Trends and Gaps in Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests From 2007 to 2014

Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated with Genetic Testing among Cancer Survivors: Evidence from Three Cancer Registries

INTRODUCTION

Genetic tests, including germline and tumor (somatic) testing, can optimize the clinical care and outcomes for cancer patients and their family members. However, evidence on cancer patients' use of genetic testing and discussions about it with healthcare providers is limited.

METHODS

Study participants included cancer survivors aged 18 or older, drawn from the 2021 Health Information and National Trends Survey (HINTS)-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) linked database, which comprises three US cancer registries: Iowa, New Mexico, and the Greater Bay Area. Sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, sex, income, education) at the time of the survey and clinical characteristics (e.g., cancer site, stage) at the time of diagnosis were compared based on self-reported genetic testing status and provider discussions, using survey design-adjusted analysis.

RESULTS

The weighted study sample comprised 415,978 cancer survivors with a mean age of 70.5 years at the time of the survey. Overall, 17.0% reported having germline testing, 8.5% having tumor testing, and 8.6% discussing tumor testing with their healthcare providers. Higher proportions of germline genetic testing were observed among survivors under age 65 at the time of the survey, females, holding college degrees, and with private insurance coverage compared to their respective counterparts - males, aged 65 or above when surveyed, with lower educational attainment, and with public insurance or uninsured. The proportion of those who reported tumor testing was greater for those diagnosed in recent years (2015-2017 vs. before 2002). Regarding clinical characteristics, survivors with ovarian and breast cancers had a 7.0-36.4% higher prevalence of both testing compared to those with other cancer types lacking germline indication. More cancer survivors diagnosed at distant stages (vs. regional) or between 2015 and 2017 (vs. 2003-2010) reported having provider discussions about tumor testing.

CONCLUSION

Findings showed that the highest reports of germline testing were among young female cancer survivors and those with higher education and private insurance. Survivors diagnosed in recent years or with advanced-stage disease were more likely to report discussing tumor testing with providers. Further research is warranted to better understand the barriers and educational needs of cancer patients, caregivers, and providers to optimize genetic testing strategies.

A survey on awareness, knowledge and preferences toward genetic testing among the United States general public

Aim: To understand awareness, knowledge and preferences regarding genetic testing among the USA general public. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey using a Qualtrics Panel. Results: Among 1600 respondents, 545 (34%) were White, 411 (26%) Black, 412 (26%) Hispanic or Latin(x) and 232 (15%) Asian. Most had heard of ancestry testing (87%) and genetic health risk testing (69%), but a third thought inherited genes were only a little or not at all responsible for obesity (36%) and mental health (33%). The majority preferred pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing (n = 74%) compared with reactive testing. Statistically significant differences between racial/ethnic groups and rural-urban respondents were observed. Conclusion: Most preferred pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing; however, about one-quarter preferred reactive testing. Preferences should be discussed during patient-clinician interactions.

Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk and Perceived Importance of Genetic Information Among US Population by Race and Ethnicity: a Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing can help determine the risk of many cancers and guide cancer prevention and treatment plans. Despite increasing concern about disparities in precision cancer medicine, public knowledge and cancer genetic testing by race and ethnicity have not been well investigated.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey in 2022. Self-reported cancer genetic testing (e.g., Lynch syndrome, BRCA1/2) knowledge and utilization were compared by race and ethnicity. Perceived importance of genetic information for cancer care (prevention, detection, and treatment) was also examined in relation to the uptake of cancer genetic testing. Multivariable logistic regression models were employed to examine factors associated with knowledge and genetic testing to calculate predicted probability of undergoing genetic testing by race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

Of 3551 study participants, 37.8% reported having heard of genetic testing for cancer risk and 3.9% stated that they underwent cancer genetic testing. Being non-Hispanic Black (OR=0.47, 95% CI=0.30-0.75) or Hispanic (OR=0.56, CI=0.35-0.90) was associated with lower odds of genetic testing knowledge. Although Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black respondents were more likely to perceive higher importance of genetic information versus non-Hispanic Whites, they had a lower predicted probability of cancer genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults had lower knowledge and were less likely to undergo cancer genetic testing than non-Hispanic Whites. Further research is needed on sources of genetic testing information for racial and ethnic minorities and the barriers to accessing genetic testing to inform the development of effective cancer risk genetic testing promotion.

Use of At-Home Medical Tests Among Older US Adults: A Nationally Representative Survey

The availability of direct-to-consumer, at-home medical tests has grown over the last decade, but it is unknown how frequently older adults purchase at-home tests, how they perceive such tests, and how interested they are in using at-home tests in the future. We conducted a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of non-institutionalized US adults aged 50 to 80 about their previous use of, perceptions of, and future intentions to use at-home medical tests. We found that nearly half of older adults (48.1%) have purchased an at-home medical test (95% CI 45.2%-51.0%), including 32.0% (95% CI 29.3%-34.8%) who purchased a COVID-19 test, 16.6% (95% CI 14.7%-18.7%) who purchased an at-home DNA or genetic test, 5.6% (95% CI 4.5%-7.0%) who purchased a screening test for cancer, and 4.4% (95% CI 3.4%-5.6%) who purchased a test for an infection other than COVID-19. Compared with White, non-Hispanic adults, Black, non-Hispanic adults were less likely to have purchased an at-home test (35.5% vs 49.6%, P < .01). Those with a college degree and those with an annual household income greater than $100K were more likely than others to have purchased at-home tests (55.5% vs 42.0%, P < .01; 60.6% vs 39.0%, P < .001, respectively). Most older adults had positive perceptions about at-home tests and expressed interest in using at-home tests in the future. At-home medical testing is now common among older adults. Clinicians should be familiar with different tests that patients can purchase and be prepared to discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of at-home testing.

Awareness and use of genetic testing: An analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey 2020

PURPOSE

Genetic testing is a tool used in a variety of settings for medical and nonhealth related purposes. The goal of this analysis was to better understand the awareness and use of genetic testing in the United States.

METHODS

Data from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 cycle 4 were used to assess the awareness and use of genetic testing by demographic characteristics, personal cancer history, and family cancer history.

RESULTS

Overall, 75% of participants were aware of genetic testing and 19% of participants had genetic testing. Ancestry testing was the most common type of testing that the participants were aware of and had received. Non-Hispanic Asian, Non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic respondents and participants with incomes less than $20,000 were less likely to be aware of and have received any type of genetic testing than the Non-Hispanic White participants and participants with higher income, respectively. Participants with a family history of cancer were more likely to be aware of cancer genetic testing than those without, and participants with a personal history of cancer were more likely to have had cancer genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

It appears awareness of genetic testing is increasing in the United States, and differences in awareness persist by race/ethnicity and income.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in South Africa: Stumbling Over the First Legal Hurdle?

Despite the growing popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, there is minimal South African literature on the topic. The limited available research suggests that direct-to-consumer genetic testing is unregulated. However, we suggest that direct-to-consumer genetic testing is indeed regulated, and unusually so. The first step in the process - the collection of a saliva sample by consumers themselves - is unlawful on a plain reading of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 and the Regulations Relating to the Use of Human Biological Material. This is because these statutes require that certain healthcare professionals must remove saliva for genetic testing. Yet, on closer analysis, such an apparent ban on the self-collection of saliva is neither aligned with a purposive interpretation of the relevant legislation, nor would it survive constitutional scrutiny - as it impedes an individual's autonomy. It is concluded that, contrary to a plain reading of the relevant statutes, individuals can lawfully collect their own saliva for direct-to-consumer genetic testing. To provide legal clarity we recommend that the relevant provisions of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 and Regulations Relating to the Use of Human Biological the Material be amended to allow individuals to collect their own saliva samples.

Public Interest in Population Genetic Screening for Cancer Risk

An emerging role for DNA sequencing is to identify people at risk for an inherited cancer syndrome in order to prevent or ameliorate the manifestation of symptoms. Two cancer syndromes, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome meet the "Tier 1" evidence threshold established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for routine testing of patients with a personal or family history of cancer. Advancements in genomic medicine have accelerated public health pilot programs for these highly medically actionable conditions. In this brief report, we provide descriptive statistics from a survey of 746 US respondents from a Qualtrics panel about the public's awareness of genetic testing, interest in learning about their cancer risk, and likelihood of participating in a population genetic screening (PGS) test. Approximately of half the respondents were aware of genetic testing for inherited cancer risk (n = 377/745, 50.6%) and would choose to learn about their cancer risk (n-309/635, 48.7%). Characteristics of those interested in learning about their cancer risk differed by educational attainment, age, income, insurance status, having a primary care doctor, being aware of genetic testing, and likelihood of sharing information with family (p < 0.05). A sizeable majority of the respondents who were interested in about learning their cancer risk also said that they were likely to participate in a PGS test that involved a clinical appointment and blood draw, but no out-of-pocket cost (n = 255/309, 82.5%). Reasons for not wanting to participate included not finding test results interesting or important, concerns about costs, and feeling afraid to know the results. Overall, our results suggest that engaging and educating the general population about the benefits of learning about an inherited cancer predisposition may be an important strategy to address recruitment barriers to PGS.

Effect of Superstitious Beliefs and Risk Intuitions on Genetic Test Decisions

INTRODUCTION

Moving beyond numeric representations of risk perceptions, we examine cognitive causation, or superstitious thinking, and negative affect in risk as predictors of MC1R (i.e., moderate v. high risk) skin cancer genetic testing and responses to this testing.

METHODS

Participants (N = 496) completed baseline assessments using validated measures of cognitive causation (beliefs that thinking about cancer risk increases cancer likelihood) and negative affect in risk (negative feelings generated during risk perception) and subsequently received a test offer. Participants could access a website to learn about and request genetic testing. Those who tested (n = 167) completed assessments of cognitive and affective reactions 2 wk after testing, including the Impact of Events-Revised Intrusive thoughts subscale.

RESULTS

Those with higher negative affect in risk were less likely to return a saliva sample for testing (odds ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval = 0.96-0.99). Those with higher cognitive causation reported more fear (b = 0.28-0.31; P's < 0.05). Higher negative affect in risk was associated with more emotion-laden test responses, particularly in those receiving higher-risk as compared with average-risk results.

CONCLUSION

Negative affect in risk did not hamper test information seeking, although it did inhibit the uptake of genetic testing. Those with higher cognitive causation showed more fear regarding their test result, as indicated by higher distress in those who received average-risk results and lower believability in those who received higher-risk results.

Behavioral and Psychological Outcomes Associated with Skin Cancer Genetic Testing in Albuquerque Primary Care

Simple Summary

Genetic information is publicly available but research examining the best use of such information has not engaged diverse members of the public. We examined public reactions to melanoma genetic testing (using the melanocortin-1 receptor [MC1R] gene) in a study randomizing (like the flip of a coin) 600 diverse primary care patients to a MC1R test offer or usual care. We found that testing did not improve sun protection and skin cancer screening, nor did it lead worry to increase. However, groups less aware of their skin cancer risk, including those who thought their risk was “unlikely” at the start of the study, showed significant improvements in sun protection at three months. In conclusion, testing might be very helpful for certain people who have the most to learn about their risk, who may become motivated to protect themselves from the damaging effects of the sun as a result of skin cancer genetic testing.

Abstract

Public availability of genetic information is increasing; thus, efforts to improve diversity in basic and translational research in genomics is a top priority. Given the increasing U.S. incidence and mortality of melanoma, and the prevalence of common melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) gene melanoma risk variants in the general population, we examined genomic testing of MC1R for skin cancer risk in a randomized controlled trial in Albuquerque, New Mexico primary care. Participants were 48% Hispanic and were randomized 5:1 to a MC1R test invitation or usual care. We assessed 3 month sun protection, skin cancer screening, and skin cancer worry outcomes associated with testing, and key effect moderators (e.g., cancer risk perceptions, and skin cancer risk factors). Our findings indicate that the primary outcomes were unchanged by the MC1R test offer, test acceptance, and level of risk feedback. Moderator analyses showed that those with lower risk perception, and those with skin that readily tans, significantly increased their sun protection in response to higher than average risk feedback. Risk feedback did not prompt cancer worry, and average risk feedback did not erode existing sun protection. This study paves the way for the development of tailored strategies to address low skin cancer risk awareness in this understudied context of public health genomics.

Using Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Results to Accelerate Alzheimer Disease Clinical Trial Recruitment

INTRODUCTION

The apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene is the strongest known genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD). APOE can be used as an enrichment strategy or inclusion criterion for AD prevention trials. Personal genomics companies market direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests, including APOE. We assessed DTC APOE testing usage among enrollees of the University of California Irvine Consent-to-Contact Registry, an online recruitment registry, and attitudes toward using this information in clinical trial recruitment.

METHODS

We emailed links to an electronic survey to registry enrollees age 50 years or older. We assessed participants' use of DTC services, willingness to learn APOE status, and willingness to share genetic information. Logistic regression models assessed relationships between DTC testing usage and demographic characteristics, and with willingness to share results to assist trial recruitment.

RESULTS

Among 1312 responders (57% response rate), few (7%) had used DTC testing for APOE. Non-Hispanic Asian enrollees were 93% less likely to have used DTC testing, compared with non-Hispanic Whites [95% confidence interval: (0.01, 0.67)]. Willingness to share APOE information for study recruitment was >90% for both users and nonusers.

CONCLUSIONS

Matching participants to trials on the basis of DTC APOE information may be an effective way to streamline AD prevention trial recruitment.

A survey of lifestyle habits, physician counseling, and direct-to consumer genetic testing in patients with hereditary hemochromatosis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to assess lifestyle habits and physician counseling of patients with hereditary hemochromatosis (HH), and determine the prevalence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 52-question survey was created to collect information on lifestyle habits and physician counseling among patients with HH, and the use of DTC genetic testing of patients referred to a clinic for evaluation of HH. A multivariate logistic regression model was applied to identify predictors of DTC genetic testing use.

RESULTS

The survey was e-mailed to 379 patients, of which 101 responded (26.6%). Among patients with HH, 37% reported alcohol use more than once weekly and 50% reported red meat consumption. The use of a vitamin C supplement was reported by 38.9% of participants. Among patients with living children and siblings, physicians failed to recommend HH screening 15.3% and 21.2% of the time respectively. Thirty-one patients reported DTC genetic testing, of which 46.7% (14/31) reported their DTC genetic test screened for HH. Six (19%) of those patients were prompted to see a specialist in HH based on the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with HH, lifestyle habits that may impact iron stores are common, but not all receive appropriate counseling. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is common, and physicians should be aware of its limitations when patients seek further evaluation for HH based on their test results.

Secondary Data Usage in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: To What Extent Are Customers Aware and Concerned?

INTRODUCTION

Customer data from direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) are often used for secondary purposes beyond providing the customer with test results.

OBJECTIVE

The goals of this study were to determine customer knowledge of secondary uses of data, to understand their perception of risks associated with these uses, and to determine the extent of customer concerns about privacy.

METHODS

Twenty DTC GT customers were interviewed about their experiences. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for common themes.

RESULTS

Most participants were aware of some secondary uses of data. All participants felt that data usage for research was acceptable, but acceptability for non-research purposes varied across participants. The majority of participants were aware of the existence of a privacy policy, but few read the majority of the privacy statement. When previously unconsidered uses of data were discussed, some participants expressed concern over privacy protections for their data.

CONCLUSION

When exposed to new information on secondary uses of data, customers express concerns and a desire to improve consent with transparency, more opt-out options, improved readability, and more information on future uses and potential risks from direct-to-consumer companies. Effective ways to improve readership about the secondary use, risk of use, and protection of customer data should be investigated and the findings implemented by DTC companies to protect public trust in these practices.

Adult adoptees and their use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Searching for family, searching for health

Use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is rapidly growing in the United States. Yet little is known about how specific populations like domestic and intercountry adoptees use DTC-GT. Adoptees often have little to no biological family history, which may affect how they use DTC-GT. This study aimed to examine adult adoptees' motivations to pursue DTC-GT, experiences completing a test, and reasons for not completing one. An online survey consisting of 41 closed-ended questions was distributed to domestic and intercountry adult adoptees in a snowball convenience method addressing seven areas: (a) demographics and adoption experience, (b) family health history, (c) familiarity with DTC-GT, (d) actual DTC-GT experience, (e) hypothetical DTC-GT experience, (f) health results, and (g) satisfaction with DTC-GT. Descriptive statistics were performed on participant demographics and adoption characteristics, and chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests compared demographics and adoption characteristics by familiarity with DTC-GT and completion of DTC-GT. A total of 117 adoptees met criteria and completed the survey. Adoptees were motivated to use DTC-GT to search for biological family (83.0%), verify race and ethnicity (72.3%), and find out where ancestors came from (66.0%). Most participants completed DTC-GT (80.3%); completion was significantly associated with searching for biological relatives (p < 0.01) and with older age (p = 0.05). For those who received health information (59.6%), 44.4% of participants reported talking with a health provider. Adoptees are using DTC-GT to search for biological relatives, confirm their ethnicity and ancestry, and gain information about their health. Genetic counselors and health professionals should be prepared to address DTC-GT with adoptees as nearly half discussed their results with providers; findings from this study provide insight into how this unique population uses DTC-GT, and the possibility of patient-centered, tailored care for adopted patients who do not have family health history.

The FDA authorization of direct-to-consumer genetic testing for three BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants: a twitter analysis of the public's response

Objectives

In March 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its authorization of a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic test for three pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. We sought to determine to whether social media discussion increased following the authorization, who was driving social media conversations, and what topics were discussed.

Methods

Using Crimson Hexagon, we described tweets before, during, and after the FDA announcement authorizing 23andMe to return BRCA1/2 results (3/4/18–3/10/18). We conducted qualitative coding of a subset of 605 tweets to better understand Twitter communication.

Results

We identified 11 055 twitter posts across the week of FDA’s announcement. Twitter discourse about 23andMe and the FDA authorization peaked the day following the FDA’s press release. Most tweets (48.6%) were informational and 26.3% were either expressing opinions (about 23andMe and/or FDA authorization, 14.9%) or testimonials (personal experiences with genetic testing, 11.4%). The types of tweets varied over the week-long period (P <  .001).

Discussion

Twitter discussion about the FDA’s authorization of DTC for three pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants increased immediately following the announcement. As more genetic technologies are brought to the DTC market, social media sites, like Twitter, will play a role in disseminating this information, providing a platform for information exchange, consumer testimonials, opinion pieces, and research.

Mind the gap: resources required to receive, process and interpret research-returned whole genome data

Most genotype-phenotype studies have historically lacked population diversity, impacting the generalizability of findings and thereby limiting the ability to equitably implement precision medicine. This well-documented problem has generated much interest in the ascertainment of new cohorts with an emphasis on multiple dimensions of diversity, including race/ethnicity, gender, age, socioeconomic status, disability, and geography. The most well known of these new cohort efforts is arguably All of Us, formerly known as the Precision Medicine Cohort Initiative Program. All of Us intends to ascertain at least one million participants in the United States representative of the multiple dimensions of diversity. As an incentive to participate, All of Us is offering the return of research results, including whole genome sequencing data, as well as the opportunity to contribute to the scientific process as non-scientists. The scale and scope of the proposed return of research results are unprecedented. Here, we briefly review possible return of genetic data models, including the likely data file formats and modes of data transfer or access. We also review the resources required to access and interpret the genetic or genomic data once received by the average participant, highlighting the nuanced anticipated barriers that will challenge both the digitally, computationally literate and illiterate participant alike. This inventory of resources required to receive, process, and interpret return of research results exposes the potential for access disparities and warns the scientific community to mind the gap so that all participants have equal access and understanding of the benefits of human genetic research.