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

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

[1]  P. Newcomb,et al.  Will Knowledge of Gene-Based Colorectal Cancer Disease Risk Influence Quality of Life and Screening Behavior? , 2009, Public Health Genomics.

[2]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[3]  G. Bepler,et al.  What Can Interest Tell Us about Uptake of Genetic Testing? Intention and Behavior amongst Smokers Related to Patients with Lung Cancer , 2009, Public Health Genomics.

[4]  Andreas D. Baxevanis,et al.  Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: Implications for physician-patient interactions , 2009, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  T. Marteau,et al.  Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research. , 2006, Social science & medicine.

[6]  Giovanni Parmigiani,et al.  BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  A. Clarke,et al.  Why do women attend familial breast cancer clinics? , 2000, Journal of medical genetics.

[8]  本田 純久 Longitudinal Data , 2003, Encyclopedia of Wireless Networks.

[9]  Susan Persky,et al.  Assessing hypothetical scenario methodology in genetic susceptibility testing analog studies: a quantitative review , 2007, Genetics in Medicine.

[10]  J. Hirschhorn Genomewide association studies--illuminating biologic pathways. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  R. Green,et al.  Health Behavior Changes After Genetic Risk Assessment for Alzheimer Disease: The REVEAL Study , 2008, Alzheimer disease and associated disorders.

[12]  K. Offit,et al.  Psychosocial predictors of BRCA counseling and testing decisions among urban African-American women. , 2002, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[13]  D. Asch,et al.  Early adoption of BRCA1/2 testing: Who and why , 2003, Genetics in Medicine.

[14]  H. Valdimarsdottir,et al.  Changes in Diet and Physical Activity Following BRCA1/2 Testing , 2008, Journal of psychosocial oncology.

[15]  T. Marteau Communicating genetic risk information. , 1999, British medical bulletin.

[16]  B. Rimer,et al.  Relationships among breast cancer perceived absolute risk, comparative risk, and worries. , 2000, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[17]  J. Ware,et al.  Applied Longitudinal Analysis , 2004 .

[18]  Juan Pablo Lewinger,et al.  Methodological Issues in Multistage Genome-wide Association Studies. , 2009, Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics.

[19]  Muin J Khoury,et al.  Genome-wide association studies in pharmacogenomics: untapped potential for translation , 2009, Genome Medicine.

[20]  K. Offit Genomic profiles for disease risk: predictive or premature? , 2008, JAMA.

[21]  D. Goldstein Common genetic variation and human traits. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  Adopted on March American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  S. Narod Testing for CHEK2 in the cancer genetics clinic: ready for prime time? , 2010, Clinical genetics.

[24]  M. Khoury,et al.  The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? , 2007, Genetics in Medicine.

[25]  P. Mitchell,et al.  Public interest in predictive genetic testing, including direct-to-consumer testing, for susceptibility to major depression: preliminary findings , 2010, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[26]  M. Khoury,et al.  Awareness and use of direct-to-consumer nutrigenomic tests, United States, 2006 , 2007, Genetics in Medicine.

[27]  B. Peshkin,et al.  Adolescent medical providers' willingness to recommend genetic susceptibility testing for nicotine addiction and lung cancer risk to adolescents. , 2009, Journal of pediatric psychology.

[28]  S. Narod Testing for CHEK 2 in the cancer genetics clinic : ready for prime time ? , 2010 .

[29]  Lester L. Peters,et al.  Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci , 2007, Nature.

[30]  L. Hernandez Implications of Genomics for Public Health: Workshop Summary , 2005 .

[31]  C. Schmidt SNPs not living up to promise; experts suggest new approach to disease ID. , 2007, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[32]  R. Green,et al.  Who seeks genetic susceptibility testing for Alzheimer’s disease? Findings from a multisite, randomized clinical trial , 2004, Genetics in Medicine.

[33]  M. Andrykowski,et al.  Interest in learning of personal genetic risk for cancer: a general population survey. , 1996, Preventive medicine.

[34]  M. Trivella,et al.  What motivates interest in attending a familial cancer genetics clinic? , 2004, Familial Cancer.

[35]  James E Andrews,et al.  Information seeking and intentions to have genetic testing for hereditary cancers in rural and Appalachian Kentuckians. , 2007, The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association.

[36]  C. Isaacs,et al.  Perceived risk of breast cancer among Latinas attending community clinics: risk comprehension and relationship with mammography adherence , 2008, Cancer Causes & Control.

[37]  Muin J. Khoury,et al.  The path from genome-based research to population health: Development of an international public health genomics network , 2006, Genetics in Medicine.

[38]  C. Halbert,et al.  Decisions and outcomes of genetic testing for inherited breast cancer risk. , 2004, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[39]  J. Kaye The regulation of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. , 2008, Human molecular genetics.

[40]  D. Hogarth,et al.  Smoking cessation: the potential role of risk assessment tools as motivational triggers , 2010, Postgraduate Medical Journal.

[41]  Paul G Shekelle,et al.  Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. , 2008, JAMA.

[42]  L. Bradley,et al.  Why should genomic medicine become more evidence-based? , 2007, Genomic Medicine.

[43]  Wylie Burke,et al.  Does genomic risk information motivate people to change their behavior? , 2009, Genome Medicine.

[44]  Muin J Khoury,et al.  Genetics and genomics in practice: The continuum from genetic disease to genetic information in health and disease , 2003, Genetics in Medicine.

[45]  L. Koehly,et al.  The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? , 2010, Annual review of public health.

[46]  Barbara Prainsack,et al.  A Survey of UK Public Interest in Internet-Based Personal Genome Testing , 2010, PloS one.

[47]  A. Baum,et al.  Stress and genetic testing for disease risk. , 1997, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[48]  Sara Chandros Hull,et al.  Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. , 2002, JAMA.