Dean A Regier1, Stuart J Peacock2, Reka Pataky2, Kimberly van der Hoek2, Gail P Jarvik2, Jeffrey Hoch2, David Veenstra2. 1. Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Regier, Peacock, Pataky, van der Hoek), Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; School of Population and Public Health (Regier, Peacock, Pataky), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Medicine (Medical Genetics) (Jarvik), Department of Genome Sciences (Jarvik) and Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy (Veenstra), University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.; Pharmacoeconomics Research Unit (Hoch), Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Hoch), Toronto, Ont. dregier@bccrc.ca. 2. Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Regier, Peacock, Pataky, van der Hoek), Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; School of Population and Public Health (Regier, Peacock, Pataky), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Medicine (Medical Genetics) (Jarvik), Department of Genome Sciences (Jarvik) and Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy (Veenstra), University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.; Pharmacoeconomics Research Unit (Hoch), Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (Hoch), Toronto, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An important challenge with the application of next-generation sequencing technology is the possibility of uncovering incidental genomic findings. A paucity of evidence on personal utility for incidental findings has hindered clinical guidelines. Our objective was to estimate personal utility for complex information derived from incidental genomic findings. METHODS: We used a discrete-choice experiment to evaluate participants' personal utility for the following attributes: disease penetrance, disease treatability, disease severity, carrier status and cost. Study participants were drawn from the Canadian public. We analyzed the data with a mixed logit model. RESULTS: In total, 1200 participants completed our questionnaire (available in English and French). Participants valued receiving information about high-penetrance disorders but expressed disutility for receiving information on low-penetrance disorders. The average willingness to pay was $445 (95% confidence interval [CI] $322-$567) to receive incidental findings in a scenario where clinicians returned information about high-penetrance, medically treatable disorders, but only 66% of participants (95% CI 63%-71%) indicated that they would choose to receive information in that scenario. On average, participants placed an important value ($725, 95% CI $600-$850) on having a choice about what type of findings they would receive, including receipt of information about high-penetrance, treatable disorders or receipt of information about high-penetrance disorders with or without available treatment. The predicted uptake of that scenario was 76% (95% CI 72%-79%). INTERPRETATION: Most participants valued receiving incidental findings, but personal utility depended on the type of finding, and not all participants wanted to receive incidental results, regardless of the potential health implications. These results indicate that to maximize benefit, participant-level preferences should inform the decision about whether to return incidental findings.
BACKGROUND: An important challenge with the application of next-generation sequencing technology is the possibility of uncovering incidental genomic findings. A paucity of evidence on personal utility for incidental findings has hindered clinical guidelines. Our objective was to estimate personal utility for complex information derived from incidental genomic findings. METHODS: We used a discrete-choice experiment to evaluate participants' personal utility for the following attributes: disease penetrance, disease treatability, disease severity, carrier status and cost. Study participants were drawn from the Canadian public. We analyzed the data with a mixed logit model. RESULTS: In total, 1200 participants completed our questionnaire (available in English and French). Participants valued receiving information about high-penetrance disorders but expressed disutility for receiving information on low-penetrance disorders. The average willingness to pay was $445 (95% confidence interval [CI] $322-$567) to receive incidental findings in a scenario where clinicians returned information about high-penetrance, medically treatable disorders, but only 66% of participants (95% CI 63%-71%) indicated that they would choose to receive information in that scenario. On average, participants placed an important value ($725, 95% CI $600-$850) on having a choice about what type of findings they would receive, including receipt of information about high-penetrance, treatable disorders or receipt of information about high-penetrance disorders with or without available treatment. The predicted uptake of that scenario was 76% (95% CI 72%-79%). INTERPRETATION: Most participants valued receiving incidental findings, but personal utility depended on the type of finding, and not all participants wanted to receive incidental results, regardless of the potential health implications. These results indicate that to maximize benefit, participant-level preferences should inform the decision about whether to return incidental findings.
Authors: S G Nicholls; B J Wilson; S M Craigie; H Etchegary; D Castle; J C Carroll; B K Potter; L Lemyre; J Little Journal: Genome Date: 2013-08-31 Impact factor: 2.166
Authors: Caroline Savage Bennette; Susan Brown Trinidad; Stephanie M Fullerton; Donald Patrick; Laura Amendola; Wylie Burke; Fuki M Hisama; Gail P Jarvik; Dean A Regier; David L Veenstra Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 8.822
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
Authors: Julia Wynn; Josue Martinez; Jimmy Duong; Codruta Chiuzan; Jo C Phelan; Abby Fyer; Robert L Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum; Wendy K Chung Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Julia Wynn; Josue Martinez; Jessica Bulafka; Jimmy Duong; Yuan Zhang; Codruta Chiuzan; Jain Preti; Maria L Cremona; Vaidehi Jobanputra; Abby J Fyer; Robert L Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum; Wendy K Chung Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Deborah A Marshall; Karen V MacDonald; Jill Oliver Robinson; Lisa F Barcellos; Milena Gianfrancesco; Monica Helm; Amy McGuire; Robert C Green; Michael P Douglas; Michael A Goldman; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Per Med Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Steven Joffe; Deborah E Sellers; Lynette Ekunwe; Donna Antoine-Lavigne; Sarah McGraw; Daniel Levy; Greta Lee Splansky Journal: Circ Genom Precis Med Date: 2019-11-22