Literature DB >> 34727336

Stakeholder attitudes towards establishing a national genomics registry of inherited cancer predisposition: a qualitative study.

Bettina Meiser1,2, Melissa Monnik3, Rachel Austin4, Cassandra Nichols5, Elisa Cops6, Lucinda Salmon7, Amanda B Spurdle8, Finlay Macrae6,9, Natalie Taylor10, Nicholas Pachter5,11, Paul James6, Rajneesh Kaur12.   

Abstract

This study aimed to describe the acceptability and perceived barriers and enablers to establish a national registry targeting carriers of pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes from stakeholders' perspectives. Such a registry may effectively target carriers to translate existing research findings into optimised clinical care and provide a population-level resource for further clinical research and new gene and therapy discovery. In-depth interviews were conducted with individuals from four stakeholder groups: carriers of pathogenic variants, healthcare professionals, data custodians from the field of familial cancer, and heads of molecular pathology laboratories. Interview data were subjected to a qualitative analysis guided by a thematic analysis framework using NVivo software. A total of 28 individuals were interviewed: 11 carriers, 8 healthcare professionals, 5 laboratory heads, and 4 data custodians. All carriers and healthcare professionals were enthusiastic about the potential research applications of the registry. Carriers described that altruistic motivations provided the foundation of their support of the planned registry. Some carriers felt comfortable with a broad consent (consenting once, prospectively), while others preferred a narrow consent approach (consenting each time data is accessed). Some carriers and data custodians and registry developers also expressed a reluctance to link family member data without appropriate consent. Participants' enthusiasm and support for a national registry herald a productive and responsive research partnership once the registry has been established. Participants' views can be used to inform the approaches to be taken to develop and manage such a registry as an implicit codesign approach.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attitudes; Carriers; Database; Genomics; Inherited cancer; Registry; Stakeholder

Year:  2021        PMID: 34727336      PMCID: PMC8799807          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-021-00559-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  34 in total

Review 1.  The role of BRCA mutation testing in determining breast cancer therapy.

Authors:  Alison H Trainer; Craig R Lewis; Kathy Tucker; Bettina Meiser; Michael Friedlander; Robyn L Ward
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-11-09       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 2.  Genetic testing and economic evaluations: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Elvira D'Andrea; Carolina Marzuillo; Ferruccio Pelone; Corrado De Vito; Paolo Villari
Journal:  Epidemiol Prev       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.901

3.  Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Authors:  Catherine De Angelis; Jeffrey M Drazen; Frank A Frizelle; Charlotte Haug; John Hoey; Richard Horton; Sheldon Kotzin; Christine Laine; Ana Marusic; A John P M Overbeke; Torben V Schroeder; Hal C Sox; Martin B Van Der Weyden
Journal:  Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 8.311

Review 4.  Systematic review of the impact of registration and screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in familial adenomatous polyposis and Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  P Barrow; M Khan; F Lalloo; D G Evans; J Hill
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 5.  Making personalized medicine more affordable.

Authors:  Naomi Aronson
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 5.691

6.  Perceptions of Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer patients on genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Authors:  K A Phillips; E Warner; W S Meschino; J Hunter; M Abdolell; G Glendon; I L Andrulis; P J Goodwin
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.438

7.  Participation in breast cancer susceptibility testing protocols: influence of recruitment source, altruism, and family involvement on women's decisions.

Authors:  G Geller; T Doksum; B A Bernhardt; S A Metz
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: responsibility and choice.

Authors:  Lori d'Agincourt-Canning
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2006-01

9.  ENIGMA--evidence-based network for the interpretation of germline mutant alleles: an international initiative to evaluate risk and clinical significance associated with sequence variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

Authors:  Amanda B Spurdle; Sue Healey; Andrew Devereau; Frans B L Hogervorst; Alvaro N A Monteiro; Katherine L Nathanson; Paolo Radice; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Sean Tavtigian; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Fergus J Couch; David E Goldgar
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 4.878

10.  Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group.

Authors:  Timothy R Rebbeck; Tara Friebel; Henry T Lynch; Susan L Neuhausen; Laura van 't Veer; Judy E Garber; Gareth R Evans; Steven A Narod; Claudine Isaacs; Ellen Matloff; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Barbara L Weber
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-02-23       Impact factor: 44.544

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.