Melanoma genetic testing, counseling, and adherence to skin cancer prevention and detection behaviors

Interest in genetic testing and risk-reducing behavioral changes: results from a community health assessment in New York City

Risk-based genetic tests are often used to determine cancer risk, when to initiate screening, and frequency of screening, but rely on interest in genetic testing. We examined overall interest in genetic testing for cancer risk assessment and willingness to change behavior, and whether these are affected by demographic or socioeconomic factors.We conducted a community needs health survey in 2019 among primary care and cancer patients, family members and community members in New York City. We used univariable analysis and relative risk regression to examine interest in genetic cancer risk testing and willingness to modify lifestyle behaviors in response to an informative genetic test.Of the 1225 participants, 74.0% (n = 906) expressed interest in having a genetic test to assess cancer risk. Interest in genetic testing was high across all demographic and socioeconomic groups; reported interest in genetic testing by group ranged from 65.0 (participants aged 65 years and older) to 83.6% (participants below federal poverty level). Among the 906 participants that reported interest in genetic testing, 79.6% were willing to change eating habits, 66.5% to change exercise habits, and 49.5% to lose weight in response to an informative genetic test result.Our study reveals that interest in genetic testing for cancer risk is high among patients and community members and is high across demographic and socioeconomic groups, as is the reported willingness to change behavior. Based on these results, we recommend that population-based genetic testing may result in greater reduction cancer risk, particularly among minoritized groups.

mySmartCheck, a Digital Intervention to Promote Skin Self-examination Among Individuals Diagnosed With or at Risk for Melanoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Regular skin self-examination (SSE) reduces melanoma mortality but is not often conducted.

PURPOSE

To promote SSE performance in individuals at increased risk for melanoma.

METHODS

One hundred sixteen individuals at heightened risk for development of melanoma (i.e., personal/family history of melanoma, high-risk mole phenotype) who did not conduct a thorough SSE during in the prior 3 months were randomly assigned to receive either an automated internet-based intervention (mySmartCheck) or usual care (UC). One hundred sixteen participants completed surveys before random assignment and 99 completed the follow-up survey 13-weeks afterward. The primary outcome was participant self-reported examination (SSE) of all 15 parts of the body in the last 3 months. Secondary outcomes were SSE of any part of the body in the last 3 months and number of body parts examined during the last SSE.

RESULTS

More mySmartCheck participants examined all 15 body parts (32.6% vs. 7.1%, p = .001). More individuals in mySmartCheck reported conducting SSE on any body part than those in UC (81.4% vs. 62.5%, p = .04). Effect sizes were large (d = 1.19 all 15 body parts) to moderate (d = 0.55 for any body part). mySmartCheck participants examined more body areas than UC participants (12.7 vs. 10.3, p = 0.003) during the last SSE. Participants in mySmartCheck reported higher levels of knowledge of suspicious lesions, SSE benefits, SSE self-efficacy, and planning for SSE, and lower SSE barriers, than those assigned to UC.

CONCLUSIONS

mySmartCheck had a significant positive impact on SSE performance and behaviors. Additional research with a larger sample size, a longer follow-up, and more varied clinical settings is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registration # NCT03725449 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03725449).

Assessment of melanoma precision prevention materials incorporating MC1R genetic risk information

Few studies have examined cognitive responses to mailed precision prevention materials. MC1R is a robust, well-described melanoma susceptibility marker. The purpose was to assess cognitive responses to generic or precision prevention materials incorporating MC1R genetic risk. Non-Hispanic White participants (n = 1134) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial received either precision prevention materials incorporating MC1R genetic risk (higher/average) or generic prevention (standard) materials. Six months after baseline, 808 (71.3%) participants reported on the amount of prevention materials read (5-point scale); believability and clarity of materials; intention to change preventive behaviors (7-point Likert scale); and recall of their MC1R genetic risk. Comparisons were conducted using Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests. Overall, participants read most to all (Mdn = 4, IQR = 2) of the prevention materials, reported high believability (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1) and clarity (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1), and moderate intention to change preventive behaviors (Mdn = 5, IQR = 2). Higher-risk participants reported slightly less clarity (Mdn = 6, IQR = 2) than either average-risk (Mdn = 6, IQR = 1, p = 2.50 × 10-3) or standard participants (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1, p = 2.30 × 10-5); and slightly less believability (Mdn = 6, IQR = 1) than standard participants (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1, p = .005). Higher-risk participants were 2.21 times as likely (95% CI = 1.43-3.43) to misremember or forget their risk compared to average-risk participants; misremembering was observed only among higher-risk participants (14%). Mailed precision prevention information were mostly read, highly believable and clear, and resulted in moderate levels of intention to change sun protection behaviors, bolstering the feasibility of population-level precision prevention. Defensive reactions may explain lower clarity, believability, and higher incorrect risk recall among higher-risk participants.

Disclosing Pharmacogenetic Feedback of Caffeine via eHealth Channels, Assessment of the Methods and Effects to Behavior Change: A Pilot Study

Background: The integration of genetic testing into eHealth applications holds great promise for the personalization of disease prevention guidelines. However, relatively little is known about the impact of eHealth applications on an individual's behavior. Aim: The aim of the pilot study was to investigate the effect of the personalized eHealth application approach to behavior change in a 1-month follow-up period on groups with previously known and unknown caffeine impacts. Method: We created a direct-to-consumer approach that includes providing relevant information and personalized reminders and goals on the digital device regarding the caffeine intake for two groups of individuals: the intervention group (IG) with the genetic raw data available and the control group (CG) to test the impact of the same content (article about caffeine metabolism) on participants without the genetic test. Study participants were all Estonians (n = 160). Results: The study suggests that eHealth applications work for short-term behavior change. Participants in the genetic IG tended to increase caffeine intake if they were informed about caffeine not being harmful. They reported feeling better physically and/or mentally after their behavioral change decision during the period of the study. Conclusions: Our pilot study revealed that eHealth applications may have a positive effect for short-term behavior change, regardless of a prior genetic test. Further studies among larger study groups are required to achieve a better understanding about behavior change of individuals in the field of personalized medicine and eHealth interventions.

Impact of personal genomic risk information on melanoma prevention behaviors and psychological outcomes: a randomized controlled trial

Purpose

We evaluated the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on sun-related behaviors and psychological outcomes.

Methods

In this parallel group, open, randomized controlled trial, 1,025 Australians of European ancestry without melanoma and aged 18–69 years were recruited via the Medicare database (3% consent). Participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 513; saliva sample for genetic testing, personalized melanoma risk booklet based on a 40-variant polygenic risk score, telephone-based genetic counseling, educational booklet) or control (n = 512; educational booklet). Wrist-worn ultraviolet (UV) radiation dosimeters (10-day wear) and questionnaires were administered at baseline, 1 month postintervention, and 12 months postbaseline.

Results

At 12 months, 948 (92%) participants completed dosimetry and 973 (95%) the questionnaire. For the primary outcome, there was no effect of the genomic risk intervention on objectively measured UV exposure at 12 months, irrespective of traditional risk factors. For secondary outcomes at 12 months, the intervention reduced sunburns (risk ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.54–0.96), and increased skin examinations among women. Melanoma-related worry was reduced. There was no overall impact on general psychological distress.

Conclusion

Personalized genomic risk information did not influence sun exposure patterns but did improve some skin cancer prevention and early detection behaviors, suggesting it may be useful for precision prevention. There was no evidence of psychological harm.

Behind the Scene: Exploiting MC1R in Skin Cancer Risk and Prevention

Melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are the most frequent cancers of the skin in white populations. An increased risk in the development of skin cancers has been associated with the combination of several environmental factors (i.e., ultraviolet exposure) and genetic background, including melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) status. In the last few years, advances in the diagnosis of skin cancers provided a great impact on clinical practice. Despite these advances, NMSCs are still the most common malignancy in humans and melanoma still shows a rising incidence and a poor prognosis when diagnosed at an advanced stage. Efforts are required to underlie the genetic and clinical heterogeneity of melanoma and NMSCs, leading to an optimization of the management of affected patients. The clinical implications of the impact of germline MC1R variants in melanoma and NMSCs' risk, together with the additional risk conferred by somatic mutations in other peculiar genes, as well as the role of MC1R screening in skin cancers' prevention will be addressed in the current review.

A Randomized Trial of Precision Prevention Materials to Improve Primary and Secondary Melanoma Prevention Activities among Individuals with Limited Melanoma Risk Phenotypes

Simple Summary

Inherited genetic variation at the MC1R gene is associated with increased risk of melanoma among non-Hispanic whites (NHWs), especially among those with skin and pigmentation characteristics that are associated with average to lower melanoma risk, for whom MC1R genetic testing may reveal unrecognized melanoma risk. We conducted a randomized trial to examine whether providing MC1R genetic risk information together with precision prevention materials would increase primary and secondary melanoma preventive behaviors compared to providing generic prevention materials only. We found that among participants with MC1R variants associated with higher risk of melanoma, the intervention increased shade-seeking or using an umbrella, increased wearing sleeved shirts, and decreased sunburns among their young children. We conclude that MC1R genetic testing and precision prevention materials may increase the practice of some sun-protective behaviors.

Abstract

Inherited variation at MC1R is associated with elevated melanoma risk among non-Hispanic whites (NHWs). MC1R genetic testing may unmask previously unrecognized disease risk, especially among individuals with few melanoma phenotypic risk factors. We recruited NHW individuals with limited phenotypic risk factors from two primary care clinics in west-central Florida. Participants (n = 1134) were randomized within MC1R genotype risk group (average/higher) to receive mailed precision prevention (i.e., intervention) or generic prevention materials. Participants reported hours of weekday and weekend sun exposure, frequency of intentional outdoor tanning and sun protection behaviors, number of sunburns, indoor tanning episodes, and skin examinations at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months. Among MC1R higher-risk participants, the intervention increased the likelihood of often or always wearing a shirt with sleeves (OR = 1.49, p = 0.03) and seeking shade or using an umbrella (OR = 1.42, p = 0.046), and it decreased the number of sunburns among their young children (β = −0.13, p = 0.03). Intervention effects were not noted among MC1R average-risk participants. Moderation analyses identified intervention effects within subgroups in average-risk and higher-risk participants. Precision prevention information conveying MC1R testing results can increase the practice of some sun protection behaviors among at-risk individuals with limited melanoma risk phenotypes and may provide a cross-generational tool to counteract increasing incidence of melanoma.

A scoping review of social and behavioral science research to translate genomic discoveries into population health impact

Since the completion of the Human Genome Project, progress toward translating genomic research discoveries to address population health issues has been limited. Several meetings of social and behavioral scientists have outlined priority research areas where advancement of translational research could increase population health benefits of genomic discoveries. In this review, we track the pace of progress, study size and design, and focus of genomics translational research from 2012 to 2018 and its concordance with five social and behavioral science recommended priorities. We conducted a review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Guidelines for Scoping Reviews. Steps involved completing a search in five databases and a hand search of bibliographies of relevant literature. Our search (from 2012 to 2018) yielded 4,538 unique studies; 117 were included in the final analyses. Two coders extracted data including items from the PICOTS framework. Analysis included descriptive statistics to help identify trends in pace, study size and design, and translational priority area. Among the 117 studies included in our final sample, nearly half focused on genomics applications that have evidence to support translation or implementation into practice (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tier 1 applications). Common study designs were cross-sectional (40.2%) and qualitative (24.8%), with average sample sizes of 716 across all studies. Most often, studies addressed public understanding of genetics and genomics (33.3%), risk communication (29.1%), and intervention development and testing of interventions to promote behavior change (19.7%). The number of studies that address social and behavioral science priority areas is extremely limited and the pace of this research continues to lag behind basic science advances. Much of the research identified in this review is descriptive and related to public understanding, risk communication, and intervention development and testing of interventions to promote behavior change. The field has been slow to develop and evaluate public health-friendly interventions and test implementation approaches that could enable health benefits and equitable access to genomic discoveries. As the completion of the human genome approaches its 20th anniversary, full engagement of transdisciplinary efforts to address translation challenges will be required to close this gap.

A Systematic Review on the Impact of Genetic Testing for Familial Melanoma I: Primary and Secondary Preventative Behaviours

BACKGROUND

Increasing availability of panel testing for known high-penetrance familial melanoma genes has made it possible to improve risk awareness in those at greatest risk. Prior to wider implementation, the role of genetic testing in preventing melanoma, through influencing primary and secondary preventative behaviours, requires clarification.

METHODS

Database searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies describing preventative behaviour outcomes in response to genetic testing for melanoma risk. Publications describing original research of any study type were screened for eligibility.

RESULTS

Eighteen publications describing 11 unique studies were reviewed. Outcomes assessed are based on health behaviour recommendations for those at increased risk: adherence to sun-protective behaviour (SPB); clinical skin examinations (CSE); skin self-examinations (SSE); and family discussion of risk. Overall, modest increases in adherence to primary prevention strategies of SPB were observed following genetic testing. Importantly, there were no net decreases in SPB found amongst non-carriers. For secondary preventative behaviour outcomes, including CSE and SSE, increases in post-test intentions and long-term adherence were reported across several subgroups in approximately half of the studies. While this increase reached significance in mutation carriers in some studies, one study reported a significant decline in annual CSE adherence of non-mutation carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence reviewed suggests that genetic testing has a modestly positive impact on preventative behaviour in high-risk individuals. Furthermore, improvements are observed regardless of mutation carrier status, although greater adherence is found in carriers. While additional studies of more diverse cohorts would be needed to inform clinical recommendations, the findings are encouraging and suggest that genetic testing for melanoma has a positive impact on preventative behaviours.

Priority of Risk (But Not Perceived Magnitude of Risk) Predicts Improved Sun-Protection Behavior Following Genetic Counseling for Familial Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Understanding multiple components of risk perceptions is important because perceived risk predicts engagement in prevention behaviors.

PURPOSE

To examine how multiple components of risk perceptions (perceived magnitude of and worry about risk, prioritization of the management of one's risk) changed following genetic counseling with or without test reporting, and to examine which of these components prospectively predicted improvements in sun-protection behavior 1 year later.

METHODS

A prospective, nonrandomized study design was used. Participants were 114 unaffected members of melanoma-prone families who (i) underwent genetic testing for a CDKN2A/p16 mutation (n = 69) or (ii) were at comparably elevated risk based on family history and underwent genetic counseling but not testing (no-test controls, n = 45). Participants reported risk perception components and sun-protection behavior at baseline, immediately following counseling, and 1 month and 1 year after counseling.

RESULTS

Factor analysis indicated three risk components. Carriers reported increased perceived magnitude and priority of risk, but not cancer worry. No-test controls showed no changes in any risk perception. Among noncarriers, priority of risk remained high at all assessments, whereas magnitude of risk and cancer worry decreased. Of the three risk components, greater priority of risk uniquely predicted improved self-reported sun protection 1 year post-counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

Priority of risk (i) seems to be a component of risk perceptions distinguishable from magnitude of risk and cancer worry, (ii) may be an important predictor of daily prevention behavior, and (iii) remained elevated 1 year following genetic counseling only for participants who received a positive melanoma genetic test result.

A Systematic Review on the Impact of Genetic Testing for Familial Melanoma II: Psychosocial Outcomes and Attitudes

BACKGROUND

Although genetic testing for known familial melanoma genes is commercially available, clinical implementation has been restrained as utility is unclear, concerns of causing psychological distress are often cited, and consumer interest and perceptions are not well understood. A review of studies exploring participant-reported psychosocial outcomes and attitudes towards genetic testing for familial melanoma will provide insight into common emotional and cognitive responses.

METHODS

Database searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were conducted using a date range of January 1995 to June 2020. Studies examining any psychosocial outcomes alongside genetic testing (real or hypothetical), in participants described as having a high risk of melanoma, were eligible. A narrative synthesis of results was used to describe psychosocial outcomes and summarise participant beliefs and attitudes towards genetic testing.

RESULTS

Limited evidence of adverse psychosocial outcomes was found. No impacts on perceived risk or control were reported, and minimal decisional regret was recorded. Generalised distress was comparable between both genetic mutation carriers and non-carriers, often decreasing over time from pretesting levels. Melanoma-specific distress was frequently higher in carriers than non-carriers; however, this difference was present prior to testing and often associated with personal melanoma history. Overall, participants' attitudes towards testing were largely positive, with benefits more frequently described than limitations, and support for testing minors was strong.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has found evidence of few adverse psychological outcomes following genetic testing. There was no indication of increased distress after genetic test results had been disclosed. If these findings were replicated in additional, larger, diverse populations over a longer follow-up period, this would be compelling evidence to guide clinical recommendations.

Operationalization of skin self-examination in randomized controlled trials with individuals at increased risk for melanoma: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how skin self-examination was operationalized and the psychometric properties of the scales used to assess this behavior in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing interventions that promote SSE among individuals at increased risk for melanoma.

METHOD

Eight scientific databases (e.g., Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) and four trial registries (e.g., Clinicaltrials.gov, UK Clinical Trails Gateway) were searched from inception through April 2, 2019. Three reviewers carried out the selection of relevant trials and conducted data extraction.

RESULTS

The review identified 13 unique RCT's. The definition of skin self-exams, extrapolated from instructions provided to participants during the trials and reported in only 6/13 trials, included periodically checking the skin of the entire body, individually or with partners/mirrors, with or without tracking or monitoring tools, and using the ABCDE criteria to identify early signs of melanoma. There was variability in how skin self-examination behavior was measured with respect to item content, number of items, response format, and type of outcome variable used: continuous or binary). No validity evidence and minimal reliability evidence for the measures were identified.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Future studies are needed to establish the psychometric properties of measures assessing skin self-examination.

Pancreatic cancer and melanoma related perceptions and behaviors following disclosure of CDKN2A variant status as a research result

PURPOSE

This study examined whether participants who learned research results related to a germline CDKN2A variant known to be associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer and malignant melanoma would pursue confirmatory testing and cancer screening, share the genetic information with health care providers and family, and change risk perceptions.

METHODS

Participants were pancreas research registry enrollees whose biological sample was tested in a research laboratory for the variant. In total, 133 individuals were invited to learn a genetic research result and participate in a study about the disclosure process. Perceived cancer risk, screening intentions, and behaviors were assessed predisclosure, immediately postdisclosure, and six months postdisclosure.

RESULTS

Eighty individuals agreed to participate and 63 completed the study. Immediately postdisclosure, carriers reported greater intentions to undergo pancreatic cancer and melanoma screening (p values ≤0.024). Seventy-three percent of carriers (47.5% noncarriers) intended to seek confirmatory testing within six months and 20% (2.5% noncarriers) followed through. All participants shared results with ≥1 family member. More carriers shared results with their health care provider than noncarriers (p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

Recipients of cancer genetic research results may not follow through with recommended behaviors (confirmatory testing, screening), despite stated intentions. The research result disclosure motivated follow-up behaviors among carriers more than noncarriers.

Exploring the emotional and behavioural reactions to receiving personalized melanoma genomic risk information: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is a need for greater understanding of the spectrum of emotional and behavioural reactions that individuals in the general population may experience in response to genomic testing for melanoma risk.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how individuals in the general population respond to receiving personalized genomic risk of melanoma.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were undertaken with 30 participants (aged 24-69 years, 50% female, 12 low risk, eight average risk, 10 high risk) recruited from a pilot trial in which they received personalized melanoma genomic risk information. We explored participants' emotional and behavioural responses to receiving their melanoma genomic risk information. The qualitative data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Many participants reported a positive response to receiving their melanoma genomic risk, including feelings of happiness, reassurance and gaining new knowledge to help manage their melanoma risk. Some participants reported short-term negative emotional reactions that dissipated over time. Most individuals, particularly those who received average or high-risk results, reported making positive behaviour changes to reduce their melanoma risk. Emotional and behavioural responses were linked to participants' expectations for their risk result, their pre-existing perception of their own melanoma risk, their existing melanoma preventive behaviours and their genomic risk category.

CONCLUSIONS

Personalized melanoma genomic risk information alongside education and lifestyle counselling is favourably received by people without a personal history and unselected for a family history of melanoma. Participants described increased knowledge and awareness around managing skin cancer risk and improved sun protection and skin examination behaviours. Any initial feelings of distress usually dissipated over time.

Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer

Purpose

Understanding the outcomes of returning individual genetic research results to participants is critical because some genetic variants are found to be associated with health outcomes and have become available for clinical testing.

Materials and Methods

BRCA1/2-negative women with early-onset breast cancer, multiple primary cancers, or a family history of breast cancer who participated in a gene discovery cancer registry were offered the opportunity to learn their individual genetic research results of 24 breast cancer susceptibility genes with a genetic counselor after predisclosure genetic counseling. Outcomes included uptake of research results, knowledge, informed choice, psychosocial adjustment, uncertainty, satisfaction, and uptake of clinical confirmation testing.

Results

Four hundred two potential participants were contacted. One hundred ninety-four participants (48%) did not respond despite multiple attempts, and 85 participants (21%) actively or passively declined. One hundred seven participants (27%) elected for predisclosure counseling and were more likely to be younger, married, and white. Ninety percent of participants who had predisclosure counseling elected to receive their genetic research results, and 89% made an informed choice. Knowledge increased significantly after predisclosure counseling, and anxiety, intrusive cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and depression declined significantly after receipt of results. General anxiety and intrusive cancer-specific distress declined significantly for both participants with a positive result and those with a negative result. Sixty-four percent of participants had clinical confirmation testing when recommended, including all participants with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene.

Conclusion

Uptake of genetic research results may be lower than anticipated by hypothetical reports and small select studies. Participants who elected to receive research results with genetic providers did not experience increases in distress or uncertainty, but not all patients return for confirmation testing.

Genetic test reporting of CDKN2A provides informational and motivational benefits for managing melanoma risk

A CDKN2A/p16 mutation confers 28%-67% lifetime melanoma risk, a risk that may be moderated by ultraviolet radiation exposure. The aim of this study was to test whether melanoma genetic counseling and test disclosure conferred unique informational, motivational, or emotional benefits compared to family history-based counseling. Participants included were 114 unaffected members of melanoma-prone families, ages 16-69, 51.8% men, 65.8% with minor children or grandchildren. Carriers (n = 28) and noncarriers (n = 41) from families with a CDKN2A mutation were compared to no-test controls (n = 45) from melanoma-prone families without an identifiable CDKN2A mutation. All participants received equivalent counseling about melanoma risk and management; only CDKN2A participants received genetic test results. Using newly developed inventories, participants rated perceived costs and benefits for managing their own and their children's or grandchildren's melanoma risk 1 month and 1 year after counseling. Propensity scores controlled for baseline family differences. Compared to no-test controls, participants who received test results (carriers and noncarriers) reported feeling significantly more informed and prepared to manage their risk, and carriers reported greater motivation to reduce sun exposure. All groups reported low negative emotions about melanoma risk. Parents reported high levels of preparedness to manage children's risk regardless of group. Carrier parents reported greater (but moderate) worry about their children's risk than no-test control parents. Women, older, and more educated respondents reported greater informational and motivational benefits regardless of group. Genetic test results were perceived as more informative and motivating for personal sun protection efforts than equivalent counseling based on family history alone.

Pediatric Predispositional Genetic Risk Communication: Potential Utility for Prevention and Control of Melanoma Risk as an Exemplar

Predispositional genetic testing among minor children is intensely debated due to the potential benefits and harms of providing this type of genetic information to children and their families. Existing guidelines on pediatric genetic testing state that predispositional testing could be appropriate for minors if preventive services exist that mitigate children's risk for or severity of the health condition in question. We use the example of hereditary melanoma to illustrate the rationale for and potential application of genetic risk communication for an adult-onset cancer to a pediatric population where childhood behaviors may reduce risk of disease later in life. We draw from the adult melanoma genetic risk communication and pediatric health behavior change literatures to suggest ways in which genetic test reporting and complementary education could be delivered to children who carry a hereditary risk for melanoma and their families in order to foster children's engagement in melanoma preventive behaviors. Genetic discoveries will continue to yield new opportunities to provide predispositional genetic risk information to unaffected individuals, including children, and could be delivered within programs that provide personalized and translational approaches to cancer prevention.

Factors influencing and modifying the decision to pursue genetic testing for skin cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Across cancers, the decision to pursue genetic testing is influenced more by subjective than objective factors. However, skin cancer, which is more prevalent, visual, and multifactorial than many other malignancies, may offer different motivations for pursuing such testing.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine factors influencing the decision to receive genetic testing for skin cancer risk. A secondary objective was to assess the impact of priming with health questions on the decision to receive testing.

METHODS

We distributed anonymous online surveys through ResearchMatch.org to assess participant health, demographics, motivations, and interest in pursuing genetic testing for skin cancer risk. Two surveys with identical questions but different question ordering were used to assess the secondary objective.

RESULTS

We received 3783 responses (64% response rate), and 85.8% desired testing. Subjective factors, including curiosity, perceptions of skin cancer, and anxiety, were the most statistically significant determinants of the decision to pursue testing (P < .001), followed by history of sun exposure (odds ratio 1.85, P < .01) and history of skin cancer (odds ratio 0.5, P = .01). Age and family history of skin cancer did not influence this decision. Participants increasingly chose testing if first queried about health behaviors (P < .0001).

LIMITATIONS

The decision to pursue hypothetical testing may differ from in-clinic decision-making. Self-selected, online participants may differ from the general population. Surveys may be subject to response bias.

CONCLUSION

The decision to pursue genetic testing for skin cancer is primarily determined by subjective factors, such as anxiety and curiosity. Health factors, including skin cancer history, also influenced decision-making. Priming with consideration of objective health factors can increase the desire to pursue testing.

A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of the Feasibility, Acceptability, and Impact of Giving Information on Personalized Genomic Risk of Melanoma to the Public

BACKGROUND

Communication of personalized melanoma genomic risk information may improve melanoma prevention behaviors.

METHODS

We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of communicating personalized genomic risk of melanoma to the public and its preliminary impact on behaviors and psychosocial outcomes. One hundred eighteen people aged 22 to 69 years provided a saliva sample and were randomized to the control (nonpersonalized educational materials) or intervention (personalized booklet presenting melanoma genomic risk as absolute and relative risks and a risk category based on variants in 21 genes, telephone-based genetic counseling, and nonpersonalized educational materials). Intention-to-treat analyses overall and by-risk category were conducted using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline values.

RESULTS

Consent to participate was 41%, 99% were successfully genotyped, and 92% completed 3-month follow-up. Intervention participants reported high satisfaction with the personalized booklet (mean = 8.6, SD = 1.6; on a 0-10 scale) and genetic counseling (mean = 8.1, SD = 2.2). No significant behavioral effects at 3-month follow-up were identified between intervention and control groups overall: objectively measured standard erythemal doses per day [-16%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -43% to 24%] and sun protection index (0.05; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.18). There was increased confidence identifying melanoma at 3 months (0.40; 95% CI, 0.10-0.69). Stratified by risk category, effect sizes for intentional tanning and some individual sun protection items appeared stronger for the average-risk group. There were no appreciable group differences in skin cancer-related worry or psychologic distress.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate feasibility and acceptability of providing personalized genomic risk of melanoma to the public.

IMPACT

Genomic risk information has potential as a melanoma prevention strategy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(2); 212-21. ©2016 AACR.

A systematic review of interventions to improve adherence to melanoma preventive behaviors for individuals at elevated risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of behavioral interventions for melanoma prevention targeted to individuals at elevated risk due to personal and/or family history.

METHODS

Through literature searches in 5 search databases (through July 2014), 20 articles describing 14 unique interventions focused on melanoma prevention among individuals at elevated risk for the disease were identified. Interventions targeting only patients undergoing active treatment for melanoma were excluded.

RESULTS

The average study quality was moderate. The majority of interventions (6 out of 9, 66% of studies) led to improvements in one or more photoprotective behaviors, particularly for improvements in use of protective clothing (3 out of 5, 60% of studies), and frequency and/or thoroughness of skin self-examinations (9 out of 12, 75%). Fewer interventions (5 out of 14, 36%) targeted uptake of total body skin examinations (60% led to improvements). Also, fewer interventions targeted all three preventive behaviors (5 out of 14, 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that future interventions should aim to improve adherence across multiple preventive behaviors, over a longer time period (past 8months post-intervention), and target high-risk children. Studies should include adequate sample sizes to investigate moderators and mediators of intervention effectiveness. Interventions may be strengthened by new techniques, such as incorporating family members (e.g., to improve thoroughness of skin self-examinations) and eHealth technology.

The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of communicating DNA based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing health behaviours and motivation to engage in such behaviours.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis, using Cochrane methods.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 25 February 2015. Backward and forward citation searches were also conducted.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving adults in which one group received personalised DNA based estimates of disease risk for conditions where risk could be reduced by behaviour change. Eligible studies included a measure of risk-reducing behaviour.

RESULTS

We examined 10,515 abstracts and included 18 studies that reported on seven behavioural outcomes, including smoking cessation (six studies; n=2663), diet (seven studies; n=1784), and physical activity (six studies; n=1704). Meta-analysis revealed no significant effects of communicating DNA based risk estimates on smoking cessation (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.35, P=0.67), diet (standardised mean difference 0.12, 95% confidence interval -0.00 to 0.24, P=0.05), or physical activity (standardised mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.08, P=0.62). There were also no effects on any other behaviours (alcohol use, medication use, sun protection behaviours, and attendance at screening or behavioural support programmes) or on motivation to change behaviour, and no adverse effects, such as depression and anxiety. Subgroup analyses provided no clear evidence that communication of a risk-conferring genotype affected behaviour more than communication of the absence of such a genotype. However, studies were predominantly at high or unclear risk of bias, and evidence was typically of low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations that communicating DNA based risk estimates changes behaviour is not supported by existing evidence. These results do not support use of genetic testing or the search for risk-conferring gene variants for common complex diseases on the basis that they motivate risk-reducing behaviour.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This is a revised and updated version of a Cochrane review from 2010, adding 11 studies to the seven previously identified.

Discussion of photoprotection, screening, and risk behaviors with children and grandchildren after melanoma genetic testing

The purpose of the current study was to examine changes in frequency of discussion about melanoma preventive behaviors among adults who received melanoma genetic test reporting and counseling and their children and grandchildren, correspondence of frequency of discussion with intentions, and content of discussions. Participants received CDKN2A/p16 testing and counseling (N = 24, 46 % p16-positive). Discussions about preventive behaviors were assessed before testing and 1 and 6 months post-testing. Intentions to discuss preventive behaviors and perceived preparedness to discuss risk were assessed post-testing. Open-ended questions assessed content of reported discussions. Discussion of preventive behaviors declined following test reporting, with more rapid decline reported by noncarriers. There was a large gap between the percentage of participants who intended to discuss preventive behaviors and who then reported discussions 1 and 6 months after counseling. Participants felt prepared to discuss melanoma risk but also suggested resources to facilitate discussions. Genetic test reporting and counseling alone did not sustain discussions about preventive behaviors for a hereditary cancer with children and grandchildren. The gap between intentions to have discussions and reported discussions has implications for augmentation of counseling to support at-risk families' discussions about preventive behaviors.

Genetic Testing Awareness and Attitudes among Latinos: Exploring Shared Perceptions and Gender-Based Differences

BACKGROUND

Latinos, whose views are infrequently examined in genomic research, may be at risk of missing out on the benefits of genomic medicine.

AIMS

To explore this possibility, we conducted a qualitative study of awareness and attitudes about genetic testing among Latinos with lower acculturation in New York City.

METHODS

We conducted four focus groups (7 English-speaking men, 5 Spanish-speaking men, 13 English-speaking women and 13 Spanish-speaking women) to explore factors that influence the adoption of new innovations through the discussion of genetic testing in general, and a hypothetical vignette describing a genetic test for skin cancer risk, in particular.

RESULTS

Through inductive thematic text analysis of focus group transcripts, our multidisciplinary team identified themes within knowledge and attitudes, communication and sources of information, anticipated responses, factors that may increase adoption, and barriers to adoption of genetic testing. Specifically, a majority of participants expressed some degree of uncertainty regarding the purpose of genetic tests and information these tests provide, rarely discussed genetic testing with others in their social networks, and expressed concerns about the misuse of and possible adverse emotional responses to genetic information. However, participants also expressed high levels of interest in receiving a skin cancer genetic test in response to the vignette and believed that receiving actionable health information was a primary reason to consider testing. Gender-based differences in perceived barriers to testing emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight beliefs and barriers that future interventions could target to help ensure that Latinos have adequate understanding of and access to genomic medicine advances.

Genetic test reporting enhances understanding of risk information and acceptance of prevention recommendations compared to family history-based counseling alone

It is unknown whether or why genetic test reporting confers benefits in the understanding and management of cancer risk beyond what patients learn from counseling based on family history. A prospective nonexperimental control group study compared participants from melanoma-prone families who underwent CDKN2A/p16 (p16) genetic testing (27 carriers, 38 noncarriers) to participants from equivalently melanoma-prone families known not to carry a deleterious p16 mutation (31 no-test controls). All participants received equivalent counseling concerning elevated lifetime melanoma risk and corresponding recommendations for prevention and screening. Both immediately and 1 month after counseling, participants receiving a genetic test result reported greater understanding of their risk, decreased derogation of the risk information, and greater personal applicability of prevention recommendations than no-test controls. Decreased derogation of risk information after test reporting predicted further increases in understanding of melanoma risk and applicability of prevention recommendations 1 month later. Results suggest unique benefits of genetic test reporting in promoting understanding and acceptance of information about hereditary cancer risk and its management.

Frequency and characteristics of familial melanoma in Spain: the FAM-GEM-1 Study

INTRODUCTION

Familial history of melanoma is a well-known risk factor for the disease, and 7% melanoma patients were reported to have a family history of melanoma. Data relating to the frequency and clinical and pathological characteristics of both familial and non-familial melanoma in Spain have been published, but these only include patients from specific areas of Spain and do not represent the data for the whole of Spain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An observational study conducted by the Spanish Group of Melanoma (GEM) analyzed the family history of patients diagnosed with melanoma between 2011 and 2013 in the dermatology and oncology departments.

RESULTS

In all, 1047 patients were analyzed, and 69 (6.6%) fulfilled criteria for classical familial melanoma (two or more first-degree relatives diagnosed with melanoma). Taking into account other risk factors for familial melanoma, such as multiple melanoma, pancreatic cancer in the family or second-degree relatives with melanoma, the number of patients fulfilling the criteria increased to 165 (15.8%). Using a univariate analysis, we determined that a Breslow index of less than 1 mm, negative mitosis, multiple melanoma, and a history of sunburns in childhood were more frequent in familial melanoma patients, but a multivariate analysis revealed no differences in any pathological or clinical factor between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to that observed in other countries, familial melanoma accounts for 6.6% of melanoma diagnoses in Spain. Although no differences in the multivariate analysis were found, some better prognosis factors, such as Breslow index, seem more frequent in familial melanoma, which reflect a better early detection marker and/or a different biological behavior.

Unaffected family members report improvements in daily routine sun protection 2 years following melanoma genetic testing

PURPOSE

Reducing ultraviolet radiation exposure may decrease melanoma risk in the hereditary melanoma setting. It is unknown whether genetic counseling and test reporting of CDKN2A/p16 mutation status promote long-term compliance with photoprotection recommendations, especially in unaffected mutation carriers.

METHODS

This study evaluated changes 2 years following melanoma genetic testing in self-reported practice of sun protection (sunscreen, photoprotective clothing, and ultraviolet radiation avoidance) among 37 members of two CDKN2A/p16 kindreds (10 unaffected carriers, 11 affected carriers, and 16 unaffected noncarriers; response rate = 64.9% of eligible participants).

RESULTS

Multivariate profile analysis indicated that all three participant groups reported increased daily routine practice of sun protection 2 years following melanoma genetic testing (P < 0.02), with 96.9% reporting that at least one sun protection behavior was part of their daily routine, up from 78.1% at baseline (P < 0.015). Unaffected carriers (P < 0.024) and unaffected noncarriers (P < 0.027) reported significantly more frequent use of photoprotective clothing. Affected carriers maintained adherence to all sun protection behaviors. Reported sunburns in the past 6 months decreased significantly (P < 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Members of high-risk families reported increased daily routine sun protection and decreased sunburns 2 years following melanoma genetic testing, with no net decline in sun protection following negative test results. Thus, genetic testing and counseling may motivate sustained improvements in prevention behaviors.

Perceived risk following melanoma genetic testing: a 2-year prospective study distinguishing subjective estimates from recall

A major goal of predictive genetic testing is to alert people to their risk before illness onset; however, little is known about how risk perceptions change following genetic testing and whether information is recalled accurately over time. In the United States, a CDKN2A/p16 mutation confers 76 % lifetime risk of melanoma. Following genetic counseling and test reporting, subjective risk estimates and recall of counselor-provided risk estimates were assessed 5 times over the next 2 years among 60 adult members of 2 extended CDKN2A/p16 kindreds. No sustained changes from baseline in risk perceptions were reported. Unaffected carriers (n = 15) consistently reported significantly lower subjective risk estimates (46 %) than they were actually given (76 %, p < 0.001) or recalled having been given (60 %, p < 0.001). Noncarriers' (n = 27) risk estimates decreased following results disclosure, but rebounded, with both subjective and recalled estimates subsequently exceeding what they were told by the counselor (both ps < 0.001). Affected carriers' (n = 18) risk estimates for developing a new melanoma corresponded well to counselor-provided information (p = 0.362). For all 3 patient groups, results were consistent across multiple risk measures and remained similar when demographic, phenotypic, and baseline behavioral contributors to melanoma risk were statistically controlled. These findings are consistent with other studies of risk perception, but additional studies of more diverse populations are needed to understand the reasons behind both the persistence of initial risk estimates and their divergence from information provided by the counselor during genetic counseling. Additionally, determining whether holding subjective risk perceptions that differ from counselor-provided information ultimately affects adherence to management recommendations will help guide the presentation of risk information in genetic counseling practice.

Clinical applications of melanoma genetics

Families that have several relatives with melanoma, multiple primary melanomas in one individual, younger than average ages of melanoma onset, and/or the presence of both pancreatic cancer and melanoma may be suggestive of a hereditary melanoma syndrome and are candidates for genetic counseling and risk assessment. Genetic counseling for hereditary melanoma presents many complexities. Only a minority of hereditary melanoma cases have been attributed to a single genetic factor, CDKN2A. Both the frequency and the penetrance of CDKN2A mutations has been shown to be dependent on multiple factors. The clinical utility of genetic testing for hereditary melanoma families is debatable because CDKN2A status may not impact medical management in patients with melanoma. No standard medical management guidelines exist for families with CDKN2A mutations; however, family history of melanoma and pancreatic cancer may warrant further discussion. Clinicians should discuss the clinical and psychological implications before genetic testing. Genetic counseling and pretest education regarding melanoma risk factors provides an opportunity to increase knowledge and understanding of melanoma risk, while addressing psychological risks and concerns.

Melanoma genetic counseling and test reporting improve screening adherence among unaffected carriers 2 years later

BACKGROUND

A major goal of predictive genetic testing for melanoma is to promote early detection to reduce mortality. This study evaluated the long-term impact of melanoma genetic test reporting and counseling on screening adherence.

METHODS

This study assessed adherence to recommendations for annual total body skin examinations (TBSE) and monthly skin self-examinations (SSE) among 37 members of Utah CDKN2A/p16 kindreds (10 unaffected carriers, 11 affected carriers, and 16 unaffected noncarriers; response rate = 64.9% of eligible participants).

RESULTS

Two years following test reporting, adherence to annual TBSE among unaffected carriers increased from 40% to 70%. However, unaffected noncarriers' adherence decreased from 56% to 13%. Affected carriers reported TBSEs at both assessments (91% and 82%, respectively). Monthly SSE frequency remained highly variable in all patient groups: at 2 years, 29.7% reported monthly SSEs, 27.0% reported more frequent self-examinations, and 43.2% reported underscreening. However, SSE quality improved significantly: participants checked more body sites at 2 years than at baseline, especially feet, shoulders, legs, and genitals. Perceived logistic barriers to TBSEs (e.g., expensive, inconvenient) and SSEs (hard to remember, time-consuming) predicted lower adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Unaffected carriers reported increased TBSE adherence and thoroughness of SSEs 2 years following melanoma genetic test reporting, suggesting clinical benefit in this modest sample. Unaffected noncarriers reported comparable gains in SSE thoroughness, but decreased TBSEs.

IMPACT

Melanoma genetic counseling and test reporting may improve adherence among unaffected carrier members of p16 families. Further interventions to reduce logistic barriers and to promote continued screening adherence among unaffected noncarrier family members may be needed.