Interest in Genetic Testing for Modest Changes in Breast Cancer Risk: Implications for SNP Testing

Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA. kdg9 @
Public Health Genomics (Impact Factor: 2.46). 04/2011; 14(3):178-89. DOI: 10.1159/000324703
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Advances in genomics may eventually lead to 'personalized genetic medicine,' yet the clinical utility of predictive testing for modest changes in risk is unclear. We explored interest in genetic testing for genes related to modest changes in breast cancer risk in women at moderate to high risk for breast cancer.
Women (n = 105) with a negative breast biopsy and ≥1 relative with breast or ovarian cancer completed telephone surveys. We measured demographic and psychosocial variables and, following presentation of hypothetical scenarios of genetic tests for lower-penetrance breast cancer gene mutations, assessed interest in willingness to pay for and comprehension of test results. We used logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations to evaluate combinations of risk level, cost and behavioral modifiers.
Many women (77%) reported 'definite' interest in genetic testing, with greater interest in tests that conveyed more risk and cost less. Behavioral modifiers of risk (taking a vitamin; diet/exercise), having a regular physician, greater perceived benefits of genetic testing, and greater cancer worry also influenced interest. Most participants (63%) did not understand relative vs. absolute risk. Women with less understanding reported more cancer worry and greater willingness to pay for testing.
Interest in genetic testing for mutations related to modest changes in risk was high, modified by both test and psychosocial factors. Findings highlight the need for education about benefits and risks of testing for mutations that convey modest changes in risk, particularly given the current lack of clinical validity/utility and availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Download full-text


Available from: George Luta, Aug 26, 2015
  • Source
    • "One early study found no association between perceived understanding of genetics and interest in learning about personal genetic risk of cancer from genetic testing (Andrykowski et al. 1996). More recently, in a study with 105 women at increased risk of breast cancer, understanding of test results was not associated with interest in genetic testing overall, but there was an association with willingness to pay for genetic testing: willingness to pay was positively associated with cancer worry and inversely associated with understanding of test results (Graves et al. 2011). The association between interest in personalized genomic information and objective or perceived understanding of genomics warrants further investigation. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Journal of community genetics 06/2013; 4(4). DOI:10.1007/s12687-013-0154-0
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    European journal of human genetics: EJHG 02/2012; 20(8):825-30. DOI:10.1038/ejhg.2012.13 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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. 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.
    Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers 06/2012; 16(7):744-8. DOI:10.1089/gtmb.2011.0235 · 1.15 Impact Factor
Show more