PURPOSE: Dramatic advances in genomic technology stand to revolutionize cancer care; however, little is known about patients' understanding and acceptance of personalized medicine and widespread genetic testing (GT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a formative, semi-structured interview study with a random sample of patients with lung, colorectal, and breast cancers to assess awareness of personalized medicine and GT and attitudes about somatic GT. Willingness to undergo GT was elicited through hypothetic scenarios. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients participated; 71% were women; 42% were black; median age was 59 years; and 42% had an education level ≥ college. We found that a majority of patients either were not aware of the term "personalized medicine" or defined it in unexpected ways. Although many patients identified relevant benefits of somatic testing (eg, informs treatment), many patients also expressed significant concerns (ie, psychological harm and discrimination). A majority of patients expressed a willingness to undergo somatic (predictive, 96%, prognostic, 93%) and germline (cancer risk without incidental information, 87%; cancer risk with incidental information, 81%; pharmacogenetic, 91%) testing; however, far fewer patients expressed a willingness to undergo full genome sequencing (62%). Reluctance was attributed to concerns over incidental findings, information overload, and the lack of a clear benefit. CONCLUSION: Many patients relayed misunderstandings about somatic testing and a reluctance to undergo full sequencing; oncologists must carefully consider how they present testing to patients so that concerns over discrimination and psychological harm do not hinder test uptake. More work is needed to identify effective ways to communicate complex genomic concepts to patients and research participants.
PURPOSE: Dramatic advances in genomic technology stand to revolutionize cancer care; however, little is known about patients' understanding and acceptance of personalized medicine and widespread genetic testing (GT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a formative, semi-structured interview study with a random sample of patients with lung, colorectal, and breast cancers to assess awareness of personalized medicine and GT and attitudes about somatic GT. Willingness to undergo GT was elicited through hypothetic scenarios. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients participated; 71% were women; 42% were black; median age was 59 years; and 42% had an education level ≥ college. We found that a majority of patients either were not aware of the term "personalized medicine" or defined it in unexpected ways. Although many patients identified relevant benefits of somatic testing (eg, informs treatment), many patients also expressed significant concerns (ie, psychological harm and discrimination). A majority of patients expressed a willingness to undergo somatic (predictive, 96%, prognostic, 93%) and germline (cancer risk without incidental information, 87%; cancer risk with incidental information, 81%; pharmacogenetic, 91%) testing; however, far fewer patients expressed a willingness to undergo full genome sequencing (62%). Reluctance was attributed to concerns over incidental findings, information overload, and the lack of a clear benefit. CONCLUSION: Many patients relayed misunderstandings about somatic testing and a reluctance to undergo full sequencing; oncologists must carefully consider how they present testing to patients so that concerns over discrimination and psychological harm do not hinder test uptake. More work is needed to identify effective ways to communicate complex genomic concepts to patients and research participants.
Authors: M S Tallman; J W Andersen; C A Schiffer; F R Appelbaum; J H Feusner; A Ogden; L Shepherd; C Willman; C D Bloomfield; J M Rowe; P H Wiernik Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: B Meiser; M Gleeson; N Kasparian; K Barlow-Stewart; M Ryan; K Watts; D Menon; G Mitchell; K Tucker Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Michael A Skinner; Jeffrey A Moley; William G Dilley; Kouros Owzar; Mary K Debenedetti; Samuel A Wells Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Lerman; S Narod; K Schulman; C Hughes; A Gomez-Caminero; G Bonney; K Gold; B Trock; D Main; J Lynch; C Fulmore; C Snyder; S J Lemon; T Conway; P Tonin; G Lenoir; H Lynch Journal: JAMA Date: 1996-06-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J O'Daniel; J Lucas; P Deverka; D Ermentrout; G Silvey; D F Lobach; S B Haga Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Ana P M Pinheiro; Rachel H Pocock; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Margie D Dixon; Walid L Shaib; Suresh S Ramalingam; Rebecca D Pentz Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Elyse Shuk; Margaux C Genoff; Vivian M Rodríguez; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Deevakar Rogith; Rafeek A Yusuf; Shelley R Hovick; Bryan M Fellman; Susan K Peterson; Allison M Burton-Chase; Yisheng Li; Elmer V Bernstam; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: F Meric-Bernstam; L Brusco; M Daniels; C Wathoo; A M Bailey; L Strong; K Shaw; K Lu; Y Qi; H Zhao; H Lara-Guerra; J Litton; B Arun; A K Eterovic; U Aytac; M Routbort; V Subbiah; F Janku; M A Davies; S Kopetz; J Mendelsohn; G B Mills; K Chen Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ilana B Solomon; Sarah McGraw; Jenny Shen; Adem Albayrak; Gil Alterovitz; Melanie Davies; Catherine Del Vecchio Fitz; Rachel A Freedman; Lisa N Lopez; Lynette M Sholl; Eliezer Van Allen; Joanne Mortimer; Marwan Fakih; Sumanta Pal; Karen L Reckamp; Yuan Yuan; Stacy W Gray Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2020-04-14
Authors: Jonathan M Marron; Steven G DuBois; Julia Glade Bender; AeRang Kim; Brian D Crompton; Stephanie C Meyer; Katherine A Janeway; Jennifer W Mack Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 3.167