Literature DB >> 25871653

Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.

K A Kaphingst1,2, J Ivanovich3, B B Biesecker4, R Dresser5, J Seo3, L G Dressler6, P J Goodfellow7, M S Goodman3.   

Abstract

While experts have made recommendations, information is needed regarding what genome sequencing results patients would want returned. We investigated what results women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age would want returned and why. We conducted 60 semi-structured, in-person individual interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. We examined interest in six types of incidental findings and reasons for interest or disinterest in each type. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo 10. Most participants were at least somewhat interested in all six result types, but strongest interest was in actionable results (i.e. variants affecting risk of a preventable or treatable disease and treatment response). Reasons for interest varied between different result types. Some participants were not interested or ambivalent about results not seen as currently actionable. Participants wanted to be able to choose what results are returned. Participants distinguished between types of individual genome sequencing results, with different reasons for wanting different types of information. The findings suggest that a focus on actionable results can be a common ground for all stakeholders in developing a policy for returning individual genome sequencing results.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; genome sequencing; incidental findings; patient preferences; return of results

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25871653      PMCID: PMC4856148          DOI: 10.1111/cge.12597

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genet        ISSN: 0009-9163            Impact factor:   4.438


  40 in total

1.  Public perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results.

Authors:  J O'Daniel; S B Haga
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-05-07       Impact factor: 2.000

Review 2.  Disclosure of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing in pediatric genomic research.

Authors:  Ruqayyah Abdul-Karim; Benjamin E Berkman; David Wendler; Annette Rid; Javed Khan; Tom Badgett; Sara Chandros Hull
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2013-02-11       Impact factor: 7.124

3.  Genetics professionals' perspectives on reporting incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing.

Authors:  Zoe Lohn; Shelin Adam; Patricia Birch; Anne Townsend; Jan Friedman
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 2.802

4.  Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Julia Crouch; Seema M Jamal; Michael J Bamshad; Holly K Tabor
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 5.  Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing.

Authors:  Leslie G Biesecker; Robert C Green
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 91.245

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

Authors:  Kelly Hitch; Galen Joseph; Jenna Guiltinan; Jessica Kianmahd; Janey Youngblom; Amie Blanco
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Frequency of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in a population-based sample of young breast carcinoma cases.

Authors:  K E Malone; J R Daling; C Neal; N M Suter; C O'Brien; K Cushing-Haugen; T J Jonasdottir; J D Thompson; E A Ostrander
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Stakeholders' opinions on the implementation of pediatric whole exome sequencing: implications for informed consent.

Authors:  Brooke L Levenseller; Danielle J Soucier; Victoria A Miller; Diana Harris; Laura Conway; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-07-12       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing.

Authors:  Layla Shahmirzadi; Elizabeth C Chao; Erika Palmaer; Melissa C Parra; Sha Tang; Kelly D Farwell Gonzalez
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  21 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Patients' views on variants of uncertain significance across indications.

Authors:  Kristin Clift; Sarah Macklin; Colin Halverson; Jennifer B McCormick; Abd Moain Abu Dabrh; Stephanie Hines
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-08-20

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Decision-Making Preferences About Secondary Germline Findings That Arise From Tumor Genomic Profiling Among Patients With Advanced Cancers.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Elyse Shuk; Margaux Genoff Garzon; Vivian M Rodríguez; Joy Westerman; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2017-12-21

6.  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

7.  Ethical concerns relating to genetic risk scores for suicide.

Authors:  Anna Docherty; Brent Kious; Teneille Brown; Leslie Francis; Louisa Stark; Brooks Keeshin; Jeffrey Botkin; Emily DiBlasi; Doug Gray; Hilary Coon
Journal:  Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 3.568

8.  Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research.

Authors:  Emmanuelle Souzeau; Kathryn P Burdon; David A Mackey; Alex W Hewitt; Ravi Savarirayan; Margaret Otlowski; Jamie E Craig
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 3.283

9.  "Is It Worth Knowing?" Focus Group Participants' Perceived Utility of Genomic Preconception Carrier Screening.

Authors:  Jennifer L Schneider; Katrina A B Goddard; James Davis; Benjamin Wilfond; Tia L Kauffman; Jacob A Reiss; Marian Gilmore; Patricia Himes; Frances L Lynch; Michael C Leo; Carmit McMullen
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-06-21       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  How, who, and when: preferences for delivery of genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Jennifer Ivanovich; Ashley Elrick; Rebecca Dresser; Cindy Matsen; Melody S Goodman
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 2.183

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.