Literature DB >> 32095738

Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer.

Angela R Bradbury1, Linda Patrick-Miller1, Brian L Egleston1, Kara N Maxwell1, Laura DiGiovanni1, Jamie Brower1, Dominique Fetzer1, Jill Bennett Gaieski1, Amanda Brandt1, Danielle McKenna1, Jessica Long1, Jacquelyn Powers1, Jill E Stopfer1, Katherine L Nathanson1, Susan M Domchek1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Understanding the outcomes of returning individual genetic research results to participants is critical because some genetic variants are found to be associated with health outcomes and have become available for clinical testing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: BRCA1/2-negative women with early-onset breast cancer, multiple primary cancers, or a family history of breast cancer who participated in a gene discovery cancer registry were offered the opportunity to learn their individual genetic research results of 24 breast cancer susceptibility genes with a genetic counselor after predisclosure genetic counseling. Outcomes included uptake of research results, knowledge, informed choice, psychosocial adjustment, uncertainty, satisfaction, and uptake of clinical confirmation testing.
RESULTS: Four hundred two potential participants were contacted. One hundred ninety-four participants (48%) did not respond despite multiple attempts, and 85 participants (21%) actively or passively declined. One hundred seven participants (27%) elected for predisclosure counseling and were more likely to be younger, married, and white. Ninety percent of participants who had predisclosure counseling elected to receive their genetic research results, and 89% made an informed choice. Knowledge increased significantly after predisclosure counseling, and anxiety, intrusive cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and depression declined significantly after receipt of results. General anxiety and intrusive cancer-specific distress declined significantly for both participants with a positive result and those with a negative result. Sixty-four percent of participants had clinical confirmation testing when recommended, including all participants with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene.
CONCLUSION: Uptake of genetic research results may be lower than anticipated by hypothetical reports and small select studies. Participants who elected to receive research results with genetic providers did not experience increases in distress or uncertainty, but not all patients return for confirmation testing.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 32095738      PMCID: PMC7039346          DOI: 10.1200/po.17.00250

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol        ISSN: 2473-4284


  76 in total

1.  A measure of informed choice.

Authors:  T M Marteau; E Dormandy; S Michie
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Tiered disclosure options promote the autonomy and well-being of research subjects.

Authors:  Mark A Rothstein
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

3.  Medicine. Reestablishing the researcher-patient compact.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane; Kenneth D Mandl; Patrick L Taylor; Ingrid A Holm; Daniel J Nigrin; Louis M Kunkel
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  "For all my family's sake, I should go and find out": an Australian report on genetic counseling and testing uptake in individuals at high risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Claire E Wakefield; Paboda Ratnayake; Bettina Meiser; Graeme Suthers; Melanie A Price; Jessica Duffy; Kathy Tucker
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2011-01-23

5.  Uptake of offer to receive genetic information about BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in an Australian population-based study.

Authors:  Louise A Keogh; Melissa C Southey; Judi Maskiell; Mary-Anne Young; Clara L Gaff; Judy Kirk; Katherine M Tucker; Doreen Rosenthal; Margaret R E McCredie; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Choices for return of primary and secondary genomic research results of 790 members of families with Mendelian disease.

Authors:  Katie Fiallos; Carolyn Applegate; Debra Jh Mathews; Juli Bollinger; Amanda L Bergner; Cynthia A James
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-03-08       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study.

Authors:  Juli Murphy Bollinger; Joan Scott; Rachel Dvoskin; David Kaufman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Possible barriers for genetic counselors returning actionable genetic research results across state lines.

Authors:  Megan C Roberts; Elisabeth M Wood; Jill Bennett Gaieski; Angela R Bradbury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  The feasibility of online genetic testing for lung cancer susceptibility: uptake of a web-based protocol and decision outcomes.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Della Brown White; Saskia C Sanderson; Isaac M Lipkus; Gerold Bepler; Lori A Bastian; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Laura M Amendola; Christine Eng; Eliezer Van Allen; Stacy W Gray; Nikhil Wagle; Heidi L Rehm; Elizabeth T DeChene; Matthew C Dulik; Fuki M Hisama; Wylie Burke; Nancy B Spinner; Levi Garraway; Robert C Green; Sharon Plon; James P Evans; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  7 in total

1.  Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Mwenza Blell; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Lorraine Cowley; Stephanie O M Dyke; Clara Gaff; Robert Green; Alison Hall; Amber L Johns; Bartha M Knoppers; Stephanie Mulrine; Christine Patch; Eva Winkler; Madeleine J Murtagh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  Genetic Testing for Parkinson Disease: Are We Ready?

Authors:  Lola Cook; Jeanine Schulze; Catherine Kopil; Tara Hastings; Anna Naito; Joanne Wojcieszek; Katelyn Payne; Roy N Alcalay; Christine Klein; Rachel Saunders-Pullman; Tatyana Simuni; Tatiana Foroud
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2021-02

3.  Stakeholder Perspectives on Returning Nonactionable Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) Genetic Results to African American Research Participants.

Authors:  Kathleen M West; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Erika Blacksher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Ebele M Umeukeje; Bessie Young; Wylie Burke
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 1.978

4.  Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants.

Authors:  Adelyn Beil; Whitney Hornsby; Cristen Willer; J Scott Roberts; Wendy R Uhlmann; Rajani Aatre; Patricia Arscott; Brooke Wolford; Kim A Eagle; Bo Yang; Jennifer McNamara
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.063

Review 5.  At the Research-Clinical Interface: Returning Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants.

Authors:  Kathleen M West; Erika Blacksher; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Stephanie M Fullerton; Ebele M Umeukeje; Bessie A Young; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 8.237

6.  Returning individual-specific results of a dementia prevalence study: insights from prospective participants living in Switzerland.

Authors:  Marta Fadda; Maddalena Fiordelli; Rebecca Amati; Ilaria Falvo; Aliaa Ibnidris; Samia Hurst; Emiliano Albanese
Journal:  Int J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2020-09-11       Impact factor: 3.485

7.  Randomized study of remote telehealth genetic services versus usual care in oncology practices without genetic counselors.

Authors:  Cara N Cacioppo; Brian L Egleston; Dominique Fetzer; Colleen Burke Sands; Syeda A Raza; Neeraja Reddy Malleda; Elisabeth McCarty Wood; India Rittenburg; Julianne Childs; David Cho; Martha Hosford; Tina Khair; Jamil Khatri; Lydia Komarnicky; Trina Poretta; Fahd Rahman; Satish Shah; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Susan M Domchek; Angela R Bradbury
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 4.452

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.