Advertisement

Familial Cancer

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 221–230 | Cite as

Interest in, willingness-to-pay for and willingness-to-recommend genetic testing for prostate cancer among affected men after radical prostatectomy

  • Marcel Mayer
  • Katharina Selig
  • Frank Tüttelmann
  • Andreas Dinkel
  • Jürgen E. Gschwend
  • Kathleen HerkommerEmail author
Original Article
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

Knowledge about interest in genetic testing and willingness-to-pay for a genetic test among men affected from prostate cancer (PCa) is limited. This study aimed to gain insight into men’s attitudes in genetic testing for PCa. 4699 men with PCa from the German multicenter prospective database “Familial Prostate Cancer” were included. Interest in, Willingness-to-pay for and Willingness-to-recommend a genetic test for PCa were quantified. Associations with several sociodemographic and psychosocial variables were evaluated by logistic regression. 76.8% of the affected men with a median follow-up of 12.9 years were interested in a genetic test for PCa. Newly identified variables significantly associated with interest were having sons (OR 1.66, p < 0.001) and a high perceived severity of the PCa (OR 1.40, p < 0.001). 19% of men were willing to pay more than 500 € for a genetic test. Men with higher education, men with a better self-reported economic situation and men with a lethal PCa in their family were more likely to be willing to pay a larger sum for a test. 84.9% of men were willing to recommend a test to their relatives. Interest in genetic testing for PCa among affected men was generally high with most men willing to recommend a test to their relatives. Various characteristics associated with interest and willingness-to-pay larger sums for genetic testing were uncovered and need to be addressed when designing both future educational material and genetic tests for PCa.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Genetic testing Genomic testing Interest Family history 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the patients for their participation in the study.

Author contributions

This study was designed by KH. Statistical analysis was performed by KS. MM drafted the manuscript. FT and AD participated in the revising of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

10689_2018_101_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 KB)
10689_2018_101_MOESM2_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 18 KB)
10689_2018_101_MOESM3_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 18 KB)

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Cancer Stat Facts: Prostate Cancer (2016) https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2017
  3. 3.
    Prostate Cancer: Statistics (2017) http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/prostate-cancer/statistics. Accessed 30 July 2017
  4. 4.
    Gann PH (2002) Risk factors for prostate cancer. Rev Urol 4(Suppl 5):S3–S10Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bigler SA, Pound CR, Zhou X (2011) A retrospective study on pathologic features and racial disparities in prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer 2011:239460.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/239460 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steinberg GD, Carter BS, Beaty TH, Childs B, Walsh PC (1990) Family history and the risk of prostate cancer. Prostate 17(4):337–347Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zeegers MP, Jellema A, Ostrer H (2003) Empiric risk of prostate carcinoma for relatives of patients with prostate carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Cancer 97(8):1894–1903.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11262 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kicinski M, Vangronsveld J, Nawrot TS (2011) An epidemiological reappraisal of the familial aggregation of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 6(10):e27130.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027130 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carter BS, Bova GS, Beaty TH, Steinberg GD, Childs B, Isaacs WB, Walsh PC (1993) Hereditary prostate cancer: epidemiologic and clinical features. J Urol 150(3):797–802Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu J, Lange EM, Lu L, Zheng SL, Wang Z, Thibodeau SN, Cannon-Albright LA, Teerlink CC, Camp NJ, Johnson AM, Zuhlke KA, Stanford JL, Ostrander EA, Wiley KE, Isaacs SD, Walsh PC, Maier C, Luedeke M, Vogel W, Schleutker J, Wahlfors T, Tammela T, Schaid D, McDonnell SK, DeRycke MS, Cancel-Tassin G, Cussenot O, Wiklund F, Gronberg H, Eeles R, Easton D, Kote-Jarai Z, Whittemore AS, Hsieh CL, Giles GG, Hopper JL, Severi G, Catalona WJ, Mandal D, Ledet E, Foulkes WD, Hamel N, Mahle L, Moller P, Powell I, Bailey-Wilson JE, Carpten JD, Seminara D, Cooney KA, Isaacs WB, International Consortium for Prostate Cancer G (2013) HOXB13 is a susceptibility gene for prostate cancer: results from the International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG). Hum Genet 132(1):5–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-012-1229-4 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Castro E, Eeles R (2012) The role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in prostate cancer. Asian J Androl 14(3):409–414.  https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2011.150 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang H, Cai B (2014) G84E mutation in HOXB13 is firmly associated with prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Tumour Biol 35(2):1177–1182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-013-1157-5 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lüdeke JX M, Zheng SL, Sonntag P, Schulwitz H, Rinckleb AE, Schrader AJ, Schrader M, Vogel W, Hoegel J, Herkommer K, Maier C (2013) Prevalence and clinical features of HOXB13 mutation carriers in German prostate cancer patient. Der Urologe Suppl 1 (2013):118Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallagher DJ, Gaudet MM, Pal P, Kirchhoff T, Balistreri L, Vora K, Bhatia J, Stadler Z, Fine SW, Reuter V, Zelefsky M, Morris MJ, Scher HI, Klein RJ, Norton L, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Robson ME, Offit K (2010) Germline BRCA mutations denote a clinicopathologic subset of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 16(7):2115–2121.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2871 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Breast Cancer Linkage C (1999) Cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(15):1310–1316Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sartor O, de Bono JS (2018) Metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 378(7):645–657Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pritchard CC, Morrissey C, Kumar A, Zhang X, Smith C, Coleman I, Salipante SJ, Milbank J, Yu M, Grady WM (2014) Complex MSH2 and MSH6 mutations in hypermutated microsatellite unstable advanced prostate cancer. Nat commun 5:4988Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen R, Ren S, Sun Y (2013) Genome-wide association studies on prostate cancer: the end or the beginning? Protein Cell 4(9):677–686.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-013-3055-4 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zheng SL, Sun J, Wiklund F, Smith S, Stattin P, Li G, Adami HO, Hsu FC, Zhu Y, Balter K, Kader AK, Turner AR, Liu W, Bleecker ER, Meyers DA, Duggan D, Carpten JD, Chang BL, Isaacs WB, Xu J, Gronberg H (2008) Cumulative association of five genetic variants with prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 358(9):910–919.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa075819 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doukas DJ, Li Y (2004) Men’s values-based factors on prostate cancer risk genetic testing: a telephone survey. BMC Med Genet 5:28.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2350-5-28 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diefenbach MA, Schnoll RA, Miller SM, Brower L (2000) Genetic testing for prostate cancer. Willingness and predictors of interest. Cancer Pract 8(2):82–86Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bratt O, Damber JE, Emanuelsson M, Kristoffersson U, Lundgren R, Olsson H, Gronberg H (2000) Risk perception, screening practice and interest in genetic testing among unaffected men in families with hereditary prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 36(2):235–241Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cormier L, Valeri A, Azzouzi R, Fournier G, Cussenot O, Berthon P, Guillemin F, Mangin P (2002) Worry and attitude of men in at-risk families for prostate cancer about genetic susceptibility and genetic testing. Prostate 51(4):276–285.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.10092 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harris JN, Bowen DJ, Kuniyuki A, McIntosh L, FitzGerald LM, Ostrander EA, Stanford JL (2009) Interest in genetic testing among affected men from hereditary prostate cancer families and their unaffected male relatives. Genet Med 11(5):344–355.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e31819b2425 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bruno M, Tommasi S, Stea B, Quaranta M, Schittulli F, Mastropasqua A, Distante A, Di Paola L, Paradiso A (2004) Awareness of breast cancer genetics and interest in predictive genetic testing: a survey of a southern Italian population. Ann Oncol 15(Suppl 1):I48–I54.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh658 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lerman C, Seay J, Balshem A, Audrain J (1995) Interest in genetic testing among first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients. Am J Med Genet 57(3):385–392.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.1320570304 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heck MM, Kron M, Gschwend JE, Herkommer K (2012) Effect of family history on outcome in German patients treated with radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 48(9):1312–1317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.10.002 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paiss T, Bock B, Gschwend JE, Heinz H, Vogel W, Kron M, Hautmann RE, Herkommer K (2003) Familial versus sporadic prostate cancer in the German population. Clinical and pathological characteristics in patients after radical prostatectomy. Urologe A 42(7):946–953.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-003-0296-5 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paiss T, Herkommer K, Chab A, Haussler J, Vogel W, Gschwend JE, Hautmann RE (2002) [Familial prostate carcinoma in Germany]. Urologe A 41(1):38–43Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vadaparampil ST, Jacobsen PB, Kash K, Watson IS, Saloup R, Pow-Sang J (2004) Factors predicting prostate specific antigen testing among first-degree relatives of prostate cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13(5):753–758Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lowe B, Wahl I, Rose M, Spitzer C, Glaesmer H, Wingenfeld K, Schneider A, Brahler E (2010) A 4-item measure of depression and anxiety: validation and standardization of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general population. J Affect Disord 122(1–2):86–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.019 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Team RC (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sanderson SC, O’Neill SC, Bastian LA, Bepler G, McBride CM (2010) What can interest tell us about uptake of genetic testing? Intention and behavior amongst smokers related to patients with lung cancer. Public Health Genom 13(2):116–124.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000226595 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hadley DW, Jenkins J, Dimond E, Nakahara K, Grogan L, Liewehr DJ, Steinberg SM, Kirsch I (2003) Genetic counseling and testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med 163(5):573–582Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bottorff JL, Ratner PA, Balneaves LG, Richardson CG, McCullum M, Hack T, Chalmers K, Buxton J (2002) Women’s interest in genetic testing for breast cancer risk: the influence of sociodemographics and knowledge. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11(1):89–95Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Satia JA, McRitchie S, Kupper LL, Halbert CH (2006) Genetic testing for colon cancer among African-Americans in North Carolina. Prev Med 42(1):51–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2005.10.004 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Petrucelli N, Daly MB, Pal T (1993) BRCA1- and BRCA2-Associated Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH et al (eds) GeneReviews(R). Seattle (WA)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hall MJ, Ruth KJ, Chen DY, Gross LM, Giri VN (2015) Interest in genomic SNP testing for prostate cancer risk: a pilot survey. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 13(1):11.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-015-0032-3 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. J Psychol 91(1):93–114.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Matro JM, Ruth KJ, Wong YN, McCully KC, Rybak CM, Meropol NJ, Hall MJ (2014) Cost sharing and hereditary cancer risk: predictors of willingness-to-pay for genetic testing. J Genet Couns 23(6):1002–1011.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9724-5 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Small ML, Harding DJ, Lamont M (2010) Reconsidering culture and poverty. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Day JC, Newburger EC (2002) The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life Earnings. Special Studies. Current Population ReportsGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    NCI (2015) BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer Risk and Genetic Testing. National Cancer Institue (NCI) at the National Institutes of HealthGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel Mayer
    • 1
  • Katharina Selig
    • 2
  • Frank Tüttelmann
    • 3
  • Andreas Dinkel
    • 4
  • Jürgen E. Gschwend
    • 1
  • Kathleen Herkommer
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Human GeneticsUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  4. 4.Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations