Literature DB >> 26259529

Acceptability of, and Information Needs Regarding, Next-Generation Sequencing in People Tested for Hereditary Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

Bettina Meiser1, Ben Storey2, Veronica Quinn2, Belinda Rahman2, Lesley Andrews3.   

Abstract

Next generation sequencing (NGS) for patients at risk of hereditary cancer syndromes can also identify non-cancer related mutations, as well as variants of unknown significance. This study aimed to determine what benefits and shortcomings patients perceive in relation to NGS, as well as their interest and information preferences in regards to such testing. Eligible patients had previously received inconclusive results from clinical mutation testing for cancer susceptibility. Semi-structured telephone interviews were subjected to qualitative analysis guided by the approach developed by Miles and Huberman. The majority of the 19 participants reported they would be interested in panel/genomic testing. Advantages identified included that it would enable better preparation and allow implementation of individualized preventative strategies, with few disadvantages mentioned. Almost all participants said they would want all results, not just those related to their previous diagnosis. Participants felt that a face-to-face discussion supplemented by an information booklet would be the best way to convey information and achieve informed consent. All participants wanted their information stored and reviewed in accordance with new developments. Although the findings indicate strong interest among these individuals, it seems that the consent process, and the interpretation and communication of results will be areas that will require revision to meet the needs of patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attitudes; Hereditary cancer; Next generation sequencing; Panel testing

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26259529     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-015-9861-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  29 in total

Review 1.  Psychological impact of genetic testing for Huntington's disease: an update of the literature.

Authors:  B Meiser; S Dunn
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 10.154

2.  Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies.

Authors:  Cornelia Junghans; Gene Feder; Harry Hemingway; Adam Timmis; Melvyn Jones
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-09-12

Review 3.  Sequencing technologies - the next generation.

Authors:  Michael L Metzker
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2009-12-08       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  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

5.  Personalized genomic results: analysis of informational needs.

Authors:  Tara J Schmidlen; Lisa Wawak; Rachel Kasper; J Felipe García-España; Michael F Christman; Erynn S Gordon
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  The ClinSeq Project: piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine.

Authors:  Leslie G Biesecker; James C Mullikin; Flavia M Facio; Clesson Turner; Praveen F Cherukuri; Robert W Blakesley; Gerard G Bouffard; Peter S Chines; Pedro Cruz; Nancy F Hansen; Jamie K Teer; Baishali Maskeri; Alice C Young; Teri A Manolio; Alexander F Wilson; Toren Finkel; Paul Hwang; Andrew Arai; Alan T Remaley; Vandana Sachdev; Robert Shamburek; Richard O Cannon; Eric D Green
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 9.043

Review 7.  Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing.

Authors:  Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Gerard T Berry; Leslie G Biesecker; David P Dimmock; James P Evans; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri R Hegde; Sarah Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Ian Krantz; Amy L McGuire; David T Miller; Michael F Murray; Robert L Nussbaum; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; Howard J Jacob
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing.

Authors:  S B Haga; J M O'Daniel; G M Tindall; I R Lipkus; R Agans
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 3.550

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
  5 in total

1.  Attitudes, knowledge and consequences of uncertain genetic findings in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Charlotte Burns; Laura Yeates; Catherine Spinks; Christopher Semsarian; Jodie Ingles
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Information needs on breast cancer genetic and non-genetic risk factors in relatives of women with a BRCA1/2 or PALB2 pathogenic variant.

Authors:  Anne Brédart; Antoine De Pauw; Amélie Anota; Anja Tüchler; Julia Dick; Anita Müller; Jean-Luc Kop; Kerstin Rhiem; Rita Schmutzler; Peter Devilee; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Sylvie Dolbeault
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: patient recommendations for improved risk communication.

Authors:  Samantha Pollard; Steve Kalloger; Deirdre Weymann; Sophie Sun; Jennifer Nuk; Kasmintan A Schrader; Dean A Regier
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  A qualitative study among patients with an inherited retinal disease on the meaning of genomic unsolicited findings.

Authors:  Ignaas Devisch; Elfride De Baere; Marlies Saelaert; Heidi Mertes; Tania Moerenhout; Caroline Van Cauwenbergh; Bart P Leroy
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Stakeholder Perspectives on Navigating Evidentiary and Decision Uncertainty in Precision Oncology.

Authors:  Samantha Pollard; Jessica Dunne; Sarah Costa; Dean A Regier
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-01-01
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.