Literature DB >> 24449059

Lynch syndrome patients' views of and preferences for return of results following whole exome sequencing.

Kelly Hitch1, Galen Joseph, Jenna Guiltinan, Jessica Kianmahd, Janey Youngblom, Amie Blanco.   

Abstract

Whole exome sequencing (WES) uses next generation sequencing technology to provide information on nearly all functional, protein-coding regions in an individual's genome. Due to the vast amount of information and incidental findings that can be generated from this technology, patient preferences must be investigated to help clinicians consent and return results to patients. Patients (n = 19) who were previously clinically diagnosed with Lynch syndrome, but received uninformative negative Lynch syndrome genetic results through traditional molecular testing methods participated in semi-structured interviews after WES testing but before return of results to explore their views of WES and preferences for return of results. Analyses of interview results found that nearly all participants believed that the benefits of receiving all possible results generated from WES outweighed the undesirable effects. The majority of participants conveyed that relative to coping with a cancer diagnosis, information generated from WES would be manageable. Importantly, participants' experience with Lynch syndrome influenced their notions of genetic determinism, tolerance for uncertain results, and family communication plans. Participants would prefer to receive WES results in person from a genetic counselor or medical geneticist so that an expert could help explain the meaning and implications of the potentially large quantity and range of complicated results. These results underscore the need to study various populations with regard to the clinical use of WES in order to effectively and empathetically communicate the possible implications of this new technology and return results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24449059      PMCID: PMC4451087          DOI: 10.1007/s10897-014-9687-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  37 in total

1.  Integrating next-generation sequencing into the diagnostic testing of inherited cancer predisposition.

Authors:  C S Ku; D N Cooper; B Iacopetta; D H Roukos
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2012-10-29       Impact factor: 4.438

2.  Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: a survey study.

Authors:  A A Lemke; D Bick; D Dimmock; P Simpson; R Veith
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 4.438

3.  Impact of genetic testing for Huntington disease on the family system.

Authors:  S K Sobel; D B Cowan
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2000-01-03

4.  "I want to know what's in Pandora's Box": comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing.

Authors:  Anne Townsend; Shelin Adam; Patricia H Birch; Zoe Lohn; Francois Rousseau; Jan M Friedman
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2012-08-17       Impact factor: 2.802

5.  Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: analysis and implications.

Authors:  Seema M Jamal; Joon-Ho Yu; Jessica X Chong; Karin M Dent; Jessie H Conta; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  Attitudes of African Americans toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Julia Crouch; Seema M Jamal; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.802

7.  Defining genes using "blueprint" versus "instruction" metaphors: effects for genetic determinism, response efficacy, and perceived control.

Authors:  Roxanne Parrott; Rachel A Smith
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2013-02-28

8.  Points to consider in the clinical application of genomic sequencing.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.

Authors:  Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Wayne W Grody; Sarah S Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Christa L Martin; Amy L McGuire; Robert L Nussbaum; Julianne M O'Daniel; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Michael S Watson; Marc S Williams; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Revealing the complexity of a monogenic disease: rett syndrome exome sequencing.

Authors:  Elisa Grillo; Caterina Lo Rizzo; Laura Bianciardi; Veronica Bizzarri; Margherita Baldassarri; Ottavia Spiga; Simone Furini; Claudio De Felice; Cinzia Signorini; Silvia Leoncini; Alessandra Pecorelli; Lucia Ciccoli; Maria Antonietta Mencarelli; Joussef Hayek; Ilaria Meloni; Francesca Ariani; Francesca Mari; Alessandra Renieri
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  26 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.  The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations.

Authors:  Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Carol R Horowitz; Frank Angelo; Jeannette T Bensen; Barbara B Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; Kelly Filipski; Stephanie M Fullerton; Bruce D Gelb; Katrina A B Goddard; Benyam Hailu; Ragan Hart; Kristen Hassmiller-Lich; Galen Joseph; Eimear E Kenny; Barbara A Koenig; Sara Knight; Pui-Yan Kwok; Katie L Lewis; Amy L McGuire; Mary E Norton; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Bradford C Powell; Neil Risch; Mimsie Robinson; Christine Rini; Sarah Scollon; Anne M Slavotinek; David L Veenstra; Melissa P Wasserstein; Benjamin S Wilfond; Lucia A Hindorff; Sharon E Plon; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Using the diffusion of innovations model to guide participant engagement in the genomics era.

Authors:  Katie L Lewis; Flavia M Facio; Courtney D Berrios
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Screening for germline mutations in mismatch repair genes in patients with Lynch syndrome by next generation sequencing.

Authors:  Barbara Luísa Soares; Ayslan Castro Brant; Renan Gomes; Tatiane Pastor; Naye Balzan Schneider; Ândrea Ribeiro-Dos-Santos; Paulo Pimentel de Assumpção; Maria Isabel W Achatz; Patrícia Ashton-Prolla; Miguel Angelo Martins Moreira
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  Enrolling Genomics Research Participants through a Clinical Setting: the Impact of Existing Clinical Relationships on Informed Consent and Expectations for Return of Research Results.

Authors:  Courtney Berrios; Cynthia A James; Karen Raraigh; Juli Bollinger; Brittney Murray; Crystal Tichnell; Carolyn D Applegate; Amanda L Bergner
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Consent for clinical genome sequencing: considerations from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Paul S Appelbaum; Kyle B Brothers; Steven Joffe; Tia L Kauffman; Barbara A Koenig; Anya Er Prince; Sarah Scollon; Susan M Wolf; Barbara A Bernhardt; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 2.512

7.  Information Topics of Greatest Interest for Return of Genome Sequencing Results among Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer at a Young Age.

Authors:  Joann Seo; Jennifer Ivanovich; Melody S Goodman; Barbara B Biesecker; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-08-20       Impact factor: 2.537

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.  Unsolicited findings of next-generation sequencing for tumor analysis within a Dutch consortium: clinical daily practice reconsidered.

Authors:  Rhodé M Bijlsma; Annelien L Bredenoord; Christa G Gadellaa-Hooijdonk; Martijn Pj Lolkema; Stefan Sleijfer; Emile E Voest; Margreet Gem Ausems; Neeltje Steeghs
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  Impact of numeracy preferences on information needs for genome sequencing results.

Authors:  Richard D Albrechtsen; Melody S Goodman; Jemar R Bather; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-09-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.