Minerva A Romero Arenas1, Thereasa A Rich1, Samuel M Hyde2, Naifa L Busaidy3, Gilbert J Cote3, Mimi I Hu3, Robert F Gagel3, Paul W Gidley4, Camilo Jimenez3, Michael E Kupferman4, Susan K Peterson5, Steven I Sherman3, Anita Ying3, Roland L Bassett6, Steven G Waguespack3, Nancy D Perrier1, Elizabeth G Grubbs7. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Cancer Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Department of Endocrine Neoplasia & Hormonal Disorders, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Department of Head & Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 7. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. eggrubbs@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No guidelines exist regarding physicians' duty to inform former patients about novel genetic tests that may be medically beneficial. Research on the feasibility and efficacy of disseminating information and patient opinions on this topic is limited. METHODS: Adult patients treated at our institution from 1950 to 2010 for medullary thyroid cancer, pheochromocytoma, or paraganglioma were included if their history suggested being at-risk for a hereditary syndrome but genetic risk assessment would be incomplete by current standards. A questionnaire assessing behaviors and attitudes was mailed 6 weeks after an information letter describing new genetic tests, benefits, and risks was mailed. RESULTS: Ninety-seven of 312 (31.1%) eligible patients with an identified mailing address returned the questionnaire. After receiving the letter, 29.2% patients discussed genetic testing with their doctor, 39.3% considered pursuing genetic testing, and 8.5% underwent testing. Nearly all respondents (97%) indicated that physicians should inform patients about new developments that may improve their or their family's health, and 71% thought patients shared this responsibility. Most patients understood the letter (84%) and were pleased it was sent (84%), although 11% found it upsetting. CONCLUSIONS: Patients believe it is important for physicians to inform them of potentially beneficial developments in genetic testing. However, physician-initiated letters to introduce new information appear inadequate alone in motivating patients to seek additional genetic counseling and testing. Further research is needed regarding optimal methods to notify former patients about new genetic tests and corresponding clinical and ethical implications.
BACKGROUND: No guidelines exist regarding physicians' duty to inform former patients about novel genetic tests that may be medically beneficial. Research on the feasibility and efficacy of disseminating information and patient opinions on this topic is limited. METHODS: Adult patients treated at our institution from 1950 to 2010 for medullary thyroid cancer, pheochromocytoma, or paraganglioma were included if their history suggested being at-risk for a hereditary syndrome but genetic risk assessment would be incomplete by current standards. A questionnaire assessing behaviors and attitudes was mailed 6 weeks after an information letter describing new genetic tests, benefits, and risks was mailed. RESULTS: Ninety-seven of 312 (31.1%) eligible patients with an identified mailing address returned the questionnaire. After receiving the letter, 29.2% patients discussed genetic testing with their doctor, 39.3% considered pursuing genetic testing, and 8.5% underwent testing. Nearly all respondents (97%) indicated that physicians should inform patients about new developments that may improve their or their family's health, and 71% thought patients shared this responsibility. Most patients understood the letter (84%) and were pleased it was sent (84%), although 11% found it upsetting. CONCLUSIONS:Patients believe it is important for physicians to inform them of potentially beneficial developments in genetic testing. However, physician-initiated letters to introduce new information appear inadequate alone in motivating patients to seek additional genetic counseling and testing. Further research is needed regarding optimal methods to notify former patients about new genetic tests and corresponding clinical and ethical implications.
Authors: Yvonne Bombard; Kyle B Brothers; Sara Fitzgerald-Butt; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Leila Jamal; Cynthia A James; Gail P Jarvik; Jennifer B McCormick; Tanya N Nelson; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Julie Richer; Emmanuelle Souzeau; Jason L Vassy; Jennifer K Wagner; Howard P Levy Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Juliann M Savatt; Danielle R Azzariti; David H Ledbetter; Emily Palen; Heidi L Rehm; Erin Rooney Riggs; Christa Lese Martin Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Daniele Carrieri; Heidi C Howard; Caroline Benjamin; Angus J Clarke; Sandi Dheensa; Shane Doheny; Naomi Hawkins; Tanya F Halbersma-Konings; Leigh Jackson; Hülya Kayserili; Susan E Kelly; Anneke M Lucassen; Álvaro Mendes; Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag; Vigdís Stefánsdóttir; Peter D Turnpenny; Carla G van El; Irene M van Langen; Martina C Cornel; Francesca Forzano Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Mary E Velthuizen; Rob B van der Luijt; Beja J de Vries; Marco J Koudijs; Eveline M A Bleiker; Margreet G E M Ausems Journal: Hered Cancer Clin Pract Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 2.857