Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Assessing patient readiness for personalized genomic medicine

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Community Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Human Genome Project and the continuing advances in DNA sequencing technology have ushered in a new era in genomic medicine. Successful translation of genomic medicine into clinical care will require that providers of this information are aware of the level of understanding, attitudes, perceived risks, benefits, and concerns of their patients. We used a mixed methods approach to conduct in-depth interviews with participants in the NCI-funded Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR). Our goal was to gain a better understanding of attitudes towards different types and amounts of genomic information, current interest in pursuing genomic testing, and perceived risks and benefits. We interviewed 32 women from the six BCFR sites in the USA, Canada, and Australia. In this sample of women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, we found high acknowledgement of the potential of genetics/genomics to improve their own health and that of their family members through lifestyle changes or alterations in their medical management. Respondents were more familiar with cancer genetics than the genetics of other diseases. Concerns about the testing itself included a potential sense of loss of control over health, feelings of guilt on passing on a mutation to a child, loss of privacy and confidentiality, questions about the test accuracy, and the potential uncertainty of the significance of test results. These data provide important insights into attitudes about the introduction of increasingly complex genetic testing, to inform interventions to prepare individuals for the introduction of this new technology into their clinical care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Biesecker LG, Mullikin JC, Facio FM, Turner C, Cherukuri PF, Blakesley RW, Bouffard GG, Chines PS, Cruz P, Hansen NF, Teer JK, Maskeri B, Young AC, Program NCS, Manolio TA, Wilson AF, Finkel T, Hwang P, Arai A, Remaley AT, Sachdev V, Shamburek R, Cannon RO, Green ED (2009) The ClinSeq Project: piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine. Genome Res 19(9):1665–1674. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.092841.109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall J, Slatter T, Guilford P, Print CG, Henaghan M, Wee R (2014) Culture, law, ethics, and social implications: is society ready for advanced genomic medicine? Australas Med J 7(4):200–202

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Inc, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell J, Clark V (2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Dondorp WJ, de Wert GM (2013) The ‘thousand-dollar genome’: an ethical exploration. Eur J Hum Genet 21(Suppl 1):S6–S26. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.73

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Esterberg K (2002) Qualitative methods in social research. McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves KD, Sinicrope PS, McCormick JB, Zhou Y, Vadaparampil ST, Lindor NM (2015) Public perceptions of disease severity but not actionability correlate with interest in receiving genomic results: nonalignment with current trends in practice. Public Health Genomics 18:173–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haga SB, Barry WT, Mills R, Ginsburg GS, Svetkey L, Sullivan J, Willard HF (2013) Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 17(4):327–335. https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2012.0350

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hitch K, Joseph G, Guiltinan J, Kianmahd J, Youngblom J, Blanco A (2014) Lynch syndrome patients’ views of and preferences for return of results following whole exome sequencing. J Genet Couns 23(4):539–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9687-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • John EM, Hopper JL, Beck JC, Knight JA, Neuhausen SL, Senie RT, Ziogas A, Andrulis IL, Anton-Culver H, Boyd N, Buys SS, Daly MB, O'Malley FP, Santella RM, Southey MC, Venne VL, Venter DJ, West DW, Whittemore AS, Seminara D, Breast Cancer Family R (2004) The Breast Cancer Family Registry: an infrastructure for cooperative multinational, interdisciplinary and translational studies of the genetic epidemiology of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 6(4):R375–R389. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr801

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lea DH, Kaphingst KA, Bowen D, Lipkus I, Hadley DW (2010) Communicating genetic and genomic information: health literacy and numeracy considerations. Public Health Genomics 14:279–289

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lubitz RJ, Komaromy M, Crawford B, Beattie M, Lee R, Luce J, Ziegler J (2007) Development and pilot evaluation of novel genetic educational materials designed for an unreserved patient population. Genet Test 11(3):276–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McBride CM, Bowen D, Brody LC, Condit CM, Croyle RT, Gwinn M, Khoury MJ, Koehly LM, Korf BR, Marteau TM, McLeroy K, Patrick K, Valente TW (2010) Future health applications of genomics: priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research. Am J Prev Med 38(5):556–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.027

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips KA, Liang SY, Van Bebber S, Group CR (2008) Challenges to the translation of genomic information into clinical practice and health policy: utilization, preferences and economic value. Curr Opin Mol Ther 10(3):260–266

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Seo J, Ivanovich J, Goodman MS, Biesecker BB, Kaphingst KA (2016) Information topics of greatest interest for return of genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age. J Genet Couns 26:511–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-0006-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shiloh S, Drori E, Orr-Urtreger A, Friedman E (2009) Being ‘at-risk’ for developing cancer: cognitive representations and psychological outcomes. J Behav Med 32(2):197–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-008-9178-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Terry MB, Phillips KA, Daly MB, John EM, Andrulis IL, Buys SS, Goldgar DE, Knight JA, Whittemore AS, Chung WK, Apicella C, Hopper JL (2016) Cohort profile: the Breast Cancer Prospective Family Study Cohort (ProF-SC). Int J Epidemiol 45(3):683–692. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf SM, Branum R, Koenig BA, Petersen GM, Berry SA, Beskow LM, Daly MB, Fernandez CV, Green RC, LeRoy BS, Lindor NM, O'Rourke PP, Breitkopf CR, Rothstein MA, Van Ness B, Wilfond BS (2015) Returning a research participant’s genomic results to relatives: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 43(3):440–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12288

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wright MF, Lewis KL, Fisher TC, Hooker GW, Emanuel TE, Biesecker LG, Biesecker BB (2014) Preferences for results delivery from exome sequencing/genome sequencing. Genet Med 16(6):442–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Financial support

The authors and this work were supported by the National Cancer Institute, Award Number: UMI CA164920.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary B. Daly.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOC 103 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frost, C.J., Andrulis, I.L., Buys, S.S. et al. Assessing patient readiness for personalized genomic medicine. J Community Genet 10, 109–120 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-018-0365-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-018-0365-5

Keywords

Navigation