PURPOSE: Few studies have examined methods to promote communication following the return of DNA mismatch repair genetic test results obtained during research. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate a telephone protocol for returning research results of DNA mismatch repair gene testing to identify Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We invited individuals with known DNA mismatch repair mutations in their family, who were enrolled in the Colon Cancer Family Registry at the Mayo Clinic, to participate in this study. Participants completed surveys before and 6 months after DNA mismatch repair test result disclosure. RESULTS: Among 107 participants, 79% opted to learn their DNA mismatch repair test results; of these, 44 (41%) carried DNA mismatch repair mutations. After disclosure, 54% reported screening for any type of cancer. Among carriers, >74% reported communicating results to family; communication was predicted by baseline confidence in coping with the genetic test result (Z = 1.97; P = 0.04). Result disclosure to a physician was predicted by greater perceived cancer risk (Z = 2.08; P = 0.03) and greater intention to share results with family (Z = 3.07; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Research versus clinically based gene disclosure presents challenges. A telephone disclosure process for the return of research-based results among Lynch syndrome families led to high rates of result uptake and participant communication of results to providers and family members.
PURPOSE: Few studies have examined methods to promote communication following the return of DNA mismatch repair genetic test results obtained during research. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate a telephone protocol for returning research results of DNA mismatch repair gene testing to identify Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We invited individuals with known DNA mismatch repair mutations in their family, who were enrolled in the Colon Cancer Family Registry at the Mayo Clinic, to participate in this study. Participants completed surveys before and 6 months after DNA mismatch repair test result disclosure. RESULTS: Among 107 participants, 79% opted to learn their DNA mismatch repair test results; of these, 44 (41%) carried DNA mismatch repair mutations. After disclosure, 54% reported screening for any type of cancer. Among carriers, >74% reported communicating results to family; communication was predicted by baseline confidence in coping with the genetic test result (Z = 1.97; P = 0.04). Result disclosure to a physician was predicted by greater perceived cancer risk (Z = 2.08; P = 0.03) and greater intention to share results with family (Z = 3.07; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Research versus clinically based gene disclosure presents challenges. A telephone disclosure process for the return of research-based results among Lynch syndrome families led to high rates of result uptake and participant communication of results to providers and family members.
Authors: Grégoire Moutel; Nathalie Duchange; François Raffi; Lama I Sharara; Ioannis Théodorou; Violaine Noël; Sandrine de Montgolfier; Ingrid Callies; François Bricaire; Christian Hervé; Catherine Leport Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: J Scott Roberts; David I Shalowitz; Kurt D Christensen; Jessica N Everett; Scott Y H Kim; Leon Raskin; Stephen B Gruber Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: H J Järvinen; M Aarnio; H Mustonen; K Aktan-Collan; L A Aaltonen; P Peltomäki; A De La Chapelle; J P Mecklin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 22.682
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
Authors: Jan M Eberth; Sally W Vernon; Arica White; Peter N Abotchie; Sharon P Coan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Dona E C Locke; Paul A Decker; Jeff A Sloan; Paul D Brown; James F Malec; Matthew M Clark; Teresa A Rummans; Karla V Ballman; Paul L Schaefer; Jan C Buckner Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-08-20 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Susan M Wolf; Rebecca Branum; Barbara A Koenig; Gloria M Petersen; Susan A Berry; Laura M Beskow; Mary B Daly; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green; Bonnie S LeRoy; Noralane M Lindor; P Pearl O'Rourke; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Mark A Rothstein; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2015 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Shannon Rego; Orit Dagan-Rosenfeld; Stephanie A Bivona; Michael P Snyder; Kelly E Ormond Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Mark A Jenkins; Aung Ko Win; Allyson S Templeton; Maggie S Angelakos; Daniel D Buchanan; Michelle Cotterchio; Jane C Figueiredo; Stephen N Thibodeau; John A Baron; John D Potter; John L Hopper; Graham Casey; Steven Gallinger; Loic Le Marchand; Noralane M Lindor; Polly A Newcomb; Robert W Haile Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Claire C Conley; Dana Ketcher; Maija Reblin; Monica L Kasting; Deborah Cragun; Jongphil Kim; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Cheryl L Knott; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Tuya Pal; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Jennifer M Taber; Christine Q Chang; Tram K Lam; Elizabeth M Gillanders; Jada G Hamilton; Sheri D Schully Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Melanie F Myers; Xue Zhang; Brooke McLaughlin; Diane Kissell; Cassandra L Perry; Matthew Veerkamp; Kejian Zhang; Ingrid A Holm; Cynthia A Prows Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Charité N Ricker; Rachel B Koff; Chenxu Qu; Julie Culver; Duveen Sturgeon; Kerry E Kingham; Katrina Lowstuter; Nicolette M Chun; Courtney Rowe-Teeter; Alexandra Lebensohn; Peter Levonian; Katlyn Partynski; Karlena Lara-Otero; Christine Hong; Iva M Petrovchich; Meredith A Mills; Anne-Renee Hartman; Brian Allen; Uri Ladabaum; Kevin McDonnell; James M Ford; Stephen B Gruber; Allison W Kurian; Gregory E Idos Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Susan M Wolf; Emily Scholtes; Barbara A Koenig; Gloria M Petersen; Susan A Berry; Laura M Beskow; Mary B Daly; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green; Bonnie S LeRoy; Noralane M Lindor; P Pearl O'Rourke; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Mark A Rothstein; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Angela R Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Kara N Maxwell; Laura DiGiovanni; Jamie Brower; Dominique Fetzer; Jill Bennett Gaieski; Amanda Brandt; Danielle McKenna; Jessica Long; Jacquelyn Powers; Jill E Stopfer; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-04-16