Literature DB >> 26036860

Preferences for genetic testing for colorectal cancer within a population-based screening program: a discrete choice experiment.

Jorien Veldwijk1,2, Mattijs S Lambooij1, Frank G J Kallenberg3, Henk J van Kranen1,4, Annelien L Bredenoord2, Evelien Dekker3, Henriëtte A Smit2, G Ardine de Wit1,2.   

Abstract

This study explored individuals' preferences for genetic testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) in a screening situation and their willingness to participate in genetic testing for Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), and familial colorectal cancer (FCC). For that purpose, 532 respondents aged 55-65 years completed a Discrete Choice Experiment. Using panel latent class models, the preferences for two screening situation characteristics (the probability of being genetically predisposed and the probability of developing CRC) and screening test characteristics (the frequency of preventive colonoscopies and CRC survival) were estimated. Based on these preferences, respondents' willingness to participate in the three screening initiatives was estimated. Lower-educated respondents and respondents who express serious anxiety and worries found colonoscopy frequency and the probability of developing CRC relatively more important and survival relatively less important compared with higher-educated respondents and respondents who express no anxiety and worries. These differences in preferences resulted in opposite preferences for participation in FCC and FAP screening. In conclusion, the general population is willing to participate in genetic screening for CRC. If individuals are suspected of genetic or familial CRC, they should at least be informed about their increased risk of being genetically predisposed and about the importance of participating in all preventive follow-up colonoscopies in order to maximize survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26036860      PMCID: PMC4755369          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  38 in total

1.  American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: hereditary colorectal cancer and genetic testing.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Will screening open Pandora's box?

Authors:  John Hickner
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 0.493

3.  We need to know our limitations: genetic testing for complex traits.

Authors:  S M Zaki Yazdi; Nathaniel H Robin
Journal:  Curr Opin Pediatr       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.856

4.  What determines individuals' preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  L van Dam; L Hol; E W de Bekker-Grob; E W Steyerberg; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; M L Essink-Bot; M E van Leerdam
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 5.  Correlations between mutation site in APC and phenotype of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP): a review of the literature.

Authors:  M H Nieuwenhuis; H F A Vasen
Journal:  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol       Date:  2006-10-24       Impact factor: 6.312

Review 6.  Familial adenomatous polyposis: The practical applications of clinical and molecular screening.

Authors:  Paul Rozen; Finlay Macrae
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.375

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

Review 8.  Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  The new genetics and its consequences for family, kinship, medicine and medical genetics.

Authors:  Kaja Finkler; Cécile Skrzynia; James P Evans
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.

Authors:  Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 7.396

View more
  9 in total

1.  Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mo Zhou; Winter Maxwell Thayer; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Comparison of the efficiency of colorectal cancer screening programs based on age and genetic risk for reduction of colorectal cancer mortality.

Authors:  Oliver Stanesby; Mark Jenkins
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Semra Ozdemir; Jia Jia Lee; Isha Chaudhry; Remee Rose Quintana Ocampo
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  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

5.  Patient preferences for massively parallel sequencing genetic testing of colorectal cancer risk: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Deirdre Weymann; David L Veenstra; Gail P Jarvik; Dean A Regier
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-05-25       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  How psychological distance of a study sample in discrete choice experiments affects preference measurement: a colorectal cancer screening case study.

Authors:  Jorien Veldwijk; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Ulrik Kihlbom; Sophie Langenskiöld; Evelien Dekker; Frank G J Kallenberg; G Ardine de Wit; Mattijs S Lambooij
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 2.711

7.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Holly Etchegary; June C Carroll; David Castle; Louise Lemyre; Beth K Potter; Samantha Craigie; Brenda J Wilson
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 3.063

9.  Genomic Testing for Relapsed and Refractory Lymphoid Cancers: Understanding Patient Values.

Authors:  Sarah Costa; Dean A Regier; Adam J N Raymakers; Samantha Pollard
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 3.883

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.