Factors Influencing Uptake of Genetic Testing For Colorectal Cancer Risk in an Australian Jewish Population

Population Based Testing for Primary Prevention: A Systematic Review

The current clinical model for genetic testing is based on clinical-criteria/family-history (FH) and a pre-defined mutation probability threshold. It requires people to develop cancer before identifying unaffected individuals in the family to target prevention. This process is inefficient, resource intensive and misses >50% of individuals or mutation carriers at risk. Population genetic-testing can overcome these limitations. It is technically feasible to test populations on a large scale; genetic-testing costs are falling and acceptability and awareness are rising. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pubmed, CINAHL and PsychINFO databases were searched using free-text and MeSH terms; retrieved reference lists of publications were screened; additionally, web-based platforms, Google, and clinical-trial registries were searched. Quality of studies was evaluated using appropriate check-lists. A number of studies have evaluated population-based BRCA-testing in the Jewish population. This has been found to be acceptable, feasible, clinically-effective, safe, associated with high satisfaction rates and extremely cost-effective. Data support change in guidelines for population-based BRCA-testing in the Jewish population. Population panel testing for BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1/PALB2 gene mutations is the most cost-effective genetic-testing strategy in general-population women and can prevent thousands more breast and ovarian cancers than current clinical-criteria based approaches. A few ongoing studies are evaluating population-based genetic-testing for multiple cancer susceptibility genes in the general population but more implementation studies are needed. A future population-testing programme could also target other chronic diseases.

Global trends on fears and concerns of genetic discrimination: a systematic literature review

Since the 1990s, developments in the field of genetics have led to many questions on the use and possible misuse of genetic information. 'Genetic discrimination' has been defined as the differential treatment of asymptomatic individuals or their relatives on the basis of their real or assumed genetic characteristics. Despite the public policy attention around genetic discrimination, there is currently still much confusion surrounding this phenomenon. On the one hand, there is little evidence of the occurrence of genetic discrimination. On the other hand, it appears that people remain concerned about this theme, and this fear influences their health and life choices. This article makes use of a systematic literature review to investigate what is already known about the nature, extent and background of these fears and concerns. The 42 included studies have found considerable levels of concerns about genetic discrimination. Concerns dominate in insurance contexts and within personal interactions. The extent of concerns appears to vary depending on the type of genetic illness. Furthermore, installed laws prohibiting genetic discrimination do not seem to alleviate existing fears. This raises important questions as to the origins of these fears. Based on the findings, recommendations for future research are made. First, research on the background of fears is needed. Second, future research needs to assess more fully all different forms (for example, direct and indirect) of genetic discrimination. Thirdly, it has to be studied whether genetic discrimination is a form of discrimination that is distinguishable from discrimination based on an illness or disability. Finally, a last element that should be addressed in future research is the most recent developments in research on genomics, such as next-generation sequencing or genome-wide association studies.

Timing and context: important considerations in the return of genetic results to research participants

General consensus exists that clinically significant germline genetic research results should be fed back to research participants. A body of literature is emerging about Australian research participants' experiences of feedback of genetic research results and factors that influence a participant's actions after receiving such information. This exploratory qualitative study conducted interviews with 11 participants from the International Sarcoma Kindred Study, four probands and seven of their relatives. They had been informed by letter of the availability of clinically significant germline TP53 mutations identified through research. We examined the participants' views about the feedback of these genetic test results. Thematic (inductive) analysis was used to analyse the data. A number of factors influenced participants' responses following notification. This included participants' understanding of the notification letter and their perception of the relevance of the information for them and/or their family. Most notably, timing of the letter in the context of an individual's current life experiences was important. Timing and context are novel factors identified that may impact on research participants' understanding or their ability to access clinically significant research results. We outline strategies for disseminating results to research participants and their next of kin that may reduce their uncertainty around the receipt of research results.

'They had the right to know.' Genetic risk and perceptions of responsibility

The idea that people should be responsible for their health is not new. The construction of health as a moral issue has often been applied to voluntary health risks. With the advent of predictive genetic testing, however, people may also bear responsibility for their genetic risks. Drawing upon 24 semi-structured interviews with at risk persons and their family members, this study explored perceptions of responsibility associated with genetic risk for the adult-onset disorder, Huntington disease (HD). Qualitative data analysis suggested that decisions around genetic risk were often influenced by obligations to other family members. Some participants felt responsible to determine their genetic risks through testing, particularly for at risk offsprings. Responsibility to current and future partners, to plan for a future that might include HD and to communicate genetic risk to other family members also emerged as important dimensions of genetic responsibility. It is argued that perceptions of responsibility in this context may constrain some of the choices of those who live with genetic risk having implications for test decisions, post-test adjustment and family relationships.

On the limits of genetic responsibility: Communication and consent for tumour testing for Lynch syndrome

Testing cancers for mismatch repair (MMR) gene defects assists selection of families for genetic testing for cancer predisposing Lynch syndrome. Performing MMR tumour testing without consent is debated, though little empirical work has been undertaken. We address this by examining the significance of testing for those who have consented without prior genetic counselling, particularly their ‘accounts’ of testing via displays of knowledge and responsibility. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants recruited from a UK genetics service. Participants had difficulties in formulating the benefits of testing when consent was facilitated by a relative or by mail. Discourse analysis revealed that in the absence of specific or accurate understandings of tumour testing, participants displayed responsibility towards themselves and others by generalising and diminishing the implications of testing. Within the framework of ‘genetic responsibility’, MMR tumour testing seems less important in participants’ accounts compared to more definitive genetic testing. If facilitating genetic knowledge and responsibility are goals of genetic testing then developing appropriate consent procedures for MMR tumour testing is an important consideration. Further research is required to differentiate whether genetic counselling is a precondition for enacting genetic responsibility or whether intrinsic differences between types of testing make the concept less relevant.

Predictors of genetic testing decisions: a systematic review and critique of the literature

Genetic testing is increasingly available in medical settings and direct-to-consumer. However, the large and growing literature on genetic testing decisions is rife with conflicting findings, inconsistent methodology, and uneven attention across test types and across predictors of genetic testing decisions. Existing reviews of the literature draw broad conclusions but sacrifice nuanced analysis that with a closer look reveals far more inconsistency than homogeny across studies. The goals of this paper are to provide a systematic review of the empirical work on predictors of genetic testing decisions, highlight areas of consistency and inconsistency, and suggest productive directions for future research. We included all studies that provided quantitative analysis of subjective (e.g., perceived risk, perceived benefits of testing) and/or objective (e.g., family history, sociodemographic variables) predictors of genetic testing interest, intentions, or uptake, which produced a sample of 115 studies. From this review, we conclude that self-reported and test-related (as opposed to disorder-related or objective) predictors are relatively consistent across studies but that theoretically-driven efforts to examine testing interest across test types are sorely needed.

Beyond the patient: the broader impact of genetic discrimination among individuals at risk of Huntington disease

We aimed to address gaps in current understanding of the scope and impact of discrimination, by examining a cohort of individuals at-risk for Huntington disease (HD), to describe the prevalence of concern for oneself and one's family in multiple domains; strategies used to mitigate discrimination; and the extent to which concerns relate to experiences. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 293 individuals at-risk for HD (80% response rate); 167 respondents were genetically tested and 66 were not. Fear of discrimination was widespread (86%), particularly in the insurance, family and social settings. Approximately half of concerned individuals experienced discrimination (40-62%, depending on genetic status). Concern was associated with "keeping quiet" about one's risk of HD or "taking action to avoid" discrimination. Importantly, concern was highly distressing for some respondents (21% for oneself; 32% for relatives). Overall, concerned respondents with high education levels, who discovered their family history at a younger age, and those who were mutation-positive were more likely to report experiences of discrimination than others who were concerned. Concerns were rarely attributed to genetic test results alone. Concern about genetic discrimination is frequent among individuals at-risk of HD and spans many settings. It influences behavioral patterns and can result in high levels of self-rated distress, highlighting the need for practice and policy interventions. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Providers' perceptions and practices regarding BRCA1/2 genetic counseling and testing in African American women

We examined healthcare providers' perceptions of genetic counseling and testing in African American women at moderate to high-risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews with genetic counselors (n = 5), medical oncologists (n = 8), obstetrician/gynecologists (n = 2) and surgeons (n = 5). Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and independently coded by two individuals using a content analysis approach. Seven themes emerged relevant to providers' perceptions of African American women's use of BRCA1/2 genetic services: access factors, cultural beliefs and preferences, effects of testing, patient motivators for genetic counseling and testing, patient-provider communication, reasons for provider referral, and reasons for patient refusal. Providers identified individual- and system-level barriers to African American women's use of genetic services, including lack of follow-up after referrals to genetic specialists and challenges to obtaining financial coverage for under- and uninsured high-risk women. Results have implications for physician and patient education regarding appropriate referrals to and uptake of genetic services in at-risk African American women.

To test or not to test? The role of attitudes, knowledge, and religious involvement among U.S. adults on intent-to-obtain adult genetic testing

Genetic testing can advance cancer prevention if current screening behaviors improve. Increased prevalence of high-risk genotypes within specific religious groups, use of religious venues for recruiting to genetic screening, and ethical-religious considerations argue for exploring the role of religiosity in forming genetic testing decisions. This study uses the theory of reasoned action and structural equation modeling to test the effects of religious involvement, attitudes, knowledge, and previous experience on intent-to-obtain genetic testing within a representative sample of 1,824 U.S. adults. A majority of respondents indicate willingness to test, especially for curable disorders. Attitudes, knowledge, and previous experience have significant direct effects, and religious involvement has an indirect effect, through its negative effect on attitudes, on intent-to-test. High religious involvement is associated with more negative attitudes toward genetic testing. The findings underscore the need to refine genetic testing outreach efforts to account for multiple influences on consumer intent-to-test.

Information Avoidance: Who, What, When, and Why

Although acquiring information can provide numerous benefits, people often opt to remain ignorant. We define information avoidance as any behavior designed to prevent or delay the acquisition of available but potentially unwanted information. We review the various literatures that examine information avoidance and provide a unique framework to integrate the contributions of these disparate areas of research. We first define information avoidance and distinguish it from related phenomena. We then discuss the motivations that prompt information avoidance and the factors that moderate the likelihood of avoidance. Finally, we discuss individual differences that predict preferences for information avoidance. We conclude by evaluating the current state of research on information avoidance and discussing directions for future research.

Ethical, legal and social implications of prenatal and preimplantation genetic testing for cancer susceptibility

With the progress in cancer genetics and assisted reproductive technologies, it is now possible for cancer gene mutation carriers not only to reduce cancer mortality through the targeting of surveillance and preventive therapies, but also to avoid the birth of at-risk babies through the choice of different means of reproduction. Thus, the incidence of hereditary cancer syndromes may be decreased in the future. The integration of cancer genetic testing and assisted reproductive technologies raises certain ethical, legal and social issues beyond either genetic testing or assisted reproductive technology itself. In this paper, the reproductive decisions/choices of at-risk young couples and the ethical, legal and social concerns of prenatal genetic testing and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for susceptibility to hereditary cancer syndromes are discussed. Specifically, three ethical principles related to the integration of cancer genetic testing and assisted reproductive technologies, i.e. informed choice, beneficence to children and social justice, and their implications for the responsible translation of these medical techniques into common practice of preventive medicine are highlighted.

Is uptake of genetic testing for colorectal cancer influenced by knowledge of insurance implications?

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether knowledge of insurance implications influenced uptake of genetic testing by participants in a research study of the causes of colorectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Analysis of uptake of genetic testing by participants in the population-based Victorian Colorectal Cancer Family Study during two periods: from 1999 to 2003, when participants were not informed of any potential effect of genetic testing conducted during the study on their eligibility for new insurance policies; and from 2003 to 2006, when the protocol was changed to provide participants with information on the potential effect of genetic testing on insurance eligibility.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Uptake of genetic testing for germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes at a family cancer clinic.

RESULTS

The proportion of participants who declined genetic testing among those informed of insurance implications was more than double the proportion among those without this knowledge (29/59 [49%] v 9/47 [19%]; P = 0.002). This difference could not be explained statistically by adjusting for measured putative predictors.

CONCLUSION

Identification of people with a mutation in an MMR gene has clinical importance, and such screening may be a cost-effective way to reduce the burden of colorectal cancer in the community. If people are choosing not to obtain genetic information because of how it will affect their eligibility for insurance, reforms to existing insurance practices are indicated.

Decision-making about inherited cancer risk: exploring dimensions of genetic responsibility

Since genetic information has implications for family members, some choices about genetic risk may be influenced by perceptions of responsibility to relatives. Drawing upon 25 semi-structured interviews with test recipients in Canada, this study explored decisions about inherited breast-ovarian and colon cancer. Qualitative data analysis revealed the pervasive significance of genetic responsibility in test decisions. We highlight three dimensions of genetic responsibility: 1) to know about the self for self; 2) to know about the self for others; 3) to know about the self to oblige others to know. It is argued that these dimensions of genetic responsibility have implications for test decisions, family relationships and other family members' desire to know (or not know) and to act (or not act) with respect to their own genetic risk. In particular, genetic responsibility may play out as a framing of a relative's moral obligation to know their risk that could obviate any interest they might have in not knowing. We conclude that perceptions of responsibility to-and of-other family members be thoroughly explored in genetic counseling sessions.

Ethics of future disclosure of individual risk information in a genetic cohort study: a survey of donor preferences

BACKGROUND

Although genetic epidemiologic research has added an element of individualization to epidemiologic research, there is neither agreement nor much discussion on whether donors of genetic samples should be offered an opportunity to receive individualized results regarding their genetic susceptibility to disease. Little is known regarding donors' preferences for future disclosure of individual results. The purpose of this study is to investigate the actual preferences of such donors with regard to receiving individual results, to explore the factors related to their decision, and then to discuss ethical issues regarding the disclosure of results.

METHODS

Participants (n = 1857) of an ongoing Japanese population-based genetic cohort study in Takashima, Shiga, in 2003, were asked at entry about their preferences with regard being recontacted by researchers in the future and whether they wanted to receive reports on their individual genetic results if genetic problems relevant to their health are discovered for which efficacious interventions might be available.

RESULTS

Most of the donors wished to be recontacted and receive reports, but some did not want any reports. Those who were younger, former/current drinkers, or had at least 1 parent who had had cancer were more likely to want the results, while those who had at least 1 sibling with a medical history of cancer were less likely to want the results.

CONCLUSION

We observed a high level of positive preference for future disclosure of individual genetic results, which is in line with the professional views on the ethics of this issue. A well-considered procedure for ascertaining donors' preferences for receiving the results of the research is required from an ethical perspective.

Perceptions of genetic testing for cancer predisposition among Ashkenazi Jewish women

BACKGROUND

Clinical genetic testing can help identify individuals who are predisposed to a variety of diseases and conditions; thus, it is important to understand attitudes and perceptions of individuals who may consider or who may be offered such testing.

METHODS

We examined knowledge and attitudes about cancer genetic testing among 59 women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent (age 25-80 years) through six focus group discussions. Participants were asked about their knowledge and experience with hereditary conditions and genetic testing, and attitudes regarding risk management options, genetic privacy, and potential discrimination issues.

RESULTS

Although 54% reported having a personal and/or some family history of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer, none had undergone cancer genetic counseling or testing and few expressed an interest or intention in doing so. While most endorsed benefits of genetic testing for those with a significant cancer family history, women also expressed concerns over the possible distress of learning that one carried a cancer-predisposing mutation and suggested that increasing cancer screening practices may be preferable to having genetic testing. Participants doubted the ability of state genetic privacy legislation to protect against insurance or employment discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Findings underscore the need for public education on the broad range of benefits and limitations associated with genetic testing, in order to help consumers to appropriately interpret complex information and make decisions about these services.