Literature DB >> 25834950

Patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex breast cancer susceptibility testing.

Angela R Bradbury1,2,3, Linda J Patrick-Miller4,5, Brian L Egleston6, Laura DiGiovanni3, Jamie Brower3, Diana Harris1, Evelyn M Stevens1, Kara N Maxwell1, Abha Kulkarni3, Tyler Chavez1, Amanda Brandt1, Jessica M Long1, Jacquelyn Powers1, Jill E Stopfer3, Katherine L Nathanson3,7,8, Susan M Domchek1,3,8.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The risks, benefits, and utilities of multiplex panels for breast cancer susceptibility are unknown, and new counseling and informed consent models are needed. We sought to obtain patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex testing.
METHODS: BRCA1/2-negative and untested patients completed pre- and posttest counseling and surveys evaluating testing experiences and cognitive and affective responses to multiplex testing.
RESULTS: Of 73 patients, 49 (67%) completed pretest counseling. BRCA1/2-negative patients were more likely to proceed with multiplex testing (86%) than those untested for BRCA1/2 (43%; P < 0.01). Many patients declining testing reported concern for uncertainty and distress. Most patients would not change anything about their pre- (76%) or posttest (89%) counseling sessions. Thirty-three patients (72%) were classified as making an informed choice, including 81% of those who proceeded with multiplex testing. Knowledge increased significantly. Anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and cancer worry did not significantly increase with multiplex testing.
CONCLUSION: Some patients, particularly those without prior BRCA1/2 testing, decline multiplex testing. Most patients who proceeded with testing did not experience negative psychological responses, but larger studies are needed. The tiered-binned approach is an innovative genetic counseling and informed consent model for further study in the era of multiplex testing.Genet Med 18 1, 25-33.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25834950     DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.19

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  36 in total

1.  The new genetics and informed consent: differentiating choice to preserve autonomy.

Authors:  Eline M Bunnik; Antina de Jong; Niels Nijsingh; Guido M W R de Wert
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 1.898

2.  The evolution of cancer risk assessment in the era of next generation sequencing.

Authors:  Heather Fecteau; Kristen J Vogel; Kristen Hanson; Shannon Morrill-Cornelius
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Clinical decisions. Screening an asymptomatic person for genetic risk.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; David Dimmock
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  Genetic testing for susceptibility to adult-onset cancer. The process and content of informed consent.

Authors:  G Geller; J R Botkin; M J Green; N Press; B B Biesecker; B Wilfond; G Grana; M B Daly; K Schneider; M J Kahn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire.

Authors:  David Cella; Chanita Hughes; Amy Peterman; Chih-Hung Chang; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz; Lari Wenzel; Amy Lemke; Alfred C Marcus; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.267

6.  The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study.

Authors:  Susan Michie; Elizabeth Dormandy; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2002-09

7.  Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride; Christopher Wade; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert Reid; Eric Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Development of a tiered and binned genetic counseling model for informed consent in the era of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  Angela R Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Jessica Long; Jacquelyn Powers; Jill Stopfer; Andrea Forman; Christina Rybak; Kristin Mattie; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Wendy K Chung; Jane Churpek; Mary B Daly; Laura Digiovanni; Dana Farengo-Clark; Dominique Fetzer; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Cassandra Gulden; Michael Hall; Lynne Kohler; Kara Maxwell; Shana Merrill; Susan Montgomery; Rebecca Mueller; Sarah Nielsen; Olufunmilayo Olopade; Kimberly Rainey; Christina Seelaus; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Development of a communication protocol for telephone disclosure of genetic test results for cancer predisposition.

Authors:  Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Dominique Fetzer; Andrea Forman; Lisa Bealin; Christina Rybak; Candace Peterson; Melanie Corbman; Julio Albarracin; Evelyn Stevens; Mary B Daly; Angela R Bradbury
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2014-10-29

10.  The feasibility of online genetic testing for lung cancer susceptibility: uptake of a web-based protocol and decision outcomes.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Della Brown White; Saskia C Sanderson; Isaac M Lipkus; Gerold Bepler; Lori A Bastian; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  28 in total

1.  Genetic Testing and Results in a Population-Based Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients and Ovarian Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Nadia Howlader; Dennis Deapen; Ann S Hamilton; Angela Mariotto; Daniel Miller; Lynne S Penberthy; Steven J Katz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-04-09       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 2.  Ethical considerations in genomic testing for hematologic disorders.

Authors:  Jonathan M Marron; Steven Joffe
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 22.113

3.  Factors Associated with Interest in Gene-Panel Testing and Risk Communication Preferences in Women from BRCA1/2 Negative Families.

Authors:  Kristina G Flores; Laurie E Steffen; Christopher J McLouth; Belinda E Vicuña; Amanda Gammon; Wendy Kohlmann; Lucretia Vigil; Zoneddy R Dayao; Melanie E Royce; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  A review of consent practices and perspectives for pharmacogenetic testing.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Rachel Mills
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 2.533

5.  Participants and Study Decliners' Perspectives About the Risks of Participating in a Clinical Trial of Whole Genome Sequencing.

Authors:  Jill Oliver Robinson; Thomas M Carroll; Lindsay Z Feuerman; Denise L Perry; Lily Hoffman-Andrews; Rebecca C Walsh; Kurt D Christensen; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-02-28       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.

Authors:  Angela R Bradbury; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Michael J Hall; Susan M Domchek; Mary B Daly; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominique Fetzer; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Dana F Clark; Andrea Forman; Rikki Gaber; Cassandra Gulden; Janice Horte; Jessica M Long; Terra Lucas; Shreshtha Madaan; Kristin Mattie; Danielle McKenna; Susan Montgomery; Sarah Nielsen; Jacquelyn Powers; Kim Rainey; Christina Rybak; Michelle Savage; Christina Seelaus; Jessica Stoll; Jill E Stopfer; Xinxin Shirley Yao
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Effect of Public Deliberation on Attitudes toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing.

Authors:  Michele C Gornick; Aaron M Scherer; Erica J Sutton; Kerry A Ryan; Nicole L Exe; Ming Li; Wendy R Uhlmann; Scott Y H Kim; J Scott Roberts; Raymond G De Vries
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice.

Authors:  Kerry A Ryan; Raymond G De Vries; Wendy R Uhlmann; J Scott Roberts; Michele C Gornick
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Impact of Panel Gene Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer on Patients.

Authors:  Heidi S Lumish; Hallie Steinfeld; Carrie Koval; Donna Russo; Elana Levinson; Julia Wynn; James Duong; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 10.  Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer Position statement on multigene panel testing for patients with colorectal cancer and/or polyposis.

Authors:  Brandie Heald; Heather Hampel; James Church; Beth Dudley; Michael J Hall; Maureen E Mork; Aparajita Singh; Elena Stoffel; Jessica Stoll; Y Nancy You; Matthew B Yurgelun; Sonia S Kupfer
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.