Literature DB >> 25589525

Value of Genetic Testing for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer in a Probability-Based US Online Sample.

Sara J Knight1,2, Ateesha F Mohamed3, Deborah A Marshall4, Uri Ladabaum5, Kathryn A Phillips6, Judith M E Walsh7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: . While choices about genetic testing are increasingly common for patients and families, and public opinion surveys suggest public interest in genomics, it is not known how adults from the general population value genetic testing for heritable conditions. We sought to understand in a US sample the relative value of the characteristics of genetic tests to identify risk of hereditary colorectal cancer, among the first genomic applications with evidence to support its translation to clinical settings.
METHODS: . A Web-enabled choice-format conjoint survey was conducted with adults age 50 years and older from a probability-based US panel. Participants were asked to make a series of choices between 2 hypothetical blood tests that differed in risk of false-negative test, privacy, and cost. Random parameters logit models were used to estimate preferences, the dollar value of genetic information, and intent to have genetic testing.
RESULTS: . A total of 355 individuals completed choice-format questions. Cost and privacy were more highly valued than reducing the chance of a false-negative result. Most (97% [95% confidence interval (CI)], 95%-99%) would have genetic testing to reduce the risk of dying of colorectal cancer in the best scenario (no false negatives, results disclosed to primary care physician). Only 41% (95% CI, 25%-57%) would have genetic testing in the worst case (20% false negatives, results disclosed to insurance company).
CONCLUSIONS: . Given the characteristics and levels included in the choice, if false-negative test results are unlikely and results are shared with a primary care physician, the majority would have genetic testing. As genomic services become widely available, primary care professionals will need to be increasingly knowledgeable about genetic testing decisions.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  discrete choice; genetics; internal medicine; oncology; utility assessment

Year:  2015        PMID: 25589525      PMCID: PMC4501912          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14565820

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  44 in total

1.  Predictive genetic testing: high risk expectations in the face of low risk information.

Authors:  Susan Michie; John Weinman; Julie Miller; Veronica Collins; Jane Halliday; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2002-02

2.  Update: NCCN colon cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Paul Engstrom
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 11.908

3.  The association between knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing for cancer risk in the United States.

Authors:  Abigail Rose; Nikki Peters; Judy A Shea; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2005-06

4.  Colorectal Cancer Screening Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Bernard Levin; James S Barthel; Randall W Burt; Donald S David; James M Ford; Francis M Giardiello; Stephen B Gruber; Amy L Halverson; Stanley Hamilton; Wendy Kohlmann; Kirk A Ludwig; Patrick M Lynch; Christopher Marino; Edward W Martin; Robert J Mayer; Boris Pasche; Samuel J Pirruccello; Ashwani Rajput; M Sambasiva Rao; Moshe Shike; Gideon Steinbach; Jonathan P Terdiman; David Weinberg; Sidney J Winawer
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 11.908

5.  Willingness to pay for genetic testing: a study of attitudes in a Canadian population.

Authors:  N M Ries; R Hyde-Lay; T Caulfield
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-10-26       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Genetic counseling and testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Donald W Hadley; Jean Jenkins; Eileen Dimond; Kenneth Nakahara; Liam Grogan; David J Liewehr; Seth M Steinberg; Ilan Kirsch
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2003-03-10

7.  Preferences for genetic testing to identify hereditary colorectal cancer: perspectives of high-risk patients, community members, and clinicians.

Authors:  Judith Walsh; Millie Arora; Christina Hosenfeld; Uri Ladabaum; Miriam Kuppermann; Sara J Knight
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.037

8.  Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force.

Authors:  F Reed Johnson; Emily Lancsar; Deborah Marshall; Vikram Kilambi; Axel Mühlbacher; Dean A Regier; Brian W Bresnahan; Barbara Kanninen; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

9.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Robert J Volk; Partha Krishnamurthy; Maria Jibaja-Weiss; Sally W Vernon; Suzanne Kneuper
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Knowledge and attitudes about microsatellite instability testing among high-risk individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Sharon L Manne; Daniel C Chung; David S Weinberg; Hetal S Vig; Zohra Catts; Melissa Klein Cabral; Kristen Shannon; Neal J Meropol
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  3 in total

1.  Women's preferences, willingness-to-pay, and predicted uptake for single-nucleotide polymorphism gene testing to guide personalized breast cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Xin Yi Wong; Catharina Gm Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Chuen Seng Tan; Janine A van Til; Mikael Hartman; Kok Joon Chong; Maarten J IJzerman; Hwee-Lin Wee
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 2.711

2.  Public support for healthcare-mediated disclosure of hereditary cancer risk information: Results from a population-based survey in Sweden.

Authors:  Andreas Andersson; Carolina Hawranek; Anna Öfverholm; Hans Ehrencrona; Kalle Grill; Senada Hajdarevic; Beatrice Melin; Emma Tham; Barbro Numan Hellquist; Anna Rosén
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 2.857

3.  Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease.

Authors:  Kalle Grill; Anna Rosén
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 2.903

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.