“Is it Really Worth it to Get Tested?”: Primary Care Patients’ Impressions of Predictive SNP Testing for Colon Cancer
- 713 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAttitudes Colorectal cancer risk Focus group Genomics Single-nucleotide polymorphisms Translational research
Thank you to Susan Marx for her assistance with manuscript preparation and to Amy Procknal and Dr. Dennis Murphy of the Division of General Internal Medicine at Georgetown University Hospital for assistance with patient recruitment. We would also like to thank the participants in this study for their time and contributions.
This project was supported by funding through NCI K07CA131172 (KG) and from the Fisher Center for Familial Cancer Research.
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
- Burke, W. (2004). Genetic testing in primary care. Annual Reviews Genomics and Human Genetics, 5, 1–14.Google Scholar
- Carpenter, M. J., Strange, C., Jones, Y., Dickson, M. R., Carter, C., Moseley, M. A., et al. (2007). Does genetic testing result in behavioral health change? Changes in smoking behavior following testing for alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33(1), 22–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chanock, S. J. (2011). The heritable component of cancer: insights from genome-wide association studies and beyond. Opening Plenary Session: The Future of Cancer Research: Challenges and Opportunities. American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) 102nd Annual Meeting, April 3, 2011, Orlando, FL. https://doi.org/webcast.aacr.org/console/player/14274?mediaType=podiumVideo. Accessed 5 September 2011.
- Edwards, A., Elwyn, G., Hood, K., Atwell, C., Robling, M., Houston, H., et al. (2004). Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Family Practice, 21(4), 347–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Facio, F. M., Brooks, S., Loewenstein, J., Green, S., Biesecker, L. G., & Biesecker, B. B. (2011). Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. European Journal of Human Genetics, 19(12), 1213–1217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2011.123.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Graves, K. D., Vegella, P., Poggi, E. A., Peshkin, B. N., Tong, A., Isaacs, C., et al. (2012). Long-term psychosocial outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing: differences across affected status and risk-reducing surgery choice. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 21(3), 445–455.Google Scholar
- Green, E. D., Guyer, M. S., & National Human Genome Research Institute. (2011). Charting a course for genomic medicine from base pairs to bedside. Nature, 470(7333), 204–213.Google Scholar
- Hallowell, N., Ardern-Jones, A., Eeles, R., Foster, C., Lucassen, A., Moynihan, C., et al. (2005). Men’s decision-making about predictive BRCA1/2 testing: the role of family. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(3), 207–217.Google Scholar
- Hindorff, L. A., Sethupathy, P., Junkins, H. A., Ramos, E. M., Mehta, J. P., Collins, F. S., et al. (2009). Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(23), 9362–9367.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Institute of Medicine. (2005). Implications of Genomics for Public Health: Workshop Summary. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Institute of Medicine. (2011). Generating Evidence for Genomic Diagnostic Test Development: Workshop Summary. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Khoury, M. J., McBride, C. M., Schully, S. D., Ioannidis, J. P., Feero, W. G., Janssens, A. C., et al. (2009). The Scientific Foundation for personal genomics: recommendations from a National Institutes of Health-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention multidisciplinary workshop. Genetics in Medicine, 11(8), 559–567.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Lerman, C., Gold, K., Audrain, J., Lin, T. H., Boyd, N. R., Orleans, C. T., et al. (1997). Incorporating biomarkers of exposure and genetic susceptibility into smoking cessation treatment: effects on smoking-related cognitions, emotions, and behavior change. Health Psychology, 16(1), 87–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- McBride, C. M., Bepler, G., Lipkus, I. M., Lyna, P., Samsa, G., Albright, J., et al. (2002). Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 11(6), 521–528.Google Scholar
- Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group guidebook: Focus group kit 1. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Myers, R. E., Manne, S. L., Wilfond, B., Sifri, R., Ziring, B., Wolf, T. A., et al. (2011). A randomized trial of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) for colorectal cancer risk in primary care: trial design and baseline findings. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 32(1), 25–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Neumann, P. J., Cohen, J. T., Hammitt, J. K., Concannon, T. W., Auerbach, H. R., Fang, C., et al. (2012). Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents. Health Economics, 21(3), 238–251. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1704.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Norrgard, K. (2008). Genetic variation and disease: GWAS. Nature Education, 1(1)(.Google Scholar
- O'Connor, A. M., & O'Brien-Pallas, L. L. (1989). Decisional conflict. In G. K. McFarland & E. A. Mcfarlane (Eds.), Nursing diagnosis and intervention: Planning for patient care (pp. 486–496). Toronto: Mosby.Google Scholar
- Robson, M. E., Storm, C. D., Weitzel, J., Wollins, D. S., Offit, K., & American Society of Clinical Oncology. (2010). American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(5), 893–901.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free.Google Scholar
- Rose, A. L., Peters, N., Shea, J. A., & Armstrong, K. (2005). Attitudes and misconceptions about predictive genetic testing for cancer risk. Community Genetics, 8(3), 145–151.Google Scholar
- Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23(3), 246–255.Google Scholar
- Sulmasy, D. P., Astrow, A. B., He, M. K., Seils, D. M., Meropol, N. J., Micco, E., et al. (2010). The culture of faith and hope: patients' justifications for their high estimations of expected therapeutic benefit when enrolling in early phase oncology trials. Cancer, 116(15), 3702–3711.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar