Interest in genetic testing for modest changes in breast cancer risk: implications for SNP testing

An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of population genetic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia in US patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Familial hypercholesterolemia is an underdiagnosed genetic metabolic condition limiting the clearance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increasing lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease. Population genetic screening in unselected individuals could quickly identify cases of familial hypercholesterolemia and enable early prevention, but the economic impact of widespread screening on patients has not been studied.

METHODS

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of population genetic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia in 20 and 35-year-old adults in the United States from the perspective of patients. We developed a decision tree Markov hybrid model to examine diagnoses, cardiovascular disease, cardiac events, quality of life, and costs under population genetic screening compared to family-based cascade testing.

RESULTS

While population genetic screening increased diagnoses and reduced incidence of cardiovascular disease, population genetic screening was not cost-effective compared to cascade testing at current levels of willingness to pay. Lower genetic testing costs, combined screening with other genetic conditions, and support to maintain lipid-lowering therapy use over time could improve the cost-effectiveness of population genetic screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research is needed to examine how cost-sharing strategies may affect the cost-effectiveness of screening to patients and how families and providers experience the clinical and economic outcomes of population screening.

Effect of SMAD4 gene polymorphism on breast cancer risk in Bangladeshi women

Background

Breast cancer, one of the most prevalent cancer types among women worldwide as well as in Bangladesh, is the leading cause of cancer death in women throughout the globe. The risk of breast cancer development was found to be associated with genetic polymorphism according to several studies. As a convenient prognostic marker, a biomarker helps to identify disease progression, can lead to an effective therapeutic strategy, development of prognostic marker is very important for any cancer to initiate treatment strategy early to increase the possibility of the success rate of the treatment along with reduction of the treatment cost. This study aims to establish the correlation between polymorphism of SMAD4 rs10502913 and risk of breast cancer development in Bangladeshi women. This study was conducted on 70 breast cancer patients and 60 healthy volunteers through blood sample collection followed by DNA separation between the intervals of August 2019–October 2019. The collected DNA sample was arranged for the RFLP analysis of a PCR amplified fragments followed by gel electrophoresis. The obtained data was analyzed by structured multinomial logistic regression model.

Results

Obtained different fragment size after gel electrophoresis indicated different genotypes in this experiment. Our findings demonstrated that mutant homozygous A/A genotype, plays a significant role in breast cancer development among Bangladeshi women (P = 0.006, OR = 4.9626, 95% CI = 1.9980–12.3261) compared to the reference homozygous G/G genotype. Moreover, heterozygous G/A genotype was also found to be significantly associated with the risk of breast cancer development (P = 0.0252, OR = 2.6574, CI = 1.1295–6.2525). Considering the A/A genotype and G/A genotype combined, it also indicates a strong association of breast cancer development in Bangladeshi women (P = 0.008, OR = 3.5630, CI = 1.6907–7.5068).

Conclusion

Our study indicated a novel association between SMAD4 (rs10502913) polymorphism and increased risk of breast cancer development in Bangladeshi women.

Attitudes and interest in incorporating BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility testing into reproductive carrier screening for Ashkenazi Jewish men and women

Pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes are associated with elevated cancer risks in men and women. Due to a founder effect, Ashkenazi Jewish individuals are at higher risk for carrying three specific BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. There have been recent calls for population screening in this population because many carriers do not have family histories suggestive of hereditary cancer. One approach could be to integrate optional BRCA1/2 testing into routinely offered reproductive carrier screening for recessive and X-linked disorders. However, the differing goals of these types of testing (i.e., personal health risks versus family planning) raise questions about the implications for patient education and informed consent. To this end, we aimed to determine interest, attitudes, and preferences regarding integrating such testing by electronically surveying 331 Ashkenazi Jewish participants in JScreen - a national, not-for-profit, at-home carrier screening program focused on genetic risks in Jewish communities. We found that while 41% of participants had plans to pursue BRCA1/2 testing, 93% would have opted for such testing if offered as an add-on to reproductive carrier screening. This was particularly true of those with higher perceived cancer risk and more positive attitudes toward genetic testing. With respect to preferences about delivery of this service, more than 85% of participants preferred remote (telephone, print, or web-based) genetic education rather than traditional genetic counseling. These results suggest that offering optional BRCA1/2 testing within the context of reproductive carrier screening might provide opportunities for cancer prevention without overburdening scarce genetic counseling resources.

Information needs on breast cancer genetic and non-genetic risk factors in relatives of women with a BRCA1/2 or PALB2 pathogenic variant

OBJECTIVES

Comprehensive breast cancer (BC) risk models integrating effects of genetic (GRF) and non-genetic risk factors (NGRF) may refine BC prevention recommendations. We explored the perceived information received on BC risk factors, and related characteristics, in female relatives of women with a BRCA1/2 or PALB2 pathogenic variant, undergoing BC risk assessment using the CanRisk© prediction tool.

METHODS

Of 200 consecutive cancer-free women approached after the initial genetic consultation, 161 (80.5%) filled in questionnaires on their perception of information received and wished further information on BC risk factors (e.g., being a carrier of a moderate risk altered gene, personal genetic profile, lifestyles). Multilevel multivariate linear models were performed accounting for the clinician who met the counselee and exploring the effect of counselees' socio-demographic, familial and psychological characteristics on the perceived extent of information received.

RESULTS

Perceived no/little information received and wish for further information were more frequent for NGRF (>50%) than for GRF, especially high-risk genes (<20%). Perceived amount of information received and desire for further information were inversely correlated (p=<0.0001). Higher education level related to lower perceived levels of information received on GRF. Younger counselees' age (β = 0.13, p = 0.02) and less frequent engagement coping (e.g., inclination to solicit information) (β = 0.24, p = 0.02) related to lower perceived information received about NGRF. Other assessed counselees' features were not found to be associated to GRF and NGRF information perception.

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of counselees' perceived lack of information on BC risk factors indicates a need to enhance evidence-based information on BC NGRF especially.

Psychological predictors of advanced cancer patients' preferences for return of results from comprehensive tumor genomic profiling

This study assessed the psychological predictors of preferences for return of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results in patients with advanced cancers, enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing CTGP. Of the 1434 who completed a questionnaire, 96% would like to receive results that can guide treatment for their cancer, and preference for receiving this type of result was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty. Sixty-four percent would like to receive results that cannot guide treatment, and lower tolerance of uncertainty, self-efficacy, and perceived importance were associated with this preference. Fifty-nine percent would like to receive variants of unknown significance, which was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty, higher self-efficacy, and perceived importance. Eighty-six percent wanted to receive germline results that could inform family risk. This was associated with higher self-efficacy, perceived importance, and perceived susceptibility. Although most patients wanted to receive all types of results, given the differing patient preferences regarding the return of results depending on the utility of the different types of results, it appears critical to safeguard patient understanding of result utility to achieve informed patient choices. This should be accompanied by appropriate consent processes.

Motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Single-gene testing is associated with psycho-social challenges for cancer patients. Genomic testing may amplify these. The aim of this study was to understand patients' motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing, to enable healthcare providers to support their patients throughout the testing process and interpretation of test results.

METHODS

Five databases were searched for original peer reviewed research articles published between January 2001 and September 2018 addressing motivation for genomic cancer testing. QualSyst was used to assess quality.

RESULTS

182 studies were identified and 17 were included for review. Studies were heterogenous. Both somatic and germline testing were included, and 14 studies used hypothetical scenarios. 3249 participants were analyzed, aged 18 to 94. Most were female and white. The most common diagnoses were breast, ovarian, lung and colorectal cancer. Interest in testing was high. Motivations included ability to predict cancer risk, inform disease management, benefit families, and understand cancer. Barriers included concerns about cost, privacy/confidentiality, clinical utility, and psychological harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite concerns, consumers are interested in cancer genomic testing if it can provide actionable results for themselves and their families.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providers must manage understanding and expectations of testing and translate genetic information into health-promoting behaviours.

"I think that a brief conversation from their provider can go a very long way": Patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators of genetic testing after ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Identify predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting genetic counseling/testing among ovarian cancer patients guided by Green and Kreuter's PRECEDE-PROCEED model.

METHODS

Gynecologic oncology providers (N = 4), genetic counselors (N = 4), and ovarian cancer patients (N = 9) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring participants' knowledge of and experiences with genetic counseling/testing. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive content analysis by two independent raters.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting referral for and uptake of genetic counseling/testing. Predisposing factors included participant's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes related to genetic counseling/testing. Both patients and providers also cited that insurance coverage and out-of-pocket cost are major concerns for ovarian cancer patients considering genetic testing. Finally, both patients and providers emphasized that genetic counseling/testing would provide additional information to an ovarian cancer patient. While providers emphasized that genetic testing results were useful for informing a patient's personal treatment plan, patients emphasized that this knowledge would be beneficial for their family members.

CONCLUSION

Barriers to genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients exist at multiple levels, including the patient (e.g., knowledge, attitudes), the provider (e.g., workload, availability of services), the institution (e.g., difficulty with referrals/scheduling), and the healthcare system (e.g., insurance/cost). Interventions aiming to increase genetic testing among ovarian cancer patients will likely need to target multiple levels of influence. Future quantitative studies are needed to replicate these results. This line of work will inform specific multilevel intervention strategies that are adaptable to different practice settings, ultimately improving guideline concordant care.

A Genomic Test for Colorectal Cancer Risk: Is This Acceptable and Feasible in Primary Care?

INTRODUCTION

Genomic tests can predict risk and tailor screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). Primary care could be suitable for their widespread implementation.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of administering a CRC genomic test in primary care.

METHODS

Participants aged 45-74 years recruited from 4 Australian general practices were offered a genomic CRC risk test. Participants received brief verbal information about the test comprising 45 CRC-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms, before choosing whether to undertake the test. Personalized risks were given to testers. Uptake and knowledge of the genomic test, cancer-specific anxiety (Cancer Worry Scale), psychosocial impact (Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment [MICRA] score), and impact on CRC screening behaviour within 6 months were measured.

RESULTS

In 150 participants, test uptake was high (126, 84%), with 125 (83%) having good knowledge of the genomic test. Moderate risk participants were impacted more by the test (MICRA mean: 15.9) than average risk participants (mean: 9.5, difference in means: 6.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 11.2, p = 0.01), but all scores were low. Average risk participants' cancer-specific anxiety decreased (mean differences from baseline: 1 month -0.5, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.1, p = 0.03; 6 months -0.6, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.2, p = 0.01). We found limited evidence for genomic testers being more likely to complete the risk-appropriate CRC screening than non-testers (41 vs. 17%, odds ratio = 3.4, 95% CI: 0.6, 34.8, p = 0.19), but some mediators of screening behaviour were altered in genomic testers.

CONCLUSIONS

Genomic testing for CRC risk in primary care is acceptable and likely feasible. Further development of the risk assessment intervention could strengthen the impact on screening behaviour.

Illustrating Cancer Risk: Patient Risk Communication Preferences and Interest regarding a Novel BRCA1/2 Genetic Risk Modifier Test

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.

Uptake of polygenic risk information among women at increased risk of breast cancer

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are increasingly being implemented to assess breast cancer risk. This study aimed to assess and determine factors associated with uptake of PRS among women at increased risk of breast cancer for whom genetic testing to date had been uninformative. Participants were recruited from the Variants in Practice study from which breast cancer PRS had been calculated. Four hundred women were notified by letter of the availability of their PRS and invited to complete a self-administered survey comprising several validated scales. Considering non-participants, uptake of PRS was between 61.8% and 42.1%. Multivariate logistic regression identified that women were more likely to receive their PRS if they reported greater benefits (odds ratio [OR] = 1.17, P = .011) and fewer barriers to receiving their PRS (OR = 0.80, P = .007), had completed higher level education (OR = 3.32, P = .004), and did not have daughters (0.29, P = .006). Uptake of breast cancer PRS varied according to several testing- and patient-related factors. Knowledge of these factors will facilitate the implementation of polygenic testing in clinical practice and support informed decision making by patients.

Factors affecting breast cancer patients' need for genetic risk information: From information insufficiency to information need

Information-seeking models typically focus on information-seeking behaviors based on individuals' interest in information, because their current level is perceived to be insufficient. In the context of genetic risk information (GRI), however, information insufficiency is difficult to measure and thus can limit understanding of information behavior in the context of GRI. We propose that an individual's need for information might be a more direct and conceptually clearer alternative to predicting their information-seeking behavior. To test this hypothesis, this study investigates the extent to which previously identified factors affecting interest in GRI are also predictors of need for GRI among women diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 40 or younger (N = 1,069). As hypothesized, there was a positive association between interest in and need for GRI. Furthermore, hypothesized factors of numeracy, information orientation, and genetic knowledge were significant predictors of increased interest in and need for GRI. In contrast, hypothesized factors of genetic worry and genetic causal belief predicted increased interest in GRI only, while genetic self-efficacy predicted increased need for GRI only. As hypothesized, BRCA status significantly moderated associations between informational norm and both interest in and need for GRI. Collectively, the findings support inclusion of need for GRI in theoretical information-seeking models in the context of genomic risk.

The Patient in Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review Examining Evaluations of Patient-Facing Materials

Precision medicine (PM) has the potential to tailor healthcare to the individual patient by using their genetic information to guide treatment choices. However, this process is complex and difficult to understand for patients and providers alike. With a recent push in the healthcare community to understand the patient experience and engage patients in their care, it is important to give patients the opportunity to learn about PM. We performed a systematic review to identify previous work assessing the quality of patient-facing PM materials from 2008 to July 2018. Ten studies were identified, which used varying methods and measures. A qualitative assessment was conducted to compare key elements of the studies, including study design, characteristics of the participant population, what measurements were used to assess the PM materials, understandability, preference, psychological reactions, and the type of PM materials being assessed. The studies identified provide important groundwork by highlighting consistent aspects of design that aid in comprehension. Eight of the ten studies focused on the content and organization of genomic test results, while the remaining two assessed educational tools. Two main design elements that appeared across the studies were appropriately designed visual aids and simplified language. The studies identified were limited by the participant populations that were used, which were primarily white and well educated. Only one study attempted to oversample patient populations typically underrepresented in this type of research. Through our systematic review, it is evident that the breadth of knowledge in this field is limited in scope and that more work must be done to ensure that patients can engage in their care when faced with PM.

High-risk women's risk perception after receiving personalized polygenic breast cancer risk information

Evidence is accumulating of the clinical utility of single nucleotide polymorphisms to effectively stratify risk of breast cancer. Yet for this personalized polygenic information to be translated to clinical practice, consideration is needed about how this personalized risk information should be communicated and the impact on risk perception. This study examined the psychosocial implications and the impact on risk perception of communicating personalized polygenic breast cancer risk to high-risk women. High-risk women with a personal history of breast cancer and an uninformative BRCA1/2 result were genotyped in the Variants in Practice study for 22 breast cancer single nucleotide polymorphisms. Participants in the highest quartile of polygenic breast cancer risk were invited to receive their individual research results. Two personalized visual risk communication tools were used to facilitate communication of the polygenic information. Participants subsequently undertook a semi-structured interview examining their experience of receiving their polygenic breast cancer risk and their breast cancer risk perception. Thirty-nine women opted to receive their results and were interviewed. The women described the risk communication tools as helpful as the tool enabled comparison of their personalized breast cancer risk to the general population. Participants incorporated the polygenic risk information into their breast cancer risk perception, which for some reawakened feelings of being at risk years after an uninformative BRCA1/2 result. However, few reported any detrimental emotional impact. The delivery of personalized polygenic breast cancer risk to high-risk women informed and modified their breast cancer risk perception with little emotional impact.

Disentangling the determinants of interest and willingness-to-pay for breast cancer susceptibility testing in the general population: a cross-sectional Web-based survey among women of Québec (Canada)

OBJECTIVES

To identify common and specific individual factors that favour or impede women's interest in and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for breast cancer susceptibility testing (BCST) and to identify the most impactful factors on both outcome measures.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This study used a self-administered cross-sectional Web-based questionnaire that included hypothetical scenarios about the availability of a new genetic test for breast cancer.

PARTICIPANTS

French-speaking women of the general population of Québec (Canada), aged between 35 and 69 years, were identified from a Web-based panel (2410 met the selection criteria, 1160 were reached and 1031 completed the survey).

MEASURES

The outcomes are the level of interest in and the range of WTP for BCST. Three categories of individual factors identified in the literature were used as potential explanatory factors, that is, demographic, clinical and psychosocial.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics indicated that the vast majority of sampled women are interested in BCST (90%). Among those, more than half of them are willing-to-pay for such a test (57%). The regression models pointed out several factors associated with both outcomes (eg, age, income, family history, locus of control-powerful others) and marginal effects were used to highlight the most impactful factors for each outcome.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide a proxy of the readiness of women of the general population to use and to pay for BCST. They also offer insights for developing inclusive and specific strategies to foster informed decision-making and guide the services offered by health organisations corresponding to women's preferences and needs.

Preferences for multigene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer risk among ethnically diverse BRCA-uninformative families

Until recently, genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer has primarily focused on pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) genes. However, advances in DNA sequencing technologies have made simultaneous testing for multiple genes possible. We examined correlates of interest in multigene panel testing and risk communication preferences in an ethnically diverse sample of women who tested negative for BRCA mutations previously but remain at high risk based on their family history (referred to as "BRCA-uninformative") and their at-risk female family members. Two-hundred and thirteen women with a previous breast cancer diagnosis and a BRCA-uninformative test result and their first-degree relatives completed a survey on interest in multigene panel testing, communication preferences, and sociodemographic, psychological, and clinical factors. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with testing interest. Chi-square analyses were used to test differences in risk communication preferences. Interest in multigene panel testing was high (84%) and did not considerably differ by cancer status or ethnicity. In multivariable analysis, factors significantly associated with interest in genetic testing were having had a mammogram in the past 2 years (odds ratio (OR) = 4.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80-9.02) and high cancer worry (OR = 3.77, 95% CI 1.34-10.60). Overall, the most commonly preferred genetic communication modes were genetic counselors, oncologists, and print materials. However, non-Hispanic women were more likely than Hispanic women to prefer web-based risk communication (p < 0.001). Hispanic and non-Hispanic women from BRCA-uninformative families have a high level of interest in gene panel testing. Cancer-related emotions and communication preferences should be considered in developing targeted genetic risk communication strategies.

Women's preferences, willingness-to-pay, and predicted uptake for single-nucleotide polymorphism gene testing to guide personalized breast cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) gene test is a potential tool for improving the accuracy of breast cancer risk prediction. We seek to measure women's preferences and marginal willingness-to-pay (mWTP) for this new technology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We administered a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to English-speaking Singaporean women aged 40-69 years without any history of breast cancer, enrolled via door-to-door recruitment with quota sampling by age and ethnicity. DCE attributes comprise: 1) sample type (buccal swab and dried blood spot), 2) person conducting pretest discussion (specialist doctor, non-specialist doctor, and nurse educator), 3) test location (private family clinic, public primary-care clinic, and hospital), and 4) out-of-pocket cost (S$50, S$175, and S$300). Mixed logit model was used to estimate the effect of attribute levels on women's preferences and mWTP. Interactions between significant attributes and respondent characteristics were investigated. Predicted uptake rates for various gene testing scenarios were studied.

RESULTS

A total of 300 women aged 52.6±7.6 years completed the survey (100 Chinese, Malay, and Indian women, respectively). Sample type (P=0.046), person conducting pretest discussion, and out-of-pocket cost (P<0.001) are significantly associated with going for SNP gene testing. Women with higher income and education levels are more willing to pay higher prices for the test. Preferences in terms of mWTP across ethnic groups appear similar, but Chinese women have greater preference heterogeneity for the attributes. Predicted uptake for a feasible scenario consisting of buccal swab, pretest discussion with nurse educator at the hospital costing S$50 is 60.5%. Only 3.3% of women always opted out of the SNP gene test in real life. Reasons include high cost, poor awareness, and indifference toward test results.

CONCLUSION

SNP gene testing may be tailored according to individual preferences to encourage uptake. Future research should focus on outcomes and cost-effectiveness of personalized breast cancer screening using SNP gene testing.

A qualitative study on Singaporean women's views towards breast cancer screening and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) gene testing to guide personalised screening strategies

Background

Breast cancer is the top cancer by incidence and mortality in Singaporean women. Mammography is by far its best screening tool, but current recommended age and interval may not yield the most benefit. Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to improve discriminatory accuracy of breast cancer risk assessment models. This study was conducted to understand Singaporean women’s views towards breast cancer screening and SNPs gene testing to guide personalised screening strategies.

Methods

Focus group discussions were conducted among English-speaking women (n = 27) between 40 to 65 years old, both current and lapsed mammogram users. Women were divided into four groups based on age and mammogram usage. Discussions about breast cancer and screening experience, as well as perception and attitude towards SNPs gene testing were conducted by an experienced moderator. Women were also asked for factors that will influence their uptake of the test. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis to captured similarities and differences in views expressed.

Results

Barriers to repeat mammogram attendance include laziness to make appointment and painful and uncomfortable screening process. However, the underlying reason may be low perceived susceptibility to breast cancer. Facilitators to repeat mammogram attendance include ease of making appointment and timely reminders. Women were generally receptive towards SNPs gene testing, but required information on accuracy, cost, invasiveness, and side effects before they decide whether to go for it. Other factors include waiting time for results and frequency interval. On average, women gave a rating of 7.5 (range 5 to 10) when asked how likely they will go for the test.

Conclusion

Addressing concerns such as pain and discomfort during mammogram, providing timely reminders and debunking breast cancer myths can help to improve screening uptake. Women demonstrated a spectrum of responses towards a novel test like SNPs gene testing, but need more information to make an informed decision. Future public health education on predictive genetic testing should adequately address both benefits and risks. Findings from this study is used to inform a discrete choice experiment to empirically quantify women preferences and willingness-to-pay for SNPs gene testing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-017-3781-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Psychosocial and behavioral impact of breast cancer risk assessed by testing for common risk variants: protocol of a prospective study

Background

The ‘common variant, common disease’ model predicts that a significant component of hereditary breast cancer unexplained by pathogenic variants in moderate or high-penetrance genes is due to the cumulative effect of common risk variants in DNA (polygenic risk). Assessing a woman’s breast cancer risk by testing for common risk variants can provide useful information for women who would otherwise receive uninformative results by traditional monogenic testing. Despite increasing support for the utility of common risk variants in hereditary breast cancer, research findings have not yet been integrated into clinical practice. Translational research is therefore critical to ensure results are effectively communicated, and that women do not experience undue adverse psychological outcomes.

Methods

In this prospective study, 400 women with a personal and/or high risk family history of breast cancer will be recruited from six familial cancer centers (FCCs) in Australia. Eligible women will be invited to attend a FCC and receive their personal polygenic risk result for breast cancer. Genetic health professionals participating in the study will receive training on the return of polygenic risk information and a training manual and visual aids will be developed to facilitate patient communication. Participants will complete up to three self-administered questionnaires over a 12-months period to assess the short-and long-term psychological and behavioral outcomes of receiving or not receiving their personal polygenic risk result.

Discussion

This is the world’s first study to assess the psychological and behavioral impact of offering polygenic risk information to women from families at high risk of breast cancer. Findings from this research will provide the basis for the development of a new service model to provide polygenic risk information in familial cancer clinics.

Trial registration

The study was retrospectively registered on 27th April 2017 with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Group (Registration no: ACTRN12617000594325; clinical trial URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372743).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-017-3485-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The price of whole-genome sequencing may be decreasing, but who will be sequenced?

AIM

Since whole-genome sequencing (WGS) information can have positive and negative personal utility for individuals, we examined predictors of willingness to pay (WTP) for WGS.

PATIENTS & METHODS

We surveyed two independent populations: adult patients (n = 203) and college seniors (n = 980). Ordinal logistic regression models were used to characterize the relationship between predictors and WTP.

RESULTS

Sex, age, education, income, genomic knowledge and knowing someone who had genetic testing or having had genetic testing done personally were associated with significantly higher WTP for WGS. After controlling for income and education, males were willing to pay more for WGS than females.

CONCLUSION

Differences in WTP may impact equity, coverage, affordability and access, and should be anticipated by public dialog about related health policy.

Factors Associated with Interest in Gene-Panel Testing and Risk Communication Preferences in Women from BRCA1/2 Negative Families

Scientific advances have allowed the development of multiplex gene-panels to assess many genes simultaneously in women who have tested negative for BRCA1/2. We examined correlates of interest in testing for genes that confer modest and moderate breast cancer risk and risk communication preferences for women from BRCA negative families. Female first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients who tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations (N = 149) completed a survey assessing multiplex genetic testing interest and risk communication preferences. Interest in testing was high (70 %) and even higher if results could guide risk-reducing behavior changes such as taking medications (79 %). Participants preferred to receive genomic risk communications from a variety of sources including: primary care physicians (83 %), genetic counselors (78 %), printed materials (71 %) and the web (60 %). Factors that were independently associated with testing interest were: perceived lifetime risk of developing cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 1.67: 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.65) and high cancer worry (OR = 3.12: CI 1.28-7.60). Findings suggest that women from BRCA1/2 negative families are a unique population and may be primed for behavior change. Findings also provide guidance for clinicians who can help develop genomic risk communications, promote informed decision making and customize behavioral interventions.

Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review

Background

Direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT) are easily purchased through the Internet, independent of a physician referral or approval for testing, allowing the retrieval of genetic information outside the clinical context. There is a broad debate about the testing validity, their impact on individuals, and what people know and perceive about them.

Objective

The aim of this review was to collect evidence on DTC-GT from a comprehensive perspective that unravels the complexity of the phenomenon.

Methods

A systematic search was carried out through PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Embase, in addition to Google Scholar according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist with the key term “Direct-to-consumer genetic test.”

Results

In the final sample, 118 articles were identified. Articles were summarized in five categories according to their focus on (1) knowledge of, attitude toward use of, and perception of DTC-GT (n=37), (2) the impact of genetic risk information on users (n=37), (3) the opinion of health professionals (n=20), (4) the content of websites selling DTC-GT (n=16), and (5) the scientific evidence and clinical utility of the tests (n=14). Most of the articles analyzed the attitude, knowledge, and perception of DTC-GT, highlighting an interest in using DTC-GT, along with the need for a health care professional to help interpret the results. The articles investigating the content analysis of the websites selling these tests are in agreement that the information provided by the companies about genetic testing is not completely comprehensive for the consumer. Given that risk information can modify consumers’ health behavior, there are surprisingly few studies carried out on actual consumers and they do not confirm the overall concerns on the possible impact of DTC-GT. Data from studies that investigate the quality of the tests offered confirm that they are not informative, have little predictive power, and do not measure genetic risk appropriately.

Conclusions

The impact of DTC-GT on consumers’ health perceptions and behaviors is an emerging concern. However, negative effects on consumers or health benefits have yet to be observed. Nevertheless, since the online market of DTC-GT is expected to grow, it is important to remain aware of a possible impact.

Public Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Findings from the 2013 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey

Although the availability of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has increased in recent years, the general public's awareness of this testing is not well understood. This study examined levels of public awareness of DTC genetic testing, sources of information about testing, and psychosocial factors associated with awareness of testing in the USA. Data were obtained from the nationally representative 2013 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey. Guided by a social-cognitive conceptual framework, univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with awareness of DTC genetic tests. Of 3185 participants, 35.6% were aware of DTC genetic tests, with the majority learning about these tests through radio, television, and the Internet. In the final adjusted model, participants with annual incomes of $99,999 or less had lower odds of being aware of DTC genetic testing (ORs ranging from 0.46-0.61) than did those participants with incomes of $100,000 or more. The odds of awareness of DTC genetic tests were significantly higher for those who actively seek cancer information (OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.36-2.69), use the Internet (OR=1.81, 95% CI=1.05-3.13), and have high numeracy skills (OR=1.67, 95% CI=1.17-2.38). It will be critical for healthcare researchers and practitioners to understand predictors and consequences of the public's awareness of DTC genetic tests, as well as how such awareness may translate into DTC genetic testing uptake, health behavior change, and ultimately disease prevention.

The psychological impact of undergoing genetic-risk profiling in men with a family history of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The ability to identify men at genetically high-risk of prostate cancer (PrCa) would enable screening to be targeted at those most in need. This study explored the psychological impact (in terms of general and PrCa-specific worry and risk perceptions) on men with a family history of PrCa, undergoing prostate screening and genetic-risk profiling, within a research study.

METHODS

A prospective exploratory approach was adopted, incorporating a sequential mixed-method design. Questionnaires were completed at two time points to measure the impact of undergoing screening and genetic-risk profiling. In-depth interviews were completed in a subgroup after all study procedures were completed and analysed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Ninety-five men completed both questionnaires, and 26 were interviewed. No measurable psychological distress was detectable in the group as a whole. The interview findings fell into two categories: 'feeling at risk' and 'living with risk'. The feeling of being at risk of PrCa is a part of men's lives, shaped by assumptions and information gathered over many years. Men used this information to communicate about PrCa risk to their peers. Men overestimate their risk of PrCa and have an innate assumption that they will develop PrCa. The interviews revealed that men experienced acute anxiety when waiting for screening results.

CONCLUSIONS

Personalised genetic-risk assessments do not prevent men from overestimating their risk of PrCa. Screening anxiety is common, and timeframes for receiving results should be kept to a minimum. Methods of risk communication in men at risk of PrCa should be the subject of future research.

Explaining, not just predicting, drives interest in personal genomics

Background

There is a widespread assumption that risk prediction is the major driver of customer interest in personal genomic testing (PGT). However, some customers may also be motivated by finding out whether their existing diseases have a genetic etiology. We evaluated the impact of an existing medical diagnosis on customer interest in condition-specific results from PGT.

Methods

Using a prospective online survey of PGT customers, we measured customer interest prior to receiving PGT results for 11 health conditions, and examined the association between interest and personal medical history of these conditions using logistic regression.

Results

We analyzed data from 1,538 PGT customers, mean age 48.7 years, 61 % women, 90 % White, and 47 % college educated. The proportion of customers who were ‘very interested’ in condition-specific PGT varied considerably, from 28 % for ulcerative colitis to 68% for heart disease. After adjusting for demographic and personal characteristics including family history, having a diagnosis of the condition itself was significantly associated with interest in genetic testing for risk of that condition, with odds ratios ranging from 2.07 (95 % CI 1.28-3.37) for diabetes to 19.99 (95 % CI 4.57-87.35) for multiple sclerosis.

Conclusions

PGT customers are particularly interested in genetic markers for their existing medical conditions, suggesting that the value of genetic testing is not only predictive, but also explanatory.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13073-015-0188-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Interest in genomic SNP testing for prostate cancer risk: a pilot survey

BACKGROUND

Advancements in genomic testing have led to the identification of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with prostate cancer. The clinical utility of SNP tests to evaluate prostate cancer risk is unclear. Studies have not examined predictors of interest in novel genomic SNP tests for prostate cancer risk in a diverse population.

METHODS

Consecutive participants in the Fox Chase Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Program (PRAP) (n = 40) and unselected men from surgical urology clinics (n = 40) completed a one-time survey. Items examined interest in genomic SNP testing for prostate cancer risk, knowledge, impact of unsolicited findings, and psychosocial factors including health literacy.

RESULTS

Knowledge of genomic SNP tests was low in both groups, but interest was higher among PRAP men (p < 0.001). The prospect of receiving unsolicited results about ancestral genomic markers increased interest in testing in both groups. Multivariable modeling identified several predictors of higher interest in a genomic SNP test including higher perceived risk (p = 0.025), indicating zero reasons for not wanting testing (vs ≥1 reason) (p = 0.013), and higher health literacy (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of genomic SNP testing was low in this sample, but higher among high-risk men. High-risk status may increase interest in novel genomic tests, while low literacy may lessen interest.

Associations between self-referral and health behavior responses to genetic risk information

BACKGROUND

Studies examining whether genetic risk information about common, complex diseases can motivate individuals to improve health behaviors and advance planning have shown mixed results. Examining the influence of different study recruitment strategies may help reconcile inconsistencies.

METHODS

Secondary analyses were conducted on data from the REVEAL study, a series of randomized clinical trials examining the impact of genetic susceptibility testing for Alzheimer's disease (AD). We tested whether self-referred participants (SRPs) were more likely than actively recruited participants (ARPs) to report health behavior and advance planning changes after AD risk and APOE genotype disclosure.

RESULTS

Of 795 participants with known recruitment status, 546 (69%) were self-referred and 249 (31%) had been actively recruited. SRPs were younger, less likely to identify as African American, had higher household incomes, and were more attentive to AD than ARPs (all P < 0.01). They also dropped out of the study before genetic risk disclosure less frequently (26% versus 41%, P < 0.001). Cohorts did not differ in their likelihood of reporting a change to at least one health behavior 6 weeks and 12 months after genetic risk disclosure, nor in intentions to change at least one behavior in the future. However, interaction effects were observed where ε4-positive SRPs were more likely than ε4-negative SRPs to report changes specifically to mental activities (38% vs 19%, p < 0.001) and diets (21% vs 12%, p = 0.016) six weeks post-disclosure, whereas differences between ε4-positive and ε4-negative ARPs were not evident for mental activities (15% vs 21%, p = 0.413) or diets (8% versus 16%, P = 0.190). Similarly, ε4-positive participants were more likely than ε4-negative participants to report intentions to change long-term care insurance among SRPs (20% vs 5%, p < 0.001), but not ARPs (5% versus 9%, P = 0.365).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals who proactively seek AD genetic risk assessment are more likely to undergo testing and use results to inform behavior changes than those who respond to genetic testing offers. These results demonstrate how the behavioral impact of genetic risk information may vary according to the models by which services are provided, and suggest that how participants are recruited into translational genomics research can influence findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00089882 and NCT00462917.

"It's all very well reading the letters in the genome, but it's a long way to being able to write": Men's interpretations of undergoing genetic profiling to determine future risk of prostate cancer

A family history of prostate cancer (PC) is one of the main risk factors for the disease. A number of common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that confer small but cumulatively substantial risks of PC have been identified, opening the possibility for the use of SNPs in PC risk stratification for targeted screening and prevention in the future. The objective of this study was to explore the psychosocial impact of receiving information about genetic risk of PC. The participants were men who had a family history of PC and were enrolled in a screening study providing research genetic profiling alongside screening for PC. A combination of questionnaires and in-depth interviews were used. Questionnaires were completed by men at two time points: both before and after joining the study and going through the genetic profiling process. The interviews were completed after all study process were complete and were analysed using a framework analysis. In total 95 men completed both questionnaires and 26 men were interviewed. A number of issues facing men at risk of PC were identified. The results fell into two main categories: personal relevance and societal relevance. The strength of men's innate beliefs about their risk, shaped by genetic and environmental assumptions, outweigh the information provided by genetic testing. Men felt genetic profile results would have future use for accessing prostate screening, being aware of symptoms and in communicating with others. The findings reinforce the importance of providing contextual information alongside genetic profiling test results, and emphasises the importance of the counselling process in providing genetic risk information. This research raises some key issues to facilitate clinical practice and future research related to the use of genetic profiling to determine risk of PC and other diseases.

Willingness to pay for genetic testing for inherited retinal disease

This paper investigates the willingness of adults with inherited retinal disease to undergo and pay for diagnostic genetic testing in three hypothetical scenarios and to explore the factors that influence decision making. Fifty patients were presented with three scenarios whereby genetic testing provided increasing information: confirming the diagnosis and inheritance pattern alone, providing additional information on future visual function, and identifying in addition a new treatment which could stabilise their condition. Willingness to pay (WTP) was elicited using an iterative bidding game. Regression analysis was used to investigate the probability of agreeing to and paying for testing. Qualitative data were also reviewed to provide a comprehensive understanding of WTP and decision making. The majority of participants agreed to undergo genetic testing in each of the three scenarios. Scenario 2 was the least acceptable with 78% of participants agreeing to genetic testing. The probability of agreeing to genetic testing decreased with age. Between 72 and 96% of participants reported a WTP for genetic testing. Average WTP was £539, £1516, and £6895 for scenarios 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Older participants and participants with higher incomes were willing to pay more for testing. Qualitative data provided additional detail about the rationale behind participants' decisions. The study suggests that patients with inherited retinal disease were willing to undergo and to pay for diagnostic genetic testing, suggesting that they valued the information it may provide. However, several patients preferred not to receive prognostic information and were less willing to pay for genetic testing that yielded such detail.

Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants' health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.

Discussing race-related limitations of genomic testing for colon cancer risk: implications for education and counseling

This study examines communication about limitations of genomic results interpretation for colon cancer risk during education and counseling of minority participants. As part of a larger study conducted from 2010 to 2012, participants recruited from a large primary care clinic were offered testing for a research panel of 3 genomic markers (single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) for colorectal cancer risk. Genetic counselors conducted pre- and post-test sessions which included discussion of limitations of result interpretation due to the lack of racial/ethnic diversity in research populations from which risk data are derived. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed. Many participants did not respond directly to this limitation. Among the participants that responded directly to this race-related limitation, many responses were negative. However, a few participants connected the limited minority information about SNPs with the importance of their current research participation. Genetic counselor discussions of this limitation were biomedically focused with limited explanations for the lacking data. The communication process themes identified included: low immediacy (infrequent use of language directly involving a participant), verbal dominance (greater speaking ratio of the counselor to the patient) and wide variation in the degree of interactivity (or the amount of turn-taking during the discussion). Placed within the larger literature on patient-provider communication, these present results provide insight into the dynamics surrounding race-related educational content for genomic testing and other emerging technologies. Clinicians may be better able to engage patients in the use of new genomic technology by increasing their awareness of specific communication processes and patterns during education or counseling sessions.

Cost sharing and hereditary cancer risk: predictors of willingness-to-pay for genetic testing

Increasing use of predictive genetic testing to gauge hereditary cancer risk has been paralleled by rising cost-sharing practices. Little is known about how demographic and psychosocial factors may influence individuals' willingness-to-pay for genetic testing. The Gastrointestinal Tumor Risk Assessment Program Registry includes individuals presenting for genetic risk assessment based on personal/family cancer history. Participants complete a baseline survey assessing cancer history and psychosocial items. Willingness-to-pay items include intention for: genetic testing only if paid by insurance; testing with self-pay; and amount willing-to-pay ($25-$2,000). Multivariable models examined predictors of willingness-to-pay out-of-pocket (versus only if paid by insurance) and willingness-to-pay a smaller versus larger sum (≤$200 vs. ≥$500). All statistical tests are two-sided (α = 0.05). Of 385 evaluable participants, a minority (42%) had a personal cancer history, while 56% had ≥1 first-degree relative with colorectal cancer. Overall, 21.3% were willing to have testing only if paid by insurance, and 78.7% were willing-to-pay. Predictors of willingness-to-pay were: 1) concern for positive result; 2) confidence to control cancer risk; 3) fewer perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening; 4) benefit of testing to guide screening (all p < 0.05). Subjects willing-to-pay a higher amount were male, more educated, had greater cancer worry, fewer relatives with colorectal cancer, and more positive attitudes toward genetic testing (all p < 0.05). Individuals seeking risk assessment are willing-to-pay out-of-pocket for genetic testing, and anticipate benefits to reducing cancer risk. Identifying factors associated with willingness-to-pay for genetic services is increasingly important as testing is integrated into routine cancer care.

Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study explored the interest in genomic testing for modest changes in colorectal cancer risk and preferences for receiving genomic risk communications among individuals with intermediate disease risk due to a family history of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Surveys were conducted on 272 men and women at intermediate risk for colorectal cancer enrolled in a randomized trial comparing a remote personalized risk communication intervention (TeleCARE) aimed at promoting colonoscopy to a generic print control condition. Guided by Leventhal's Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation, we examined demographic and psychosocial factors possibly associated with interest in SNP testing. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with interest in SNP testing and preferences for receiving genomic risk communications.

RESULTS

Three-fourths of participants expressed interest in SNP testing for colorectal cancer risk. Testing interest did not markedly change across behavior modifier scenarios. Participants preferred to receive genomic risk communications from a variety of sources: printed materials (69.5%), oncologists (54.8%), primary-care physicians (58.4%), and the web (58.1%). Overall, persons who were unmarried (p = 0.029), younger (p = 0.003) and with greater cancer-related fear (p = 0.019) were more likely to express interest in predictive genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk. In a stratified analysis, cancer-related fear was associated with the interest in predictive genomic testing in the intervention group (p = 0.017), but not the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with intermediate familial risk for colorectal cancer are highly interested in genomic testing for modest increases in disease risk, specifically unmarried persons, younger age groups and those with greater cancer fear.

Patient and provider attitudes toward genomic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility: a mixed method study

BACKGROUND

The strong association between family history and prostate cancer (PCa) suggests a significant genetic contribution, yet specific highly penetrant PCa susceptibility genes have not been identified. Certain single-nucleotide-polymorphisms have been found to correlate with PCa risk; however uncertainty remains regarding their clinical utility and how to best incorporate this information into clinical decision-making. Genetic testing is available directly to consumers and both patients and healthcare providers are becoming more aware of this technology. Purchasing online allows patients to bypass their healthcare provider yet patients may have difficulty interpreting test results and providers may be called upon to interpret results. Determining optimal ways to educate both patients and providers, and strategies for appropriately incorporating this information into clinical decision-making are needed.

METHODS

A mixed-method study was conducted in Utah between October 2011 and December 2011. Eleven focus group discussions were held and surveys were administered to 23 first-degree relatives of PCa patients living in Utah and 24 primary-care physicians and urologists practicing in Utah to present specific information about these assessments and determine knowledge and attitudes regarding health implications of using these assessments.

RESULTS

Data was independently coded by two researchers (relative Kappa = .88; provider Kappa = .77) and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results indicated differences in attitudes and behavioral intentions between patient and provider. Despite the test's limitations relatives indicated interest in genetic testing (52%) while most providers indicated they would not recommend the test for their patients (79%). Relatives expected providers to interpret genetic test results and use results to provide personalized healthcare recommendations while the majority of providers did not think the information would be useful in patient care (92%) and indicated low-levels of genetic self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Although similarities exist, discordance between provider and patient attitudes may influence the effective translation of novel genomic tests into clinical practice suggesting both patient and provider perceptions and expectations be considered in development of clinical decision-support tools.

Willingness to pay for diagnostic technologies: a review of the contingent valuation literature

OBJECTIVES

To understand how people value information from diagnostic technologies, we reviewed and analyzed published willingness-to-pay (WTP) studies on the topic.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for English-language articles related to WTP for diagnostic laboratory tests published from 1985 through 2011. We characterized methodological differences across studies, examined individual- and technology-level factors associated with WTP, and summarized median WTP values across different diagnostic tests.

RESULTS

We identified 66 relevant WTP studies. Half focused on oncology, while others analyzed infectious diseases (n = 11, 16.1%) and obstetric or gynecological conditions (n = 8, 11.7%), among others. Most laboratory tests included in studies were biological samples/genetic testing (n = 44, 61.1%) or imaging tests (n = 23, 31.9%). Approximately one third of the analyses (n = 20, 30.3%) used discrete-choice questions to elicit WTP values. Higher income, education, disease severity, perceived disease risk, family history, and more accurate tests were in general associated with higher WTP values for diagnostic information. Of the 44 studies with median WTP values available, most reported a median WTP value below $100. The median WTP value for colon or colorectal cancer screening ranged from below $100 to over $1000.

CONCLUSIONS

The contingent valuation literature in diagnostics has grown rapidly, and suggests that many respondents place considerable value on diagnostic information. There exists, however, great variation in studies with respect to the type of technologies and diseases assessed, respondent characteristics, and study methodology. The perceived value of diagnostic technologies is also influenced by the study design and elicitation methods.

Willingness to participate in genomics research and desire for personal results among underrepresented minority patients: a structured interview study

Patients from traditionally underrepresented communities need to be involved in discussions around genomics research including attitudes towards participation and receiving personal results. Structured interviews, including open-ended and closed-ended questions, were conducted with 205 patients in an inner-city hospital outpatient clinic: 48 % of participants self-identified as Black or African American, 29 % Hispanic, 10 % White; 49 % had an annual household income of <$20,000. When the potential for personal results to be returned was not mentioned, 82 % of participants were willing to participate in genomics research. Reasons for willingness fell into four themes: altruism; benefit to family members; personal health benefit; personal curiosity and improving understanding. Reasons for being unwilling fell into five themes: negative perception of research; not personally relevant; negative feelings about procedures (e.g., blood draws); practical barriers; and fear of results. Participants were more likely to report that they would participate in genomics research if personal results were offered than if they were not offered (89 vs. 62 % respectively, p < 0.001). Participants were more interested in receiving personal genomic risk results for cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes than obesity (89, 89, 91, 80 % respectively, all p < 0.001). The only characteristic consistently associated with interest in receiving personal results was disease-specific worry. There was considerable willingness to participate in and desire for personal results from genomics research in this sample of predominantly low-income, Hispanic and African American patients. When returning results is not practical, or even when it is, alternatively or additionally providing generic information about genomics and health may also be a valuable commodity to underrepresented minority and other populations considering participating in genomics research.

Behavioral and psychosocial responses to genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk

We conducted a translational genomic pilot study to evaluate the impact of genomic information related to colorectal cancer (CRC) risk on psychosocial, behavioral and communication outcomes. In 47 primary care participants, 96% opted for testing of three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to CRC risk. Participants averaged 2.5 of 6 possible SNP risk alleles (10% lifetime risk). At 3-months, participants did not report significant increases in cancer worry/distress; over half reported physical activity and dietary changes. SNP risk scores were unrelated to behavior change at 3-months. Many participants (64%) shared their SNP results, including 28% who shared results with a physician. In this pilot, genomic risk education, including discussion of other risk factors, appeared to impact patients' health behaviors, regardless of the level of SNP risk. Future work can compare risk education with and without SNP results to evaluate if SNP information adds value to existing approaches.

Identification and functional annotation of genome-wide ER-regulated genes in breast cancer based on ChIP-Seq data

Estrogen receptor (ER) is a crucial molecule symbol of breast cancer. Molecular interactions between ER complexes and DNA regulate the expression of genes responsible for cancer cell phenotypes. However, the positions and mechanisms of the ER binding with downstream gene targets are far from being fully understood. ChIP-Seq is an important assay for the genome-wide study of protein-DNA interactions. In this paper, we explored the genome-wide chromatin localization of ER-DNA binding regions by analyzing ChIP-Seq data from MCF-7 breast cancer cell line. By integrating three peak detection algorithms and two datasets, we localized 933 ER binding sites, 92% among which were located far away from promoters, suggesting long-range control by ER. Moreover, 489 genes in the vicinity of ER binding sites were identified as estrogen response elements by comparison with expression data. In addition, 836 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in or near 157 ER-regulated genes were found in the vicinity of ER binding sites. Furthermore, we annotated the function of the nearest-neighbor genes of these binding sites using Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG, and GeneGo pathway databases. The results revealed novel ER-regulated genes pathways for further experimental validation. ER was found to affect every developed stage of breast cancer by regulating genes related to the development, progression, and metastasis. This study provides a deeper understanding of the regulatory mechanisms of ER and its associated genes.

Predictors of patient uptake of colorectal cancer gene environment risk assessment

Background

In an ongoing clinical trial, the genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) blood test offers subjects information about personal colorectal cancer risk through measurement of two novel low-to-moderate risk factors. We sought to examine predictors of uptake of the GERA blood test among participants randomized to the Intervention arm.

Methods

Primary care patients aged 50 to 74 years eligible for colorectal cancer screening are randomized to receive a mailed stool blood test kit to complete at home (Control) or to the control condition plus an in-office blood test called GERA that includes assessment of red blood cell folate and DNA-testing for two MTHFR (methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (Intervention). For the present study, baseline survey data are examined in participants randomized to the Intervention.

Results

The first 351 intervention participants (161 African American/190 white) were identified. Overall, 249 (70.9%) completed GERA testing. Predictors of GERA uptake included race (African American race, odds ratio (OR) 0.51 (0.29 to 0.87)), and being more knowledgeable about GERA and colorectal cancer screening (OR 1.09 (1.01 to 1.18)). Being married (OR 1.81 (1.09 to 3.00)) was also significant in the multivariable model.

Conclusions

Participant uptake of GERA testing was high. GERA uptake varied, however, according to socio-demographic background and knowledge.

Attitudes of patients with cancer about personalized medicine and somatic genetic testing

PURPOSE

Dramatic advances in genomic technology stand to revolutionize cancer care; however, little is known about patients' understanding and acceptance of personalized medicine and widespread genetic testing (GT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a formative, semi-structured interview study with a random sample of patients with lung, colorectal, and breast cancers to assess awareness of personalized medicine and GT and attitudes about somatic GT. Willingness to undergo GT was elicited through hypothetic scenarios.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients participated; 71% were women; 42% were black; median age was 59 years; and 42% had an education level ≥ college. We found that a majority of patients either were not aware of the term "personalized medicine" or defined it in unexpected ways. Although many patients identified relevant benefits of somatic testing (eg, informs treatment), many patients also expressed significant concerns (ie, psychological harm and discrimination). A majority of patients expressed a willingness to undergo somatic (predictive, 96%, prognostic, 93%) and germline (cancer risk without incidental information, 87%; cancer risk with incidental information, 81%; pharmacogenetic, 91%) testing; however, far fewer patients expressed a willingness to undergo full genome sequencing (62%). Reluctance was attributed to concerns over incidental findings, information overload, and the lack of a clear benefit.

CONCLUSION

Many patients relayed misunderstandings about somatic testing and a reluctance to undergo full sequencing; oncologists must carefully consider how they present testing to patients so that concerns over discrimination and psychological harm do not hinder test uptake. More work is needed to identify effective ways to communicate complex genomic concepts to patients and research participants.

"Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer

Despite significant progress in genomics research over the past decade, we remain years away from the integration of genomics into routine clinical care. As an initial step toward the implementation of genomic-based medicine, we explored primary care patients' ideas about genomic testing for common complex diseases to help develop future patient education materials and interventions to communicate genomic risk information. We conducted a mixed-methods study with participants from a large primary care clinic. Within four focus groups, we used a semi-structured discussion guide and administered brief pre- and post- discussion quantitative surveys to assess participants' interest, attitudes, and preferences related to testing and receipt of test results. Prior to the discussion, moderators presented a plain-language explanation of DNA and genetics, defined "SNP", and highlighted what is known and unknown about the risks associated with testing for SNPs related to colorectal cancer risk. We used the NVIVO 8 software package to analyze the transcripts from the focus group discussions. The majority of participants (75 %) were "very" or "somewhat interested" in receiving information from a colon cancer SNP test, even after learning about and discussing the small and still clinically uncertain change in risk conferred by SNPs. Reported interest in testing was related to degree of risk conferred, personal risk factors, family history, possible implications for managing health /disease prevention and curiosity about genetic results. Most people (85 %) preferred that genetic information be delivered in person by a healthcare or genetics professional rather than through print materials or a computer. These findings suggest that patients may look to genetic counselors, physicians or other healthcare professionals as gatekeepers of predictive genomic risk information.

Interpretation of melanoma risk feedback in first-degree relatives of melanoma patients

Little is known about how individuals might interpret brief genetic risk feedback. We examined interpretation and behavioral intentions (sun protection, skin screening) in melanoma first-degree relatives (FDRs) after exposure to brief prototypic melanoma risk feedback. Using a 3 by 2 experimental pre-post design where feedback type (high-risk mutation, gene environment, and nongenetic) and risk level (positive versus negative findings) were systematically varied, 139 melanoma FDRs were randomized to receive one of the six scenarios. All scenarios included an explicit reminder that melanoma family history increased their risk regardless of their feedback. The findings indicate main effects by risk level but not feedback type; positive findings led to heightened anticipated melanoma risk perceptions and anticipated behavioral intentions. Yet those who received negative findings often discounted their family melanoma history. As such, 25%, 30%, and 32% of those who received negative mutation, gene-environment, and nongenetic feedback, respectively, reported that their risk was similar to the general population. Given the frequency with which those who pursue genetic testing may receive negative feedback, attention is needed to identify ideal strategies to present negative genetic findings in contexts such as direct to consumer channels where extensive genetic counseling is not required.

Attitudes of patients with cancer about personalized medicine and somatic genetic testing

PURPOSE

Dramatic advances in genomic technology stand to revolutionize cancer care; however, little is known about patients' understanding and acceptance of personalized medicine and widespread genetic testing (GT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a formative, semi-structured interview study with a random sample of patients with lung, colorectal, and breast cancers to assess awareness of personalized medicine and GT and attitudes about somatic GT. Willingness to undergo GT was elicited through hypothetic scenarios.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients participated; 71% were women; 42% were black; median age was 59 years; and 42% had an education level ≥ college. We found that a majority of patients either were not aware of the term "personalized medicine" or defined it in unexpected ways. Although many patients identified relevant benefits of somatic testing (eg, informs treatment), many patients also expressed significant concerns (ie, psychological harm and discrimination). A majority of patients expressed a willingness to undergo somatic (predictive, 96%, prognostic, 93%) and germline (cancer risk without incidental information, 87%; cancer risk with incidental information, 81%; pharmacogenetic, 91%) testing; however, far fewer patients expressed a willingness to undergo full genome sequencing (62%). Reluctance was attributed to concerns over incidental findings, information overload, and the lack of a clear benefit.

CONCLUSION

Many patients relayed misunderstandings about somatic testing and a reluctance to undergo full sequencing; oncologists must carefully consider how they present testing to patients so that concerns over discrimination and psychological harm do not hinder test uptake. More work is needed to identify effective ways to communicate complex genomic concepts to patients and research participants.

Awareness and uptake of direct-to-consumer genetic testing among cancer cases, their relatives, and controls: the Northwest Cancer Genetics Network

AIMS

To determine if awareness of, interest in, and use of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing is greater in a sample of high-risk individuals (cancer cases and their relatives), compared to controls.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Network. A follow-up survey was mailed to participants to assess DTC genetic testing awareness, interest, and use.

RESULTS

One thousand two hundred sixty-seven participants responded to the survey. Forty-nine percent of respondents were aware of DTC genetic testing. Of those aware, 19% indicated interest in obtaining and <1% reported having used DTC genetic testing. Additional information supplied by respondents who reported use of DTC genetic tests indicated that 55% of these respondents likely engaged in clinical genetic testing, rather than DTC genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of DTC genetic testing was greater in our sample of high-risk individuals than in controls and population-based studies. Although interest in and use of these tests among cases in our sample were equivalent to other population-based studies, interest in testing was higher among relatives and people who self-referred for a registry focused on cancer than among cases and controls. Additionally, our results suggest that there may be some confusion about what constitutes DTC genetic testing.

An exploration of genetic health professionals' experience with direct-to-consumer genetic testing in their clinical practice

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) allows individuals to obtain genetic tests directly from companies without necessarily involving health professionals. This study explores genetic health professionals' opinions of health-related DTC-GT and the reported frequency of individuals presenting to clinical genetics services after undertaking testing. Genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists, members of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia, completed an online survey in mid 2011. The 130 genetic counsellors (estimated response fraction=43%) and 38 clinical geneticists (estimated response fraction=46%) had mixed opinions regarding DTC-GT, with only 7% confident in accurately interpreting and explaining DTC-GT results. Nineteen respondents (11%) reported one or more client(s) referred to them after undertaking DTC-GT. Descriptions of 25 clients were extracted from responses, and respondents reported that all clients were concerned for the health of either themselves or family members. Most clients presented to genetic clinics specifically as a result of their DTC-GT (96%) and were self or GP referred (92%). Respondents perceived that their clients typically undertook DTC-GT because they wanted to identify monogenic conditions, including carrier testing and/or know their susceptibility or predisposition for complex conditions (88%). The majority of clients needed help interpreting DTC-GT results (80%), however in general were not questioning the validity of their DTC-GT results (92%) nor seeking further genetic testing (84%). Currently, DTC-GT is not a major reason for referral to clinical genetics services in Australia and New Zealand and the majority of genetic health professionals lack confidence in being able to accurately interpret and explain DTC-GT results.