Personal genomic testing for cancer risk: Results from the impact of personal genomics study

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 636-644

  Gray, Stacy W ^a   Gollust, Sarah E ^b   Carere, Deanna Alexis ^c   Chen, Clara A ^d   Cronin, Angel ^e   Kalia, Sarah S ^f   Rana, Huma Q ^e,g   Ruffin Iv, Mack T ⁱ   Wang, Catharine ^d   Roberts, J Scott ^j   Green, Robert C ^f,g,h  

^a CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^e DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^g HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^h PARTNERS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR CHANGE; BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER GENETICS; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SUSCEPTIBILITY; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; DIET; EXERCISE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC RISK; GENOMICS; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RISK REDUCTION; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTATION; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; SCREENING TEST; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER SCREENING AND TESTING; FEMALE; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85013361160     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.1503     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. McGuire AL, Burke W: An unwelcome side effect of direct-To-consumer personal genome testing: Raiding the medical commons. JAMA 300:2669-2671, 2008.
2. Stadler ZK, Thom P, Robson ME, et al: Genome-wide association studies of cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:4255-4267, 2010.
3. Robson ME, Storm CD, Weitzel J, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: Genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 28:893-901, 2010.
4. Bellcross CA, Page PZ, Meaney-Delman D: Direct-To-consumer personal genome testing and cancer risk prediction. Cancer J 18:293-302, 2012.
5. Gollust SE, Hull SC, Wilfond BS: Limitations of direct-To-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA 288:1762-1767, 2002.
6. Murray MF: Why we should care about what you get for "only $99" from a personal genomic service. Ann Intern Med 160:507-508, 2014.
7. Caulfield T, McGuire AL: Direct-To-consumer genetic testing: Perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu Rev Med 63:23-33, 2012.
8. Gray S, Olopade OI: Direct-To-consumer marketing of genetic tests for cancer: Buyer beware. J Clin Oncol 21:3191-3193, 2003.
9. van der Wouden CH, Carere DA, Maitland-van der Zee AH, et al: Consumer perceptions of interactions with primary care providers after direct-Toconsumer personal genomic testing. Ann Intern Med 164:513-522, 2016.
10. McGuire AL, Diaz CM, Wang T, et al: Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-To-consumer personal genome testing. Am J Bioeth 9:3-10, 2009.
11. Gollust SE, Gordon ES, Zayac C, et al: Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: Perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics 15:22-30, 2012.
12. Kaufman DJ, Bollinger JM, Dvoskin RL, et al: Risky business: Risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. J Genet Couns 21:413-422, 2012.
13. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ: Direct-Toconsumer pharmacogenomic testing is associated with increased physician utilisation. J Med Genet 51: 83-89, 2014.
14. Egglestone C, Morris A, O'Brien A: Effect of direct-To-consumer genetic tests on health behaviour and anxiety: A survey of consumers and potential consumers. J Genet Couns 22:565-575, 2013.
15. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ: Effect of directto- consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med 364:524-534, 2011.
16. Bloss CS, Wineinger NE, Darst BF, et al: Impact of direct-To-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. J Med Genet 50:393-400, 2013.
17. Reid RJ, McBride CM, Alford SH, et al: Association between health-service use and multiplex genetic testing. Genet Med 14:852-859, 2012.
18. Kaphingst KA, McBride CM, Wade C, et al: Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results. Genet Med 14:681-687, 2012.
19. Gutierrez A: 23andMe, Inc. FDA Warning Letter, 11/22/2013. http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/2013/ucm376296.Htm.
20. American Medical Association: AMA Calls for Ban on Direct to Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices. https://www.ama-Assn.org/content/ama-calls-ban-direct-consumeradvertising-prescription-drugs-And-medical-devices.
21. US Food and Drug Administration: Draft guidance for industry, Food and Drug Administration staff and clinical laboratories: FDA notification and medical device reporting for laboratory developed tests (LDTs). http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM416684.pdf.
22. Evans JP, Watson MS: Genetic testing and FDA regulation: Overregulation threatens the emergence of genomic medicine. JAMA 313: 669-670, 2015.
23. Green RC, Farahany NA: Regulation: The FDA is overcautious on consumer genomics. Nature 505: 286-287, 2014.
24. Evans BJ, Burke W, Jarvik GP: The FDA and genomic tests: Getting regulation right. N Engl J Med 372:2258-2264, 2015.
25. Goldsmith L, Jackson L, O'Connor A, et al: Direct-To-consumer genomic testing: Systematic review of the literature on user perspectives. Eur J Hum Genet 20:811-816, 2012.
26. Bloss CS, Darst BF, Topol EJ, et al: Direct-Toconsumer personalized genomic testing. Hum Mol Genet 20:R132-R141, 2011.
27. Roberts JS, Ostergren J: Direct-To-consumer genetic testing and personal genomics services: A review of recent empirical studies. Curr Genet Med Rep 1:182-200, 2013.
28. 23andMe: 23andMe homepage. https://www.23andme.com/.
29. Pathway Genomics: Pathway Genomics homepage. https://www.pathway.com/.
30. Lehmann LS, Kaufman DJ, Sharp RR, et al: Navigating a research partnership between academia and industry to assess the impact of personalized genetic testing. Genet Med 14:268-273, 2012.
31. Carere DA, Couper MP, Crawford SD, et al: Design, methods, and participant characteristics of the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study, a prospective cohort study of direct-To-consumer personal genomic testing customers. Genome Med 6:96, 2014.
32. Carere DA, Kraft P, Kaphingst KA, et al: Consumers report lower confidence in their genetics knowledge following direct-To-consumer personal genomic testing. Genet Med 18:65-72, 2016.
33. Ostergren JE, Gornick MC, Carere DA, et al: How well do customers of direct-To-consumer personal genomic testing services comprehend genetic test results? Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics Study. Public Health Genomics 18: 216-224, 2015.
34. Meisel SF, Carere DA, Wardle J, et al: Explaining, not just predicting, drives interest in personal genomics. Genome Med 7:74, 2015.
35. Carere DA, VanderWeele T, Moreno TA, et al: The impact of direct-To-consumer personal genomic testing on perceived risk of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer: Findings from the PGen study. BMC Med Genomics 8:63, 2015.
36. Baptista NM, Christensen KD, Carere DA, et al: Adopting genetics: Motivations and outcomes of personal genomic testing in adult adoptees. Genet Med 18:924-932, 2016.
37. Kreiger JL, Murray F, Roberts JS, et al: The impact of personal genomics on risk perceptions and medical decision-making. Nat Biotechnol 34:912- 918, 2016.
38. Wang C, O'Neill SM, Rothrock N, et al: Comparison of risk perceptions and beliefs across common chronic diseases. Prev Med 48:197-202, 2009.
39. Green RC, Roberts JS, Cupples LA, et al: Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 361:245-254, 2009.
40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Questionnaire. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual-data/pdf-ques/2011brfss.pdf.
41. Stadler ZK, Schrader KA, Vijai J, et al: Cancer genomics and inherited risk. J Clin Oncol 32:687-698, 2014.
42. Krier J, Barfield R, Green RC, et al: Reclassification of genetic-based risk predictions as GWAS data accumulate. Genome Med 8:20, 2016.
43. Saukko P: State of play in direct-To-consumer genetic testing for lifestyle-related diseases: Market, marketing content, user experiences and regulation. Proc Nutr Soc 72:53-60, 2013.
44. Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ, et al: Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD007275, 2010.
45. Hollands GJ, French DP, Griffin SJ, et al: The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: Systematic review with meta-Analysis. BMJ 352:i1102, 2016.
46. Lin P-H, Aronson W, Freedland SJ: Nutrition, dietary interventions and prostate cancer: The latest evidence. BMC Med 13:3, 2015.
47. Klein EA, Thompson IM Jr, Tangen CM, et al: Vitamin E and the risk of prostate cancer: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). JAMA 306:1549-1556, 2011.
48. Hackshaw-McGeagh LE, Perry RE, Leach VA, et al: A systematic review of dietary, nutritional, and physical activity interventions for the prevention of prostate cancer progression and mortality. Cancer Causes Control 26:1521-1550, 2015.
49. Golabek T, Bukowczan J, Sobczynski R, et al: The role of micronutrients in the risk of urinary tract cancer. Arch Med Sci 12:436-447, 2016.
50. Fortmann SP, Burda BU, Senger CA, et al: Vitamin, Mineral, and Multivitamin Supplements for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Report No. 108. AHRQ Publication No. 14-05199-EF-1. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013.
51. Wang Z, Fan J, Liu M, et al: Nutraceuticals for prostate cancer chemoprevention: From molecular mechanisms to clinical application. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 22:1613-1626, 2013.
52. Livingston CJ, Freeman RJ, Mohammad A, et al: Choosing Wisely® in preventive medicine: The American College of Preventive Medicine's top 5 list of recommendations. Am J Prev Med 51:141-149, 2016.
53. Vernarelli JA, Roberts JS, Hiraki S, et al: Effect of Alzheimer disease genetic risk disclosure on dietary supplement use. Am J Clin Nutr 91:1402-1407, 2010.
54. Katapodi MC, Lee KA, Facione NC, et al: Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: A meta-Analytic review. Prev Med 38: 388-402, 2004.
55. Leighton JW, Valverde K, Bernhardt BA: The general public's understanding and perception of direct-To-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics 15:11-21, 2012.
56. National Center for Health Statistics: Health, United States, 2013: With special feature on prescription drugs. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus13.pdf.