Literature DB >> 31268573

Psychosocial Effects of Multigene Panel Testing in the Context of Cancer Genomics.

Jada G Hamilton, Mark E Robson.   

Abstract

In recent years, with both the development of next-generation sequencing approaches and the Supreme Court decision invalidating gene patents, declining costs have contributed to the emergence of a new model of hereditary cancer genetic testing. Multigene panel testing (or multiplex testing) involves using next-generation sequencing technology to determine the sequence of multiple cancer-susceptibility genes. In addition to high-penetrance cancer-susceptibility genes, multigene panels frequently include genes that are less robustly associated with cancer predisposition. Scientific understanding about associations between many specific moderate-penetrance gene variants and cancer risks is incomplete. The emergence of multigene panel tests has created unique challenges that may have meaningful psychosocial implications. Contrasted with the serial testing process, wherein patients consider the personal and clinical implications of each evaluated gene, with multigene panel testing, patients provide broad consent to whichever genes are included in a particular panel and then, after the test, receive in-depth genetic counseling to clarify the distinct implications of their specific results. Consequently, patients undergoing multigene panel testing may have a less nuanced understanding of the test and its implications, and they may have fewer opportunities to self-select against the receipt of particular types of genetic-risk information. Evidence is conflicting regarding the emotional effects of this testing.
© 2019 The Hastings Center.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31268573      PMCID: PMC7430497          DOI: 10.1002/hast.1016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep        ISSN: 0093-0334            Impact factor:   2.683


  64 in total

Review 1.  ACG clinical guideline: Genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes.

Authors:  Sapna Syngal; Randall E Brand; James M Church; Francis M Giardiello; Heather L Hampel; Randall W Burt
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 2.  Uncertainty in acute illness.

Authors:  M H Mishel
Journal:  Annu Rev Nurs Res       Date:  1997

3.  Perceived ambiguity about screening mammography recommendations: association with future mammography uptake and perceptions.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Sarah C Kobrin; William M P Klein; William W Davis; Michael Stefanek; Steven H Taplin
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 4.  Sociodemographic, psychosocial and clinical factors associated with uptake of genetic counselling for hereditary cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  A M Willis; S K Smith; B Meiser; M L Ballinger; D M Thomas; M-A Young
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2016-10-23       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 5.  Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: State of the Art and Future Directions in the Era of Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Weitzel; Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J MacDonald; Julie O Culver; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Distress among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 results: 12-month outcomes.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Christine Rini; Rachel E Goldsmith; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Lawrence H Cohen; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.894

7.  Gene patents and personalized cancer care: impact of the Myriad case on clinical oncology.

Authors:  Kenneth Offit; Angela Bradbury; Courtney Storm; Jon F Merz; Kevin E Noonan; Rebecca Spence
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Counselling framework for moderate-penetrance cancer-susceptibility mutations.

Authors:  Nadine Tung; Susan M Domchek; Zsofia Stadler; Katherine L Nathanson; Fergus Couch; Judy E Garber; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 66.675

9.  Family communication of BRCA1/2 results and family uptake of BRCA1/2 testing in a diverse population of BRCA1/2 carriers.

Authors:  Julia Fehniger; Feng Lin; Mary S Beattie; Galen Joseph; Celia Kaplan
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-12       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Awareness of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommended changes in mammography screening guidelines, accuracy of awareness, sources of knowledge about recommendations, and attitudes about updated screening guidelines in women ages 40-49 and 50+.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 3.295

View more
  5 in total

1.  Comprehension of skin cancer genetic risk feedback in primary care patients.

Authors:  Erva Khan; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Kirsten Meyer White; Andrew Sussman; Dolores Guest; Elizabeth Schofield; Yvonne T Dailey; Erika Robers; Matthew R Schwartz; Yuelin Li; David Buller; Keith Hunley; Marianne Berwick; Jennifer L Hay
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-11-19

Review 2.  Psychological and health behaviour outcomes following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk: a mini-review of the literature.

Authors:  Lindsay Carlsson; Emily Thain; Brittany Gillies; Kelly Metcalfe
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 2.164

3.  Risk-reducing mastectomy decisions among women with mutations in high- and moderate- penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes.

Authors:  Jacob G Comeaux; Julie O Culver; John E Lee; Danielle Dondanville; Heather L McArthur; Emily Quinn; Nicholas Gorman; Charité Ricker; Ming Li; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 2.473

4.  Pilot Study of Return of Genetic Results to Patients in Adult Nephrology.

Authors:  Jordan G Nestor; Maddalena Marasa; Hila Milo-Rasouly; Emily E Groopman; S Ali Husain; Sumit Mohan; Hilda Fernandez; Vimla S Aggarwal; Dina F Ahram; Natalie Vena; Kelsie Bogyo; Andrew S Bomback; Jai Radhakrishnan; Gerald B Appel; Wooin Ahn; David J Cohen; Pietro A Canetta; Geoffrey K Dube; Maya K Rao; Heather K Morris; Russell J Crew; Simone Sanna-Cherchi; Krzysztof Kiryluk; Ali G Gharavi
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 10.614

5.  Psychosocial outcomes following germline multigene panel testing in an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients.

Authors:  Julie O Culver; Charité N Ricker; Joseph Bonner; John Kidd; Duveen Sturgeon; Rachel Hodan; Kerry Kingham; Katrina Lowstuter; Nicolette M Chun; Alexandra P Lebensohn; Courtney Rowe-Teeter; Peter Levonian; Katlyn Partynski; Karlena Lara-Otero; Christine Hong; Jennifer Morales Pichardo; Meredith A Mills; Krystal Brown; Caryn Lerman; Uri Ladabaum; Kevin J McDonnell; James M Ford; Stephen B Gruber; Allison W Kurian; Gregory E Idos
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 6.921

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.