Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 578–587 | Cite as

Personalized Genomic Results: Analysis of Informational Needs

  • Tara J. SchmidlenEmail author
  • Lisa Wawak
  • Rachel Kasper
  • J. Felipe García-España
  • Michael F. Christman
  • Erynn S. Gordon
Original Research

Abstract

Use of genomic information in healthcare is increasing; however data on the needs of consumers of genomic information is limited. The Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative (CPMC) is a longitudinal study investigating the utility of personalized medicine. Participants receive results reflecting risk of common complex conditions and drug—gene pairs deemed actionable by an external review board. To explore the needs of individuals receiving genomic information we reviewed all genetic counseling sessions with CPMC participants. A retrospective qualitative review of notes from 157 genetic counseling inquiries was conducted. Notes were coded for salient themes. Five primary themes; “understanding risk”, “basic genetics”, “complex disease genetics”, “what do I do now?” and “other” were identified. Further review revealed that participants had difficulty with basic genetic concepts, confused relative and absolute risks, and attributed too high a risk burden to individual single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Despite these hurdles, counseled participants recognized that behavior changes could potentially mitigate risk and there were few comments alluding to an overly deterministic or fatalistic interpretation of results. Participants appeared to recognize the multifactorial nature of the diseases for which results were provided; however education to understand the complexities of genomic risk information was often needed.

Keywords

Genomic results Genetic counseling Patient needs Personalized medicine Complex disease 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The CPMC would not be possible without the efforts of a team of scientists and staff including: Neda Gharani, Margaret Keller, Catherine Stack, Joseph Jarvis, Daniel Lynch, Norman Gerry, Courtney Kronenthal, Susan Delaney, Mark Bellafante, Leo Lnu, and Corey Zuares. We are extremely grateful for the participants of the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative for their continued participation in the study. We owe many thanks to the staff of the Coriell Genotyping and Microarray Center and of the Coriell Information Systems Department for their significant and ongoing work on the study. We acknowledge the physicians of Cooper University Hospital (NJ, USA) and Virtua Health System (NJ, USA) for their assistance in reviewing educational web pages and surveys on health conditions included in the study and we thank Christa Sherburne-Law for her work on the survey of participants who did not seek genetic counseling (unpublished data). Finally, we acknowledge the members of the Informed Cohort Oversight Board (David Pellman [current Chair], Erin O’Shea [past chair], Jennifer Hoheisel, Marc Lenburg, Steve Murphy, Kenneth Offit, Robert Green, Michael Grinkemeyer, Charles Rotimi, Reverend Floyd White and Ellis Neufeld), for their advice and suggestions concerning the project. This research was supported by grants from the William G. Rohrer Foundation, the RNR Foundation, and a generous grant from the endowment of the Coriell Institute for Medical Research.

Informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Tara J. Schmidlen declares that she has no conflict of interest. Lisa Wawak declares that she has no conflict of interest. Rachel Kasper declares that she has no conflict of interest. J. Felipe García-España declares that he has no conflict of interest. Michael F. Christman declares that he has no conflict of interest. Erynn S. Gordon declares that she has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ashida, S., Koehly, L. M., Roberts, J. S., Chen, C. A., Hiraki, S., & Green, R. C. (2010). The role of disease perceptions and results sharing in psychological adaptation after genetic susceptibility testing: the REVEAL Study. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18(12), 1296–1301. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2010.119.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloss, C. S., Schork, N. J., & Topol, E. J. (2011). Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. New England Journal of Medicine, 364(6), 524–534. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1011893.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cameron, L. D., Sherman, K. A., Marteau, T. M., & Brown, P. M. (2009). Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. Health Psychology, 28(3), 307–316. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapple, A., May, C., & Campion, P. (1995). Lay understanding of genetic disease: a British study of families attending a genetic counseling service. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 4(4), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coonrod, E. M., Durtschi, J. D., Margraf, R. L., & Voelkerding, K. V. (2012). Developing genome and exome sequencing for candidate gene identification in inherited disorders. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. doi: https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0107-RA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darst, B., Madlensky, L., Schork, N., Topol, E., & Bloss, C. (2013). Perceptions of genetic counseling services in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Clinical Genetics. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Vries, H., Mesters, I., van de Steeg, H., & Honing, C. (2005). The general public’s information needs and perceptions regarding hereditary cancer: an application of the Integrated Change Model. Patient Education and Counseling, 56(2), 154–165. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dixon-Salazar, T. J., Silhavy, J. L., Udpa, N., Schroth, J., Bielas, S., Schaffer, A. E., et al. (2012). Exome sequencing can improve diagnosis and alter patient management. Science Translational Medicine, 4(138), 138ra178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3003544.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilissen, C., Hoischen, A., Brunner, H. G., & Veltman, J. A. (2011). Unlocking Mendelian disease using exome sequencing. Genome Biology, 12(9), 228. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2011-12-9-228.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hindorff, L. A., MacArthur, J., Morales, J., Junkins, H. A., Hall, P. N., Klemm, A. K., & Manolio, T. A. (2013). A catalog of published genome-wide association studies. Available at: https://doi.org/www.genome.gov/gwastudies. Accessed 1 May 2013.
  12. Hirschhorn, J. N., & Gajdos, Z. K. (2011). Genome-wide association studies: results from the first few years and potential implications for clinical medicine. [Review]. Annual Review of Medicine, 62, 11–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.091708.162036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Issa, A. M., Tufail, W., Hutchinson, J., Tenorio, J., & Baliga, M. P. (2009). Assessing patient readiness for the clinical adoption of personalized medicine. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. Public Health Genomics, 12(3), 163–169. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000189629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keller, M., Gordon, E., Stack, C. B., Gharani, N., Schmidlen, T. J., Mintzer, J., et al. (2010). The Coriell personalized medicine collaborative: a prospective study of the utility of personalized medicine. Personalized Medicine, 7(3), 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lamlertthon, W., Hayward, M. C., & Hayes, D. N. (2011). Emerging technologies for improved stratification of cancer patients: a review of opportunities, challenges, and tools. [Review]. Cancer Journal, 17(6), 451–464. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/PPO.0b013e31823bd1f8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lanie, A. D., Jayaratne, T. E., Sheldon, J. P., Kardia, S. L., Anderson, E. S., Feldbaum, M., et al. (2004). Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13(4), 305–320.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lerman, C., Croyle, R. T., Tercyak, K. P., & Hamann, H. (2002). Genetic testing: psychological aspects and implications. [Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.]. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(3), 784–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levin, E., Riordan, S., Klein, J., & Kieran, S. (2012). Genetic counseling for personal genomic testing: optimizing client uptake of post-test telephonic counseling services. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 462–468. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9496-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McGuire, A. L., & Burke, W. (2008). An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA, 300(22), 2669–2671. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.803.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGuire, A. L., Diaz, C. M., Wang, T., & Hilsenbeck, S. G. (2009). Social networkers’ attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. The American Journal of Bioethics, 9(6–7), 3–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160902928209.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meiser, B. (2005). Psychological impact of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: an update of the literature. Psychooncology, 14(12), 1060–1074. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Molster, C., Charles, T., Samanek, A., & O’Leary, P. (2009). Australian study on public knowledge of human genetics and health. Public Health Genomics, 12(2), 84–91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000164684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Need, A. C., Shashi, V., Hitomi, Y., Schoch, K., Shianna, K. V., McDonald, M. T., et al. (2012). Clinical application of exome sequencing in undiagnosed genetic conditions. Journal of Medical Genetics, 49(6), 353–361. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-100819.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Daniel, J. M. (2010). The prospect of genome-guided preventive medicine: a need and opportunity for genetic counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19(4), 315–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010-9302-4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Offit, K. (2008). Genomic profiles for disease risk: predictive or premature? JAMA, 299(11), 1353–1355. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.11.1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peacock, S., Apicella, C., Andrews, L., Tucker, K., Bankier, A., Daly, M. B., et al. (2006). A discrete choice experiment of preferences for genetic counselling among Jewish women seeking cancer genetics services. British Journal of Cancer, 95(10), 1448–1453. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603451.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peters, K. F., & Petrill, S. A. (2011a). Comparison of the background, needs, and expectations for genetic counseling of adults with experience with Down syndrome, Marfan syndrome, and neurofibromatosis. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155A(4), 684–696. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.33863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peters, K. F., & Petrill, S. A. (2011b). A comparison of the background, needs, and expectations of patients seeking genetic counseling services. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155A(4), 697–705. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.33979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pieterse, A. H., Ausems, M. G., Van Dulmen, A. M., Beemer, F. A., & Bensing, J. M. (2005a). Initial cancer genetic counseling consultation: change in counselees’ cognitions and anxiety, and association with addressing their needs and preferences. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 137(1), 27–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.30839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pieterse, A. H., van Dulmen, A. M., Ausems, M. G., Beemer, F. A., & Bensing, J. M. (2005b). Communication in cancer genetic counselling: does it reflect counselees’ previsit needs and preferences? British Journal of Cancer, 92(9), 1671–1678. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602570.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pieterse, A. H., van Dulmen, A. M., Beemer, F. A., Ausems, M. G., & Bensing, J. M. (2006). Tailoring communication in cancer genetic counseling through individual video-supported feedback: a controlled pretest-posttest design. Patient Education and Counseling, 60(3), 326–335. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reiff, M., Bernhardt, B. A., Mulchandani, S., Soucier, D., Cornell, D., Pyeritz, R. E., et al. (2012). “What does it mean?”: uncertainties in understanding results of chromosomal microarray testing. Genetics in Medicine, 14(2), 250–258. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Resta, R., Biesecker, B. B., Bennett, R. L., Blum, S., Hahn, S. E., Strecker, M. N., et al. (2006). A new definition of Genetic Counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force report. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(2), 77–83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-9014-3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roberts, J. D., Wells, G. A., Le May, M. R., Labinaz, M., Glover, C., Froeschl, M., et al. (2012). Point-of-care genetic testing for personalisation of antiplatelet treatment (RAPID GENE): a prospective, randomised, proof-of-concept trial. Lancet, 379(9827), 1705–1711. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60161-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rogers, H. L., Bhattaram, A., Zineh, I., Gobburu, J., Mathis, M., Laughren, T. P., et al. (2012). CYP2D6 genotype information to guide pimozide treatment in adult and pediatric patients: basis for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s new dosing recommendations. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 73(9), 1187–1190. doi: https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.11m07572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salemink, S., Dekker, N., Kets, C. M., van der Looij, E., van Zelst-Stams, W. A., & Hoogerbrugge, N. (2013). Focusing on patient needs and preferences may improve genetic counseling for colorectal cancer. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(1), 118–124. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9519-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Samuel, G. N., Jordens, C. F., & Kerridge, I. (2010). Direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: ethical and regulatory issues that arise from wanting to ‘know’ your DNA. Internal Medicine Journal, 40(3), 220–224. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02190.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shiloh, S., Gerad, L., & Goldman, B. (2006). Patients’ information needs and decision-making processes: what can be learned from genetic counselees? Health Psychology, 25(2), 211–219. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.2.211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walko, C. M., & McLeod, H. (2009). Pharmacogenomic progress in individualized dosing of key drugs for cancer patients. Nature Clinical Practice Oncology, 6(3), 153–162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wasson, K., Cook, E. D., & Helzlsouer, K. (2006). Direct-to-consumer online genetic testing and the four principles: an analysis of the ethical issues. Ethics and Medicine, 22(2), 83–91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tara J. Schmidlen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lisa Wawak
    • 1
  • Rachel Kasper
    • 1
  • J. Felipe García-España
    • 1
  • Michael F. Christman
    • 1
  • Erynn S. Gordon
    • 2
  1. 1.Coriell Institute for Medical ResearchCamdenUSA
  2. 2.InvitaeSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations