Literature DB >> 27937091

Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.

Stacy W Gray1, Sarah E Gollust1, Deanna Alexis Carere1, Clara A Chen1, Angel Cronin1, Sarah S Kalia1, Huma Q Rana1, Mack T Ruffin1, Catharine Wang1, J Scott Roberts1, Robert C Green1.   

Abstract

Purpose Significant concerns exist regarding the potential for unwarranted behavior changes and the overuse of health care resources in response to direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (PGT). However, little is known about customers' behaviors after PGT. Methods Longitudinal surveys were given to new customers of 23andMe (Mountain View, CA) and Pathway Genomics (San Diego, CA). Survey data were linked to individual-level PGT results through a secure data transfer process. Results Of the 1,042 customers who completed baseline and 6-month surveys (response rate, 71.2%), 762 had complete cancer-related data and were analyzed. Most customers reported that learning about their genetic risk of cancers was a motivation for testing (colorectal, 88%; prostate, 95%; breast, 94%). No customers tested positive for pathogenic mutations in highly penetrant cancer susceptibility genes. A minority of individuals received elevated single nucleotide polymorphism-based PGT cancer risk estimates (colorectal, 24%; prostate, 24%; breast, 12%). At 6 months, customers who received elevated PGT cancer risk estimates were not significantly more likely to change their diet, exercise, or advanced planning behaviors or engage in cancer screening, compared with individuals at average or reduced risk. Men who received elevated PGT prostate cancer risk estimates changed their vitamin and supplement use more than those at average or reduced risk (22% v 7.6%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.44 to 8.18). Predictors of 6-month behavior include baseline behavior (exercise, vitamin or supplement use, and screening), worse health status (diet and vitamin or supplement use), and older age (advanced planning, screening). Conclusion Most adults receiving elevated direct-to-consumer PGT single nucleotide polymorphism-based cancer risk estimates did not significantly change their diet, exercise, advanced care planning, or cancer screening behaviors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27937091      PMCID: PMC5455805          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.1503

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  48 in total

Review 1.  Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: systematic review of the literature on user perspectives.

Authors:  Lesley Goldsmith; Leigh Jackson; Anita O'Connor; Heather Skirton
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Consumer Perceptions of Interactions With Primary Care Providers After Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing.

Authors:  Cathelijne H van der Wouden; Deanna Alexis Carere; Anke H Maitland-van der Zee; Mack T Ruffin; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Christina M Diaz; Tao Wang; Susan G Hilsenbeck
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 11.229

4.  How Well Do Customers of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing Services Comprehend Genetic Test Results? Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.

Authors:  Jenny E Ostergren; Michele C Gornick; Deanna Alexis Carere; Sarah S Kalia; Wendy R Uhlmann; Mack T Ruffin; Joanna L Mountain; Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 2.000

5.  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

Review 6.  Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours.

Authors:  Theresa M Marteau; David P French; Simon J Griffin; A T Prevost; Stephen Sutton; Clare Watkinson; Sophie Attwood; Gareth J Hollands
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-10-06

Review 7.  A systematic review of dietary, nutritional, and physical activity interventions for the prevention of prostate cancer progression and mortality.

Authors:  Lucy E Hackshaw-McGeagh; Rachel E Perry; Verity A Leach; Sara Qandil; Mona Jeffreys; Richard M Martin; J Athene Lane
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 8.  Nutrition, dietary interventions and prostate cancer: the latest evidence.

Authors:  Pao-Hwa Lin; William Aronson; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  The impact of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing on perceived risk of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer: findings from the PGen study.

Authors:  Deanna Alexis Carere; Tyler VanderWeele; Tanya A Moreno; Joanna L Mountain; J Scott Roberts; Peter Kraft; Robert C Green
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 3.063

Review 10.  The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gareth J Hollands; David P French; Simon J Griffin; A Toby Prevost; Stephen Sutton; Sarah King; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-03-15
View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Ethical considerations in genomic testing for hematologic disorders.

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

Review 2.  Integrating surgery and genetic testing for the modern surgeon.

Authors:  Raul Caso; Matthew Beamer; Alexander D Lofthus; Michael Sosin
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-10

Review 3.  Nutritional Genomics and Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: An Overview.

Authors:  Marta Guasch-Ferré; Hassan S Dashti; Jordi Merino
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 8.701

4.  Patients' Medical and Psychosocial Experiences After Detection of a CDH1 Variant With Multigene Panel Testing.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Jessica M Long; Amanda C Brandt; Jamie Brower; Heather Symecko; Erin E Salo-Mullen; Stephanie N Christian; Tricia Harstad; Fergus J Couch; Judy E Garber; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson; Susan M Domchek
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2019-03-28

5.  Effect of co-payment on behavioral response to consumer genomic testing.

Authors:  Wendy Liu; Jessica J Outlaw; Nathan Wineinger; Debra Boeldt; Cinnamon S Bloss
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Genetic testing for exercise prescription and injury prevention: AIS-Athlome consortium-FIMS joint statement.

Authors:  Nicole Vlahovich; David C Hughes; Lyn R Griffiths; Guan Wang; Yannis P Pitsiladis; Fabio Pigozzi; Nobert Bachl; Nir Eynon
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 3.969

7.  Cascading After Peridiagnostic Cancer Genetic Testing: An Alternative to Population-Based Screening.

Authors:  Kenneth Offit; Kaitlyn A Tkachuk; Zsofia K Stadler; Michael F Walsh; Hector Diaz-Zabala; Jeffrey D Levin; Zoe Steinsnyder; Vignesh Ravichandran; Ravi N Sharaf; Melissa K Frey; Steven M Lipkin; Mark E Robson; Jada G Hamilton; Joseph Vijai; Semanti Mukherjee
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 50.717

8.  Does Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genetic Testing Improve Gynecological Cancer Screening Uptake among Never-Screened Attendees? A Randomized Controlled Study.

Authors:  Miki Watanabe; Satoyo Hosono; Hiroko Nakagawa-Senda; Sachiyo Yamamoto; Masami Aoyama; Satoru Hattori; Tamaki Yamada; Sadao Suzuki
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 9.  Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities.

Authors:  Sarah Briggs; Ingrid Slade
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2019-05-18

10.  Characterizing the relationships between tertiary and community cancer providers: Results from a survey of medical oncologists in Southern California.

Authors:  Nicholas J Salgia; Alexander Chehrazi-Raffle; JoAnn Hsu; Zeynep Zengin; Sabrina Salgia; Neal S Chawla; Luis Meza; Jasnoor Malhotra; Nazli Dizman; Ramya Muddasani; Nora Ruel; Mary Cianfrocca; Jun Gong; Sidharth Anand; Victor Chiu; James Yeh; Sumanta K Pal
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-07-31       Impact factor: 4.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.