1
|
Meiser B, Butow P, Davies G, Napier CE, Schlub TE, Bartley N, Juraskova I, Ballinger ML, Thomas DM, Best MC. Psychological predictors of cancer patients' and their relatives' attitudes towards the return of genomic sequencing results. Eur J Med Genet 2022; 65:104516. [PMID: 35487418 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2022.104516] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2021] [Revised: 03/02/2022] [Accepted: 04/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
This study assessed the psychological predictors of attitudes toward the return of germline genomic sequencing results in cancer patients and their biological relatives with a likely genetic basis for their cancer diagnosis, who completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing genomic sequencing. Of 602 probands and relatives, 94% of probands and 89% of relatives thought people would like to be informed about single-gene conditions for which there is prevention or treatment. Amongst relatives, this view was associated with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (66%) and relatives (59%) thought people would be interested in learning about single-gene conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment. Amongst probands, this view was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty and amongst relatives with higher self-efficacy. Probands (92%) and relatives (90%) thought people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a major impact on health. Amongst probands this view was associated with lower perceived susceptibility of cancer recurrence, and amongst relatives, with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (86%) and relatives (86%) thought that people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a lower impact on health, and this view was associated with a lower perceived susceptibility of recurrence amongst probands. Inconclusion, these findings show that individuals' attitudes about the return of results depend on the perceived utility of different types of tests. Therefore, individuals need to gain a clear understanding of test utility, and appropriate consent processes are required to achieve informed choices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bettina Meiser
- Psychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of NSW, Kensington, NSW, 2032, Australia.
| | - Phyllis Butow
- Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW, 2006, Australia
| | - Grace Davies
- Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW, 2006, Australia
| | - Christine E Napier
- Cancer Theme, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, 2010, Australia
| | - Timothy E Schlub
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia
| | - Nicci Bartley
- Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW, 2006, Australia
| | - Ilona Juraskova
- Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW, 2006, Australia
| | - Mandy L Ballinger
- Cancer Theme, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, 2010, Australia; St Vincent's Clinical School, University of NSW, Kensington, NSW, 2032, Australia
| | - David M Thomas
- Cancer Theme, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, 2010, Australia; St Vincent's Clinical School, University of NSW, Kensington, NSW, 2032, Australia
| | - Megan C Best
- Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW, 2006, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0258646. [PMID: 34748551 PMCID: PMC8575249 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258646] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 10/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.
Collapse
|
3
|
Bijlsma R, Wouters R, Wessels H, Sleijfer S, Beerepoot L, Ten Bokkel Huinink D, Cruijsen H, Heijns J, Lolkema MP, Steeghs N, van Voorthuizen T, Vulink A, Witteveen E, Ausems M, Bredenoord A, May AM, Voest E. Preferences to receive unsolicited findings of germline genome sequencing in a large population of patients with cancer. ESMO Open 2021; 5:S2059-7029(20)30053-3. [PMID: 32312756 PMCID: PMC7200077 DOI: 10.1136/esmoopen-2019-000619] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2019] [Revised: 12/05/2019] [Accepted: 12/29/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In precision medicine, somatic and germline DNA sequencing are essential to make genome-guided treatment decisions in patients with cancer. However, it can also uncover unsolicited findings (UFs) in germline DNA that could have a substantial impact on the lives of patients and their relatives. It is therefore critical to understand the preferences of patients with cancer concerning UFs derived from whole-exome (WES) or whole-genome sequencing (WGS). METHODS In a quantitative multicentre study, adult patients with cancer (any stage and origin of disease) were surveyed through a digital questionnaire based on previous semi-structured interviews. Background knowledge was provided by showing two videos, introducing basic concepts of genetics and general information about different categories of UFs (actionable, non-actionable, reproductive significance, unknown significance). RESULTS In total 1072 patients were included of whom 701 participants completed the whole questionnaire. Overall, 686 (85.1%) participants wanted to be informed about UFs in general. After introduction of four UFs categories, 113 participants (14.8%) changed their answer: 718 (94.2%) participants opted for actionable variants, 537 (72.4%) for non-actionable variants, 635 (87.0%) participants for UFs of reproductive significance and 521 (71.8%) for UFs of unknown significance. Men were more interested in receiving certain UFs than women: non-actionable: OR 3.32; 95% CI 2.05 to 5.37, reproductive significance: OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.05 to 3.67 and unknown significance: OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.25 to 3.21. In total, 244 (33%) participants conceded family members to have access to their UFs while still alive. 603 (82%) participants agreed to information being shared with relatives, after they would pass away. CONCLUSION Our study showed that the vast majority of patients with cancer desires to receive all UFs of genome testing, although a substantial minority does not wish to receive non-actionable findings. Incorporation of categories in informed consent procedures supports patients in making informed decisions on UFs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rhode Bijlsma
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Roel Wouters
- Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Julius Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hester Wessels
- Department of Corporate Communications, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Stefan Sleijfer
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Center for Personalized Cancer Treatment (CPCT), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Laurens Beerepoot
- Department of Medical Oncology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | | | - Hester Cruijsen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Antonius Hospital, Sneek, The Netherlands
| | - Joan Heijns
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
| | - Martijn P Lolkema
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Neeltje Steeghs
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Annelie Vulink
- Department of Medical Oncology, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Els Witteveen
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Margreet Ausems
- Department of Genetics, Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Annelien Bredenoord
- Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Julius Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Anne M May
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Emile Voest
- Center for Personalized Cancer Treatment (CPCT), Rotterdam, The Netherlands .,Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Alahmad G, Alzahrany H, Almutairi AF. Returning Results of Stored Biological Samples and Biobanks: Perspectives of Saudi Arabian Biomedical Researchers. Biopreserv Biobank 2020; 18:395-402. [PMID: 32706976 DOI: 10.1089/bio.2020.0002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Scientific medical research involving human samples often leads to improved diagnosis, the discovery of treatment modalities, or the identification of possible risk factors for many diseases. Some findings, including incidental findings, may be important to donors, and some may require intervention. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of health care professionals in their use of stored biological samples for biomedical research regarding the concept of the research results and the challenges of informing donors regarding the results. This qualitative study involved 19 medical researchers doing research with stored biological samples and biobanks. The data were gathered during face-to-face interviews in English using a semistructured interview technique. The participants provided rich and illuminating experiences, framed in the following themes: the professional duty of researchers to return the research results and the right of donors to know; factors affecting informing donors of results (e.g., severity of disease; impact of the provided information; reliability of the research results; and donor approval); challenges to physically returning the results; and the nature of the informed consent, as well as the elements required in the informed consent documentation. Although the majority of researchers agree on the importance of returning research results, some have contradictory views such as that returning research results is not the researcher's responsibility. The study results also support the view that a number of elements should be included in the informed consent, such as the intention of informing the donors of the results as well as the benefits and risks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ghiath Alahmad
- King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.,King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Haneen Alzahrany
- King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.,King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Adel F Almutairi
- King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.,King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wurst T, Terry SF. Beyond Recommendation: Requiring Returning Findings to Research Participants. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2018; 22:141-142. [PMID: 29565740 DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2018.0052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Tamara Wurst
- Genetic Alliance , Washington, District of Columbia
| | | |
Collapse
|