Literature DB >> 21464556

Interest in genetic testing for modest changes in breast cancer risk: implications for SNP testing.

K D Graves1, B N Peshkin, G Luta, W Tuong, M D Schwartz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Advances in genomics may eventually lead to 'personalized genetic medicine,' yet the clinical utility of predictive testing for modest changes in risk is unclear. We explored interest in genetic testing for genes related to modest changes in breast cancer risk in women at moderate to high risk for breast cancer.
METHODS: Women (n = 105) with a negative breast biopsy and ≥1 relative with breast or ovarian cancer completed telephone surveys. We measured demographic and psychosocial variables and, following presentation of hypothetical scenarios of genetic tests for lower-penetrance breast cancer gene mutations, assessed interest in willingness to pay for and comprehension of test results. We used logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations to evaluate combinations of risk level, cost and behavioral modifiers.
RESULTS: Many women (77%) reported 'definite' interest in genetic testing, with greater interest in tests that conveyed more risk and cost less. Behavioral modifiers of risk (taking a vitamin; diet/exercise), having a regular physician, greater perceived benefits of genetic testing, and greater cancer worry also influenced interest. Most participants (63%) did not understand relative vs. absolute risk. Women with less understanding reported more cancer worry and greater willingness to pay for testing.
CONCLUSION: Interest in genetic testing for mutations related to modest changes in risk was high, modified by both test and psychosocial factors. Findings highlight the need for education about benefits and risks of testing for mutations that convey modest changes in risk, particularly given the current lack of clinical validity/utility and availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.
Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21464556      PMCID: PMC3104870          DOI: 10.1159/000324703

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  43 in total

1.  Decisions and outcomes of genetic testing for inherited breast cancer risk.

Authors:  C H Halbert
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 32.976

2.  Methodological Issues in Multistage Genome-wide Association Studies.

Authors:  Duncan C Thomas; Graham Casey; David V Conti; Robert W Haile; Juan Pablo Lewinger; Daniel O Stram
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2009-11-01       Impact factor: 2.901

3.  Early adoption of BRCA1/2 testing: who and why.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong; Janet Weiner; Barbara Weber; David A Asch
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 8.822

4.  Information seeking and intentions to have genetic testing for hereditary cancers in rural and Appalachian Kentuckians.

Authors:  Kimberly M Kelly; James E Andrews; Donald O Case; Suzanne L Allard; J David Johnson
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.333

Review 5.  Smoking cessation: the potential role of risk assessment tools as motivational triggers.

Authors:  Robert P Young; Raewyn J Hopkins; Melinda Smith; D Kyle Hogarth
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.401

6.  Health behavior changes after genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: The REVEAL Study.

Authors:  Serena Chao; J Scott Roberts; Theresa M Marteau; Rebecca Silliman; L Adrienne Cupples; Robert C Green
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  2008 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.703

7.  Will knowledge of gene-based colorectal cancer disease risk influence quality of life and screening behavior? Findings from a population-based study.

Authors:  Scott Ramsey; David Blough; Cara McDermott; Lauren Clarke; Robin Bennett; Wylie Burke; Polly Newcomb
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-03-02       Impact factor: 2.000

8.  Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician-patient interactions.

Authors:  Colleen M McBride; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci.

Authors:  Douglas F Easton; Karen A Pooley; Alison M Dunning; Paul D P Pharoah; Deborah Thompson; Dennis G Ballinger; Jeffery P Struewing; Jonathan Morrison; Helen Field; Robert Luben; Nicholas Wareham; Shahana Ahmed; Catherine S Healey; Richard Bowman; Kerstin B Meyer; Christopher A Haiman; Laurence K Kolonel; Brian E Henderson; Loic Le Marchand; Paul Brennan; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Valerie Gaborieau; Fabrice Odefrey; Chen-Yang Shen; Pei-Ei Wu; Hui-Chun Wang; Diana Eccles; D Gareth Evans; Julian Peto; Olivia Fletcher; Nichola Johnson; Sheila Seal; Michael R Stratton; Nazneen Rahman; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Christen K Axelsson; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Louise Brinton; Stephen Chanock; Jolanta Lissowska; Beata Peplonska; Heli Nevanlinna; Rainer Fagerholm; Hannaleena Eerola; Daehee Kang; Keun-Young Yoo; Dong-Young Noh; Sei-Hyun Ahn; David J Hunter; Susan E Hankinson; David G Cox; Per Hall; Sara Wedren; Jianjun Liu; Yen-Ling Low; Natalia Bogdanova; Peter Schürmann; Thilo Dörk; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Catharina E Jacobi; Peter Devilee; Jan G M Klijn; Alice J Sigurdson; Michele M Doody; Bruce H Alexander; Jinghui Zhang; Angela Cox; Ian W Brock; Gordon MacPherson; Malcolm W R Reed; Fergus J Couch; Ellen L Goode; Janet E Olson; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Ans van den Ouweland; André Uitterlinden; Fernando Rivadeneira; Roger L Milne; Gloria Ribas; Anna Gonzalez-Neira; Javier Benitez; John L Hopper; Margaret McCredie; Melissa Southey; Graham G Giles; Chris Schroen; Christina Justenhoven; Hiltrud Brauch; Ute Hamann; Yon-Dschun Ko; Amanda B Spurdle; Jonathan Beesley; Xiaoqing Chen; Arto Mannermaa; Veli-Matti Kosma; Vesa Kataja; Jaana Hartikainen; Nicholas E Day; David R Cox; Bruce A J Ponder
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-06-28       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  What motivates interest in attending a familial cancer genetics clinic?

Authors:  L Fraser; S Bramald; C Chapman; C Chu; V Cornelius; F Douglas; A Lucassen; A Nehammer; S Sutton; M Trivella; S Hodgson
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.446

View more
  35 in total

1.  An exploration of genetic health professionals' experience with direct-to-consumer genetic testing in their clinical practice.

Authors:  Gemma R Brett; Sylvia A Metcalfe; David J Amor; Jane L Halliday
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Factors affecting breast cancer patients' need for genetic risk information: From information insufficiency to information need.

Authors:  Soo Jung Hong; Barbara Biesecker; Jennifer Ivanovich; Melody Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Factors Associated with Interest in Gene-Panel Testing and Risk Communication Preferences in Women from BRCA1/2 Negative Families.

Authors:  Kristina G Flores; Laurie E Steffen; Christopher J McLouth; Belinda E Vicuña; Amanda Gammon; Wendy Kohlmann; Lucretia Vigil; Zoneddy R Dayao; Melanie E Royce; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Awareness and uptake of direct-to-consumer genetic testing among cancer cases, their relatives, and controls: the Northwest Cancer Genetics Network.

Authors:  Taryn O Hall; Anne D Renz; Katherine W Snapinn; Deborah J Bowen; Karen L Edwards
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2012-06-25

5.  Cost sharing and hereditary cancer risk: predictors of willingness-to-pay for genetic testing.

Authors:  Jennifer M Matro; Karen J Ruth; Yu-Ning Wong; Katen C McCully; Christina M Rybak; Neal J Meropol; Michael J Hall
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  A E Anderson; K G Flores; W Boonyasiriwat; A Gammon; W Kohlmann; W C Birmingham; M D Schwartz; J Samadder; K Boucher; A Y Kinney
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

Authors:  Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Kyle Brothers; Ellen W Clayton; Wendy Chung; Barbara J Evans; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Carlos J Gallego; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Stacy W Gray; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Cathy McCarty; Cynthia A Prows; Heidi L Rehm; Richard R Sharp; Joseph Salama; Saskia Sanderson; Sara L Van Driest; Marc S Williams; Susan M Wolf; Wendy A Wolf; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Behavioral and psychosocial responses to genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Rachel Nusbaum; Yasmin Salehizadeh; Gillian W Hooker; Beth N Peshkin; Morgan Butrick; William Tuong; Jeena Mathew; David Goerlitz; Mary B Fishman; Peter G Shields; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Genomics       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 5.736

9.  Attitudes of patients with cancer about personalized medicine and somatic genetic testing.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Katherine Hicks-Courant; Christopher S Lathan; Levi Garraway; Elyse R Park; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 3.840

10.  "Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer.

Authors:  Kara-Grace Leventhal; William Tuong; Beth N Peshkin; Yasmin Salehizadeh; Mary B Fishman; Susan Eggly; Kevin FitzGerald; Marc D Schwartz; Kristi D Graves
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.