrome: the role of health professionals and families in decisions to decline.

Authors:  Anaita Kanga-Parabia; Clara Gaff; Louisa Flander; Mark Jenkins; Louise A Keogh
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  Perceived versus predicted risks of colorectal cancer and self-reported colonoscopies by members of mismatch repair gene mutation-carrying families who have declined genetic testing.

Authors:  Louisa Flander; Andrew Speirs-Bridge; Alison Rutstein; Heather Niven; Aung Ko Win; Driss Ait Ouakrim; John L Hopper; Finlay Macrae; Louise Keogh; Clara Gaff; Mark Jenkins
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-06-09       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Risks of colorectal and other cancers after endometrial cancer for women with Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Aung Ko Win; Noralane M Lindor; Ingrid Winship; Katherine M Tucker; Daniel D Buchanan; Joanne P Young; Christophe Rosty; Barbara Leggett; Graham G Giles; Jack Goldblatt; Finlay A Macrae; Susan Parry; Matthew F Kalady; John A Baron; Dennis J Ahnen; Loic Le Marchand; Steven Gallinger; Robert W Haile; Polly A Newcomb; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Valuations of genetic test information for treatable conditions: the case of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Vikram Kilambi; F Reed Johnson; Juan Marcos González; Ateesha F Mohamed
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 5.725

8.  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

9.  How do researchers manage genetic results in practice? The experience of the multinational Colon Cancer Family Registry.

Authors:  Louise A Keogh; Douglass Fisher; Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin; Sheri D Schully; Jan T Lowery; Dennis J Ahnen; Judith A Maskiell; Noralane M Lindor; John L Hopper; Terrilea Burnett; Spring Holter; Julie L Arnold; Steven Gallinger; Mercy Laurino; Mary-Jane Esplen; Pamela S Sinicrope
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-05-24

10.  Perception, experience, and response to genetic discrimination in Huntington's disease: the Australian results of The International RESPOND-HD study.

Authors:  Anita M Y Goh; Edmond Chiu; Olga Yastrubetskaya; Cheryl Erwin; Janet K Williams; Andrew R Juhl; Jane S Paulsen
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2013-01-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.