Citizens' perspectives on personalized medicine: A qualitative public deliberation study

Yale University, School of Public Health & Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Center for Health Policy and Outcomes and Clinical Genetics Service, New York, NY, USA.
European journal of human genetics: EJHG (Impact Factor: 4.35). 01/2013; DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.300
Source: PubMed


Our objective was to explore citizens' informed and reasoned values and expectations of personalized medicine, a timely yet novel genomics policy issue. A qualitative, public deliberation study was undertaken using a citizens' reference panel on health technologies, established to provide input to the health technology assessment process in Ontario, Canada. The citizens' panel consisted of five women and nine men, aged 18-71 years, with one member selected from each health authority region. There were shared expectations among the citizens' panel members for the potential of personalized medicine technologies to improve care, provided they are deemed clinically valid and effective. These expectations were tempered by concerns about value for money and the possibility that access to treatment may be limited by personalized medicine tests used to stratify patients. Although they questioned the presumed technological imperative presented by personalized medicine technologies, they called for increased efforts to prepare the health-care system to effectively integrate these technologies. This study represents an early but important effort to explore public values toward personalized medicine. This study also provides evidence of the public's ability to form coherent judgments about a new policy issue. Concerned that personalized tests might be used to ration care, they suggested that treatment should be made available if patients wanted it, irrespective of tests that indicate little benefit. This issue raises clinical and policy challenges that may undermine the value of personalized medicine. Further efforts to deliberate with the public are warranted to inform effective, efficient and equitable translation of personalized medicine.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 23 January 2013; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.300.

Download full-text


Available from: Yvonne Bombard,
1 Follower
25 Reads
  • Source
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 08/2013; 310(8):795-6. DOI:10.1001/jama.2013.276573 · 35.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Including low penetrance genomic variants in population-based screening might enable personalization of screening intensity and follow up. The application of genomics in this way requires formal evaluation. Even if clinically beneficial, uptake would still depend on the attitudes of target populations. We developed a deliberative workshop on two hypothetical applications (in colorectal cancer and newborn screening) in which we applied stepped, neutrally-framed, information sets. Data were collected using nonparticipant observation, free-text comments by individual participants, and a structured survey. Qualitative data were transcribed and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Eight workshops were conducted with 170 individuals (120 colorectal cancer screening and 50 newborn screening for type 1 diabetes). The use of information sets promoted informed deliberation. In both contexts, attitudes appeared to be heavily informed by assessments of the likely validity of the test results and its personal and health care utility. Perceived benefits included the potential for early intervention, prevention, and closer monitoring while concerns related to costs, education needs regarding the probabilistic nature of risk, the potential for worry, and control of access to personal genomic information. Differences between the colorectal cancer and newborn screening groups appeared to reflect different assessments of potential personal utility, particularly regarding prevention.
    Genome 10/2013; 56(10):626-33. DOI:10.1139/gen-2013-0070 · 1.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is increasing enthusiasm for genomics and its promise in advancing personalized medicine. Genomic information has been used to personalize health care for decades, spanning the fields of cardiovascular disease, infectious disease, endocrinology, metabolic medicine, and hematology. However, oncology has often been the first test bed for the clinical translation of genomics for diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic applications. Notable hereditary cancer examples include testing for mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 in unaffected women to identify those at significantly elevated risk for developing breast and ovarian cancers, and screening patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer for mutations in 4 mismatch repair genes to reduce morbidity and mortality in their relatives. Somatic genomic testing is also increasingly used in oncology, with gene expression profiling of breast tumors and EGFR testing to predict treatment response representing commonly used examples. Health technology assessment provides a rigorous means to inform clinical and policy decision-making through systematic assessment of the evidentiary base, along with precepts of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and consideration of risks and benefits for health care delivery and society. Although this evaluation is a fundamental step in the translation of any new therapeutic, procedure, or diagnostic test into clinical care, emerging developments may threaten this standard. These include "direct to consumer" genomic risk assessment services and the challenges posed by incidental results generated from next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies. This article presents a review of the evidentiary standards and knowledge base supporting the translation of key cancer genomic technologies along the continuum of validity, utility, cost-effectiveness, health service impacts, and ethical and societal issues, and offers future research considerations to guide the responsible introduction of NGS technologies into health care. It concludes that significant evidentiary gaps remain in translating genomic technologies into routine clinical practice, particularly in efficacy, health outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and health services research. These caveats are especially germane in the context of NGS, wherein efforts are underway to translate NGS results despite their limited accuracy, lack of proven efficacy, and significant computational and counseling challenges. Further research across these domains is critical to inform the effective, efficient, and equitable translation of genomics into cancer care.
    Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN 11/2013; 11(11):1343-53. · 4.18 Impact Factor
Show more