Jada G Hamilton1,2,3, Margaux Genoff Garzon4, Ibrahim H Shah4, Kechna Cadet4, Elyse Shuk4, Joy S Westerman4, Jennifer L Hay4,5, Kenneth Offit6,7,8, Mark E Robson6,7. 1. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA, hamiltoj@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, New York, USA, hamiltoj@mskcc.org. 3. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA, hamiltoj@mskcc.org. 4. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, New York, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, New York, USA. 8. Program in Cell Biology and Genetics, Sloan Kettering Institute, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Genetic risk modifier testing (GRMT), an emerging form of genetic testing based on common single nucleotide polymorphisms and polygenic risk scores, has the potential to refine estimates of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers' breast cancer risks. However, for women to benefit from GRMT, effective approaches for communicating this novel risk information are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient preferences regarding risk communication materials for GRMT. METHODS: We developed four separate presentations (panel of genes, icon array, verbal risk estimate, graphical risk estimate) of hypothetical GRMT results, each using varying risk communication strategies to convey different information elements including number of risk modifier variants present, variant prevalence among BRCA1/2 carriers, and implications and uncertainties of test results for cancer risk. Thirty BRCA1/2 carriers evaluated these materials (randomized to low, moderate, or high breast cancer risk versions). Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained through in-person interviews. RESULTS: Across risk versions, participants preferred the presentation of the graphical risk estimate, often in combination with the verbal risk estimate. Interest in GRMT was high; 76.7% of participants wanted their own GRMT. Participants valued the potential for GRMT to clarify their cancer susceptibility and provide actionable information. Many (65.5%) anticipated that GRMT would make risk management decisions easier. CONCLUSIONS: Women with BRCA1/2 mutations could be highly receptive to GRMT, and the minimal amount of necessary information to be included in result risk communication materials includes graphical and verbal estimates of future cancer risk. Findings will inform clinical translation of GRMT in a manner consistent with patients' preferences.
INTRODUCTION: Genetic risk modifier testing (GRMT), an emerging form of genetic testing based on common single nucleotide polymorphisms and polygenic risk scores, has the potential to refine estimates of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers' breast cancer risks. However, for women to benefit from GRMT, effective approaches for communicating this novel risk information are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient preferences regarding risk communication materials for GRMT. METHODS: We developed four separate presentations (panel of genes, icon array, verbal risk estimate, graphical risk estimate) of hypothetical GRMT results, each using varying risk communication strategies to convey different information elements including number of risk modifier variants present, variant prevalence among BRCA1/2 carriers, and implications and uncertainties of test results for cancer risk. Thirty BRCA1/2 carriers evaluated these materials (randomized to low, moderate, or high breast cancer risk versions). Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained through in-person interviews. RESULTS: Across risk versions, participants preferred the presentation of the graphical risk estimate, often in combination with the verbal risk estimate. Interest in GRMT was high; 76.7% of participants wanted their own GRMT. Participants valued the potential for GRMT to clarify their cancer susceptibility and provide actionable information. Many (65.5%) anticipated that GRMT would make risk management decisions easier. CONCLUSIONS:Women with BRCA1/2 mutations could be highly receptive to GRMT, and the minimal amount of necessary information to be included in result risk communication materials includes graphical and verbal estimates of future cancer risk. Findings will inform clinical translation of GRMT in a manner consistent with patients' preferences.
Authors: Bonnie J Baty; William N Dudley; Adrian Musters; Anita Y Kinney Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 3.908
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Tiffani DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Sarah Rogers; Jessica Rispoli; Karen Brown; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 3.908
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Alice R Richman; Jessica T DeFrank; Valerie F Reyna; Lisa A Carey Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jennifer K Litton; Shannon N Westin; Kaylene Ready; Charlotte C Sun; Susan K Peterson; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Diane C Bodurka; Karen H Lu; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Banu K Arun Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John A Lynch; Richard R Sharp; Sharon A Aufox; Sarah T Bland; Carrie Blout; Deborah J Bowen; Adam H Buchanan; Colin Halverson; Margaret Harr; Scott J Hebbring; Nora Henrikson; Christin Hoell; Ingrid A Holm; Gail Jarvik; Iftikhar J Kullo; David C Kochan; Eric B Larson; Amanda Lazzeri; Kathleen A Leppig; Jill Madden; Maddalena Marasa; Melanie F Myers; Josh Peterson; Cynthia A Prows; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; James Ralston; Hila Milo Rasouly; Aaron Scrol; Maureen E Smith; Amy Sturm; Kelsey Stuttgen; Georgia Wiesner; Marc S Williams; Julia Wynn; Janet L Williams Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2020-05-13