Literature DB >> 20831418

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

J Scott Roberts1, David I Shalowitz, Kurt D Christensen, Jessica N Everett, Scott Y H Kim, Leon Raskin, Stephen B Gruber.   

Abstract

The obligations of researchers to disclose clinically and/or personally significant individual research results are highly debated, but few empirical studies have addressed this topic. We describe the development of a protocol for returning research results to participants at one site of a multicenter study of the genetic epidemiology of melanoma. Protocol development involved numerous challenges: (1) deciding whether genotype results merited disclosure; (2) achieving an appropriate format for communicating results; (3) developing education materials; (4) deciding whether to retest samples for additional laboratory validation; (5) identifying and notifying selected participants; and (6) assessing the impact of disclosure. Our experience suggests potential obstacles depending on researcher resources and the design of the parent study, but offers a process by which researchers can responsibly return individual study results and evaluate the impact of disclosure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20831418      PMCID: PMC3159194          DOI: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.3.17

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  51 in total

1.  What makes clinical research ethical?

Authors:  E J Emanuel; D Wendler; C Grady
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000 May 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Risk communication strategies: state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services.

Authors:  Claire Julian-Reynier; Myriam Welkenhuysen; Lea Hagoel; Marleen Decruyenaere; Penelope Hopwood
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Considerations and costs of disclosing study findings to research participants.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; Chris Skedgel; Charles Weijer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-04-27       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  The prevalence of CDKN2A germ-line mutations and relative risk for cutaneous malignant melanoma: an international population-based study.

Authors:  Marianne Berwick; Irene Orlow; Amanda J Hummer; Bruce K Armstrong; Anne Kricker; Loraine D Marrett; Robert C Millikan; Stephen B Gruber; Hoda Anton-Culver; Roberto Zanetti; Richard P Gallagher; Terence Dwyer; Timothy R Rebbeck; Peter A Kanetsky; Klaus Busam; Lynn From; Urvi Mujumdar; Homer Wilcox; Colin B Begg
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics.

Authors:  L M Beskow; W Burke; J F Merz; P A Barr; S Terry; V B Penchaszadeh; L O Gostin; M Gwinn; M J Khoury
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-11-14       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Decision making and decision support for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Kenneth P Tercyak; Kathryn L Taylor; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.267

7.  A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire.

Authors:  David Cella; Chanita Hughes; Amy Peterman; Chih-Hung Chang; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz; Lari Wenzel; Amy Lemke; Alfred C Marcus; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.267

8.  Family members' perceptions of genetic testing for malignant melanoma--a prospective interview study.

Authors:  Mia Bergenmar; Johan Hansson; Yvonne Brandberg
Journal:  Eur J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.398

9.  Reasons for seeking genetic susceptibility testing among first-degree relatives of people with Alzheimer disease.

Authors:  J Scott Roberts; Susan A LaRusse; Heather Katzen; Peter J Whitehouse; Melissa Barber; Stephen G Post; Norman Relkin; Kimberly Quaid; Robert H Pietrzak; L Adrienne Cupples; Lindsay A Farrer; Tamsen Brown; Robert C Green
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  2003 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.703

10.  Recall of disclosed apolipoprotein E genotype and lifetime risk estimate for Alzheimer's disease: the REVEAL Study.

Authors:  Susan LaRusse Eckert; Heather Katzen; J Scott Roberts; Melissa Barber; Lisa D Ravdin; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  17 in total

1.  Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.

Authors:  K A Kaphingst; J Ivanovich; B B Biesecker; R Dresser; J Seo; L G Dressler; P J Goodfellow; M S Goodman
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 4.438

2.  Individual genetic and genomic research results and the tradition of informed consent: exploring US review board guidance.

Authors:  Christian Simon; Laura A Shinkunas; Debra Brandt; Janet K Williams
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Reporting actionable research results: shared secrets can save lives.

Authors:  Lawrence E Hunter; Christian Hopfer; Sharon F Terry; Marilyn E Coors
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 4.  Precision medicine in pediatric oncology: Lessons learned and next steps.

Authors:  Rajen J Mody; John R Prensner; Jessica Everett; D Williams Parsons; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 3.167

5.  Adolescent perspectives on the return of individual results in genomic addiction research.

Authors:  Marilyn E Coors; Kristen M Raymond; Shannon K McWilliams; Christian J Hopfer; Susan K Mikulich-Gilbertson
Journal:  Psychiatr Genet       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.458

6.  The Implementation Chasm Hindering Genome-informed Health Care.

Authors:  Kevin B Johnson; Ellen Wright Clayton; Justin Starren; Josh Peterson
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  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

8.  Preferences for learning different types of genome sequencing results among young breast cancer patients: Role of psychological and clinical factors.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Jennifer Ivanovich; Sarah Lyons; Barbara Biesecker; Rebecca Dresser; Ashley Elrick; Cindy Matsen; Melody Goodman
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project.

Authors:  Nicole L Allen; Elizabeth W Karlson; Susan Malspeis; Bing Lu; Christine E Seidman; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 7.616

10.  Connecting patients, researchers and clinical genetics services: the experiences of participants in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study (AOCS).

Authors:  Ashley Crook; Loren Plunkett; Laura E Forrest; Nina Hallowell; Samantha Wake; Kathryn Alsop; Margaret Gleeson; David Bowtell; Gillian Mitchell; Mary-Anne Young
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.