Literature DB >> 21285154

Social and ethical implications of BRCA testing.

A Surbone1.   

Abstract

Oncologists are asked with increasing frequency to counsel their patients with respect to the medical, psychological and social repercussions of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility that may have been prescribed by physicians or carried out through direct-to-consumer tests. This article critically reviews the main ethical and social implications of BRCA testing, focusing on genetic responsibility and genetic discrimination. Genetic responsibility toward oneself and others is a highly debated implication of genetic testing for cancer predisposition that requires broad considerations of the boundaries between individual and community rights and a reappraisal of the notion of autonomy as relational. Physicians' duty to warn 'at risk' relatives can be an ethical quandary, yet confidentiality is key to the patient-doctor relationship. Mutation carriers may be subject to different forms and degrees of genetic discrimination and many individuals at risk have forgone BRCA testing to avoid potential discrimination. The scientific and medical community, together with patients and the public, has actively engaged against genetic discrimination. The legislation in many countries now protects against genetic discrimination by insurance companies and employers. Legal and regulatory issues are not the final answer to discrimination and profound cultural changes are required to create understanding and acceptance of all differences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21285154     DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq668

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  13 in total

1.  Spontaneous disclosure of BRCA1/2 genetic test results to employers: a French prospective study.

Authors:  François Eisinger; Roxane Fabre; Christine Lasset; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Claire Julian-Reynier; Catherine Nogues
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  BRCA testing in unaffected young women in the United States, 2006-2017.

Authors:  Fangjian Guo; Matthew Scholl; Erika L Fuchs; Abbey B Berenson; Yong-Fang Kuo
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Inequities in genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer: implications for public health practice.

Authors:  Ambreen Sayani
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2018-05-20

4.  BRCA1 polymorphism in breast cancer patients from Argentina.

Authors:  Omar Jaure; Eliana N Alonso; Diego Aguilera Braico; Alvaro Nieto; Manuela Orozco; Cecilia Morelli; Alejandro M Ferro; Elena Barutta; Esteban Vincent; Domingo Martínez; Ignacio Martínez; Maria Ines Maegli; Alejandro Frizza; Ruben Kowalyzyn; Marisa Salvadori; Paul Ginestet; Maria L Gonzalez Donna; Gabriela A Balogh
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 2.967

5.  Evaluation of the Dutch BRCA1/2 clinical genetic center referral criteria in an unselected early breast cancer population.

Authors:  Alexandra J van den Broek; Karen de Ruiter; Laura J van 't Veer; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Flora E van Leeuwen; Senno Verhoef; Marjanka K Schmidt
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 6.  Clinicians' expectations for gene-driven cancer therapy.

Authors:  Antti Jekunen
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Oncol       Date:  2014-12-18

7.  Changes of Socio-demographic data of clients seeking genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer due to the "Angelina Jolie Effect".

Authors:  Christine Staudigl; Georg Pfeiler; Katharina Hrauda; Romana Renz; Andreas Berger; Renate Lichtenschopf; Christian F Singer; Muy-Kheng M Tea
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  Implementation of interventions targeting the uptake of genetic testing services for breast cancer risk: protocol for a systematic review.

Authors:  Subash Thapa; Anja Leppin; Rikke Kristensen; Mette Just Bonde; Arja R Aro
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-28       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Incidental copy-number variants identified by routine genome testing in a clinical population.

Authors:  Philip M Boone; Zachry T Soens; Ian M Campbell; Pawel Stankiewicz; Sau Wai Cheung; Ankita Patel; Arthur L Beaudet; Sharon E Plon; Chad A Shaw; Amy L McGuire; James R Lupski
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Knowledge, Attitudes, Willingness to Pay, and Patient Preferences About Genetic Testing and Subsequent Risk Management for Cancer Prevention.

Authors:  Fangjian Guo; Jacqueline M Hirth; Erika L Fuchs; Leslie E Cofie; Veronica Brown; Yong-Fang Kuo; Maria E Fernandez; Abbey B Berenson
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 2.037

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.