nach oben

Erschienen in:

22.11.2017 | Original Research

Impact of Receiving Secondary Results from Genomic Research: A 12-Month Longitudinal Study

verfasst von: Julia Wynn, Josue Martinez, Jessica Bulafka, Jimmy Duong, Yuan Zhang, Codruta Chiuzan, Jain Preti, Maria L. Cremona, Vaidehi Jobanputra, Abby J. Fyer, Robert L. Klitzman, Paul S. Appelbaum, Wendy K. Chung

Erschienen in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The impact of returning secondary results from exome sequencing (ES) on patients/participants is important to understand as ES is increasingly utilized in clinical care and research. Participants were recruited from studies using ES and were separated into two arms: 107 who had ES and were offered the choice to learn secondary results (ES group) and 85 who had not yet had ES (No ES group). Questionnaires were administered at baseline and 1 and 12 months, following results disclosure (ES group) or enrollment (No ES group). While the majority (65%) elected to learn all results following pre-test counseling, it was reduced from the 76% who indicated a desire for all results at baseline. Thirty-seven percent received results associated with an increased personal disease risk. There were no differences in changes in any of the psychological and social measures from baseline to post-results disclosure between the ES and No ES groups. Receiving a wide range of secondary findings appeared to have little measurable impact on most participants. The experience of learning secondary results may be related to participants’ previous experiences with genetics, as well as the genetic counseling provided. Future research with a more diverse, genetically naïve group, as well as scalable methods of delivery, is needed.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Adzhubei, I. A., Schmidt, S., Peshkin, L., Ramensky, V. E., Gerasimova, A., Bork, P., et al. (2010). A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nature Methods, 7(4), 248–249. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth0410-248.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Amendola, L. M., Lautenbach, D., Scollon, S., Bernhardt, B., Biswas, S., East, K., et al. (2015). Illustrative case studies in the return of exome and genome sequencing results. Personalized Medicine, 12(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.14.89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bennette, C. S., Trinidad, S. B., Fullerton, S. M., Patrick, D., Amendola, L., Burke, W., et al. (2013). Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: Measuring what patients value--development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT). Genetics in Medicine, 15(11), 873–881. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.63.CrossRefPubMed

Biesecker, L. G., Burke, W., Kohane, I., Plon, S. E., & Zimmern, R. (2012). Next-generation sequencing in the clinic: Are we ready? Nature Reviews. Genetics, 13(11), 818–824. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3357.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bollinger, J. M., Scott, J., Dvoskin, R., & Kaufman, D. (2012). Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: Findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4), 451–457. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bosch, N., Junyent, N., Gadea, N., Brunet, J., Ramon y Cajal, T., Torres, A., et al. (2012). What factors may influence psychological well being at three months and one year post BRCA genetic result disclosure? Breast, 21(6), 755–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2012.02.004.CrossRefPubMed

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283.CrossRefPubMed

Cella, D., Hughes, C., Peterman, A., Chang, C. H., Peshkin, B. N., Schwartz, M. D., et al. (2002). A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: The multidimensional impact of cancer risk assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Health Psychology, 21(6), 564–572.CrossRefPubMed

Clarke, A. J. (2014). Managing the ethical challenges of next-generation sequencing in genomic medicine. British Medical Bulletin, 111(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldu017.

Cooper, C., Katona, C., Orrell, M., & Livingston, G. (2006). Coping strategies and anxiety in caregivers of people with Alzheimer's disease: The LASER-AD study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 90(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2005.08.017.CrossRefPubMed

Davydov, E. V., Goode, D. L., Sirota, M., Cooper, G. M., Sidow, A., & Batzoglou, S. (2010). Identifying a high fraction of the human genome to be under selective constraint using GERP++. PLoS Computational Biology, 6(12), e1001025. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001025.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Erblich, J., Brown, K., Kim, Y., Valdimarsdottir, H. B., Livingston, B. E., & Bovbjerg, D. H. (2005). Development and validation of a breast cancer genetic counseling knowledge questionnaire. Patient Education and Counseling, 56(2), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.02.007.CrossRefPubMed

Fernandez, C. V., Bouffet, E., Malkin, D., Jabado, N., O'Connell, C., Avard, D., et al. (2014). Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children. Genetics in Medicine, 16(8), 633–640. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.201.CrossRefPubMed

Gech, A., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric properties. Jouranl of Consulting and Clinical. Psychology, 56, 5.

Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Berry, G. T., Biesecker, L. G., Dimmock, D. P., Evans, J. P., et al. (2012). Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4), 405–410. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Grody, W. W., Kalia, S. S., Korf, B. R., Martin, C. L., et al. (2013a). ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 15(7), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Green, R. C., Lupski, J. R., & Biesecker, L. G. (2013b). Reporting genomic sequencing results to ordering clinicians: Incidental, but not exceptional. JAMA, 310(4), 365–366. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.41703.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jarvik, G. P., Amendola, L. M., Berg, J. S., Brothers, K., Clayton, E. W., Chung, W., et al. (2014). Return of genomic results to research participants: The floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. American Journal of Human Genetics, 94(6), 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.04.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kalia, S. S., Adelman, K., Bale, S. J., Chung, W. K., Eng, C., Evans, J. P., et al. (2017). Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine, 19(2), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.190.CrossRefPubMed

Kessler, R. C., Chiu, W. T., Demler, O., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.617.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kircher, M., Witten, D. M., Jain, P., O'Roak, B. J., Cooper, G. M., & Shendure, J. (2014). A general framework for estimating the relative pathogenicity of human genetic variants. Nature Genetics, 46(3), 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2892.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Klitzman, R., Appelbaum, P. S., & Chung, W. (2013a). Return of secondary genomic findings vs patient autonomy: Implications for medical care. JAMA, 310(4), 369–370. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.41709.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Klitzman, R., Appelbaum, P. S., Fyer, A., Martinez, J., Buquez, B., Wynn, J., et al. (2013b). Researchers' views on return of incidental genomic research results: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Genetics in Medicine, 15(11), 888–895. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.87.CrossRefPubMed

Krabbenborg, L., Vissers, L. E., Schieving, J., Kleefstra, T., Kamsteeg, E. J., Veltman, J. A.,... Van der Burg, S. (2016). Understanding the psychosocial effects of WES test results on parents of children with rare diseases. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 25(6), 1207–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-9958-5.

Kumar, P., Henikoff, S., & Ng, P. C. (2009). Predicting the effects of coding non-synonymous variants on protein function using the SIFT algorithm. Nature Protocols, 4(7), 1073–1081. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2009.86.CrossRefPubMed

Lee, K. A., Hicks, G., & Nino-Murcia, G. (1991). Validity and reliability of a scale to assess fatigue. Psychiatry Research, 36(3), 291–298.CrossRefPubMed

Lewis, K. L., Hooker, G. W., Connors, P. D., Hyams, T. C., Wright, M. F., Caldwell, S., et al. (2016). Participant use and communication of findings from exome sequencing: A mixed-methods study. Genetics in Medicine, 18(6), 577–583. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.133.CrossRefPubMed

Li, H., & Durbin, R. (2009). Fast and accurate short read alignment with burrows-wheeler transform. Bioinformatics, 25(14), 1754–1760. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lumish, H. S., Steinfeld, H., Koval, C., Russo, D., Levinson, E., Wynn, J., et al. (2017). Impact of panel gene testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer on patients. Journal of Genetic Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0090-y.

R Core Development Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org

Regier, D. A., Peacock, S. J., Pataky, R., van der Hoek, K., Jarvik, G. P., Hoch, J., & Veenstra, D. (2015). Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: A discrete-choice experiment. CMAJ, 187(6), E190–E197. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.140697.

Ropka, M. E., Wenzel, J., Phillips, E. K., Siadaty, M., & Philbrick, J. T. (2006). Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 15(5), 840–855. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-05-0002.CrossRef

Rosell, A. M., Pena, L. D., Schoch, K., Spillmann, R., Sullivan, J., Hooper, S. R., et al. (2016). Not the end of the odyssey: Parental perceptions of whole exome sequencing (WES) in pediatric undiagnosed disorders. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 25(5), 1019–1031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-9933-1.CrossRefPubMed

Sanderson, S., O’Neill, S., Bastian, L., Bepler, G., & McBride, C. (2009). What can interest tell us about uptake of genetic testing? Intention and behavior amongst smokers related to patients with lung cancer. Public Health Genomics, 13(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1159/000226595.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sanderson, S. C., Linderman, M. D., Suckiel, S. A., Zinberg, R., Wasserstein, M., Kasarskis, A., et al. (2017). Psychological and behavioural impact of returning personal results from whole-genome sequencing: The HealthSeq project. European Journal of Human Genetics, 25(3), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2016.178.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

SAS Institute Inc. SAS 9.4 [computer program]. (2014). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Sawyer, S. M., Cerritelli, B., Carter, L. S., Cooke, M., Glazner, J. A., & Massie, J. (2006). Changing their minds with time: A comparison of hypothetical and actual reproductive behaviors in parents of children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics, 118(3), e649–e656. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-2551.CrossRefPubMed

Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., & Williams, J. B. (1999). Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: The PHQ primary care study. Primary care evaluation of mental disorders. Patient health questionnaire. JAMA, 282(18), 1737–1744.CrossRefPubMed

Townsend, A., Adam, S., Birch, P. H., Lohn, Z., Rousseau, F., & Friedman, J. M. (2012). I want to know what's in Pandora's Box: comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 158a(10), 2519–2525. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.35554.CrossRefPubMed

Wallston, B. S., Wallston, K. A., Kaplan, G. D., & Maides, S. A. (1976). Development and validation of the health locus of control (HLC) scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44(4), 580–585.CrossRefPubMed

Wang, K., Li, M., & Hakonarson, H. (2010). ANNOVAR: Functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Research, 38(16), e164. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq603.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wilfond, B. S., Fernandez, C. V., & Green, R. C. (2015). Disclosing secondary findings from pediatric sequencing to families: Considering the "benefit to families". The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43(3), 552–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12298.

Wills, C. E., & Holmes-Rovner, M. (2003). Preliminary validation of the satisfaction with decision scale with depressed primary care patients. Health Expectations, 6(2), 149–159.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wolf, S. M., Crock, B. N., Van Ness, B., Lawrenz, F., Kahn, J. P., Beskow, L. M.,... Wolf, W. A. (2012). Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.23.

Wynn, J., Martinez, J., Duong, J., Zhang, Y., Phelan, J., Fyer, A., et al. (2015). Association of Researcher Characteristics with views on return of incidental findings from genomic research. Journal of Genetic Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9817-1.

Wynn, J., Martinez, J., Duong, J., Chiuzan, C., Phelan, J. C., Fyer, A., et al. (2016). Research participants' preferences for hypothetical secondary results from genomic research. Journal of Genetic Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-0059-2.

Yu, J. H., Jamal, S. M., Tabor, H. K., & Bamshad, M. J. (2013). Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: Changing the results return model. Genetics in Medicine, 15(9), 684–690. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Yushak, M. L., Han, G., Bouberhan, S., Epstein, L., DiGiovanna, M. P., Mougalian, S. S., et al. (2016). Patient preferences regarding incidental genomic findings discovered during tumor profiling. Cancer, 122(10), 1588–1597. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29951.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Impact of Receiving Secondary Results from Genomic Research: A 12-Month Longitudinal Study
verfasst von: Julia Wynn
Josue Martinez
Jessica Bulafka
Jimmy Duong
Yuan Zhang
Codruta Chiuzan
Jain Preti
Maria L. Cremona
Vaidehi Jobanputra
Abby J. Fyer
Robert L. Klitzman
Paul S. Appelbaum
Wendy K. Chung
Publikationsdatum: 22.11.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Genetic Counseling / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0172-x

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

23.04.2024 | Medikamente in Schwangerschaft und Stillzeit | Nachrichten

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Impact of Receiving Secondary Results from Genomic Research: A 12-Month Longitudinal Study

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

Harnwegsinfektprophylaxe: Es geht auch ohne Antibiotika

Update Gynäkologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

Psychosocial Distress and Knowledge Deficiencies in Parents of Children in Ireland Who Carry an Altered Cystic Fibrosis Gene

Commentary on “Commercial Genetic Testing and the Future of the Genetic Counseling Profession”

Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation with Preliminary Validation of GCOS-24 for Use in Spain

Evaluation of the Informational Content, Readability and Comprehensibility of Online Health Information on Monogenic Diabetes

A Commentary on Commercial Genetic Testing and the Future of the Genetic Counseling Profession

Talking with Children About Adult-Onset Hereditary Cancer Risk: A Developmental Approach for Parents

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

Harnwegsinfektprophylaxe: Es geht auch ohne Antibiotika

Update Gynäkologie