Literature DB >> 27702805

A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of the Feasibility, Acceptability, and Impact of Giving Information on Personalized Genomic Risk of Melanoma to the Public.

Amelia K Smit1, David Espinoza2, Ainsley J Newson3, Rachael L Morton2, Georgina Fenton1,4, Lucinda Freeman1,4, Kate Dunlop4, Phyllis N Butow5, Matthew H Law6, Michael G Kimlin7, Louise A Keogh8, Suzanne J Dobbinson9, Judy Kirk10, Peter A Kanetsky11, Graham J Mann12,13, Anne E Cust14,13.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Communication of personalized melanoma genomic risk information may improve melanoma prevention behaviors.
METHODS: We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of communicating personalized genomic risk of melanoma to the public and its preliminary impact on behaviors and psychosocial outcomes. One hundred eighteen people aged 22 to 69 years provided a saliva sample and were randomized to the control (nonpersonalized educational materials) or intervention (personalized booklet presenting melanoma genomic risk as absolute and relative risks and a risk category based on variants in 21 genes, telephone-based genetic counseling, and nonpersonalized educational materials). Intention-to-treat analyses overall and by-risk category were conducted using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline values.
RESULTS: Consent to participate was 41%, 99% were successfully genotyped, and 92% completed 3-month follow-up. Intervention participants reported high satisfaction with the personalized booklet (mean = 8.6, SD = 1.6; on a 0-10 scale) and genetic counseling (mean = 8.1, SD = 2.2). No significant behavioral effects at 3-month follow-up were identified between intervention and control groups overall: objectively measured standard erythemal doses per day [-16%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -43% to 24%] and sun protection index (0.05; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.18). There was increased confidence identifying melanoma at 3 months (0.40; 95% CI, 0.10-0.69). Stratified by risk category, effect sizes for intentional tanning and some individual sun protection items appeared stronger for the average-risk group. There were no appreciable group differences in skin cancer-related worry or psychologic distress.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate feasibility and acceptability of providing personalized genomic risk of melanoma to the public. IMPACT: Genomic risk information has potential as a melanoma prevention strategy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(2); 212-21. ©2016 AACR. ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27702805     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0395

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  16 in total

1.  Interest and Uptake of MC1R Testing for Melanoma Risk in a Diverse Primary Care Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Jennifer L Hay; Kate Zielaskowski; Kirsten Meyer White; Kimberly Kaphingst; Erika Robers; Dolores Guest; Andrew Sussman; Yvonne Talamantes; Matthew Schwartz; Vivian M Rodríguez; Yuelin Li; Elizabeth Schofield; Jessica Bigney; Keith Hunley; David Buller; Marianne Berwick
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 10.282

2.  Distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences associated with receiving information on personal genomic risk of melanoma.

Authors:  Amelia K Smit; Ainsley J Newson; Megan Best; Caro-Anne Badcock; Phyllis N Butow; Judy Kirk; Kate Dunlop; Georgina Fenton; Anne E Cust
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  "Let's Talk about Skin Cancer": Examining Association between Family Communication about Skin Cancer, Perceived Risk, and Sun Protection Behaviors.

Authors:  Smita C Banerjee; Andrew Sussman; Elizabeth Schofield; Dolores D Guest; Yvonne S Dailey; Matthew R Schwartz; David B Buller; Keith Hunley; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Marianne Berwick; Jennifer L Hay
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2021-10-06

4.  Marshaling the Translational Potential of MC1R for Precision Risk Assessment of Melanoma.

Authors:  Peter A Kanetsky; Jennifer L Hay
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2017-12-15

5.  Development and Evaluation of a Telephone Communication Protocol for the Delivery of Personalized Melanoma Genomic Risk to the General Population.

Authors:  Georgina L Fenton; Amelia K Smit; Lucinda Freeman; Caro Badcock; Kate Dunlop; Phyllis N Butow; Judy Kirk; Anne E Cust
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-12-03       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Priority of Risk (But Not Perceived Magnitude of Risk) Predicts Improved Sun-Protection Behavior Following Genetic Counseling for Familial Melanoma.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; Lisa G Aspinwall; Danielle M Drummond; Tammy K Stump; Wendy Kohlmann; Marjan Champine; Pamela Cassidy; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2021-02-12

7.  Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of genomic testing in cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tatiane Yanes; Amanda M Willis; Bettina Meiser; Katherine M Tucker; Megan Best
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project.

Authors:  Louise Keogh; Paul Lacaze; Jane Tiller; Aideen McInerney-Leo; Andrea Belcher; Tiffany Boughtwood; Penny Gleeson; Martin Delatycki; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Ingrid Winship; Margaret Otlowski
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  Should Australia Ban the Use of Genetic Test Results in Life Insurance?

Authors:  Jane Tiller; Margaret Otlowski; Paul Lacaze
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2017-12-13

10.  Implementation considerations for offering personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Amelia K Smit; Gillian Reyes-Marcelino; Louise Keogh; Kate Dunlop; Ainsley J Newson; Anne E Cust
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.