Understanding of multigene test results among males undergoing germline testing for inherited prostate cancer: Implications for genetic counseling

被引:13
作者
Giri, Veda N. [1 ,2 ]
Obeid, Elias [3 ]
Hegarty, Sarah E. [4 ]
Gross, Laura [1 ]
Bealin, Lisa [3 ]
Hyatt, Colette [1 ]
Fang, Carolyn Y. [5 ]
Leader, Amy [2 ]
机构
[1] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Sidney Kimmel Canc Ctr, Dept Med Oncol, Canc Risk Assessment & Clin Canc Genet Program, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[2] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Sidney Kimmel Canc Ctr, Dept Med Oncol, Div Populat Sci, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[3] Fox Chase Canc Ctr, Dept Clin Genet, 7701 Burholme Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19111 USA
[4] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Sidney Kimmel Med Coll, Dept Pharmacol & Expt Therapeut, Div Biostat, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[5] Fox Chase Canc Ctr, Canc Prevent & Control Prog, 7701 Burholme Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19111 USA
关键词
genetic counseling; genetic testing; multigene testing; prostate cancer; understanding of test results; SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS; HEREDITARY BREAST; RISK-ASSESSMENT; OVARIAN-CANCER; NORMAL DNA; SUSCEPTIBILITY; ATTITUDES; FAMILIES; TUMOR; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1002/pros.23535
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BackgroundGenetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is rising, with limited insights regarding genetic counseling (GC) needs of males. Genetic Evaluation of Men (GEM) is a prospective multigene testing study for inherited PCA. Men undergoing GC were surveyed on knowledge of cancer risk and genetics (CRG) and understanding of personal GT results to identify GC needs. MethodsGEM participants with or high-risk for PCA were recruited. Pre-test GC was in-person, with video and handout, or via telehealth. Post-test disclosure was in-person, by phone, or via telehealth. Clinical and family history data were obtained from participant surveys and medical records. Participants completed measures of knowledge of CRG, literacy, and numeracy pre-test and post-test. Understanding of personal genetic results was assessed post-test. Factors associated with knowledge of CRG and understanding of personal genetic results were examined using multivariable linear regression or McNemar's test. ResultsAmong 109 men who completed pre- and post-GT surveys, multivariable analysis revealed family history meeting hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) criteria was significantly predictive of higher baseline knowledge (P=0.040). Of 101 men who responded definitively regarding understanding of results, 13 incorrectly reported their result (McNemar's P<0.001). Factors significantly associated with discordance between reported and actual results included having a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) (P<0.001) and undergoing GC via pre-test video and post-test phone disclosure (P=0.015). ConclusionsWhile meeting criteria for HCS was associated with higher knowledge of CRG, understanding of personal GT results was lacking among a subset of males with VUS. A more exploratory finding was lack of understanding of results among men who underwent GC utilizing video and phone. Studies optimizing GC strategies for males undergoing multigene testing for inherited PCA are warranted.
引用
收藏
页码:879 / 888
页数:10
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], GEN PROST CANC PDQ
  • [2] Balmana J, 2016, J CLIN ONCOL
  • [3] "It's all very well reading the letters in the genome, but it's a long way to being able to write": Men's interpretations of undergoing genetic profiling to determine future risk of prostate cancer
    Bancroft, Elizabeth K.
    Castro, Elena
    Ardern-Jones, Audrey
    Moynihan, Clare
    Page, Elizabeth
    Taylor, Natalie
    Eeles, Rosalind A.
    Rowley, Emma
    Cox, Karen
    [J]. FAMILIAL CANCER, 2014, 13 (04) : 625 - 635
  • [4] Telephoned BRCA1/2 Genetic Test Results: Prevalence, Practice, and Patient Satisfaction
    Baumanis, L.
    Evans, J. P.
    Callanan, N.
    Susswein, L. R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENETIC COUNSELING, 2009, 18 (05) : 447 - 463
  • [5] Development of a tiered and binned genetic counseling model for informed consent in the era of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility
    Bradbury, Angela R.
    Patrick-Miller, Linda
    Long, Jessica
    Powers, Jacquelyn
    Stopfer, Jill
    Forman, Andrea
    Rybak, Christina
    Mattie, Kristin
    Brandt, Amanda
    Chambers, Rachelle
    Chung, Wendy K.
    Churpek, Jane
    Daly, Mary B.
    Digiovanni, Laura
    Farengo-Clark, Dana
    Fetzer, Dominique
    Ganschow, Pamela
    Grana, Generosa
    Gulden, Cassandra
    Hall, Michael
    Kohler, Lynne
    Maxwell, Kara
    Merrill, Shana
    Montgomery, Susan
    Mueller, Rebecca
    Nielsen, Sarah
    Olopade, Olufunmilayo
    Rainey, Kimberly
    Seelaus, Christina
    Nathanson, Katherine L.
    Domchek, Susan M.
    [J]. GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2015, 17 (06) : 485 - 492
  • [6] Risk perception, screening practice and interest in genetic testing among unaffected men in families with hereditary prostate cancer
    Bratt, O
    Damber, JE
    Emanuelsson, M
    Kristoffersson, U
    Lundgren, R
    Olsson, H
    Grönberg, H
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2000, 36 (02) : 235 - 241
  • [7] Randomized Trial of Telegenetics vs. In-Person Cancer Genetic Counseling: Cost, Patient Satisfaction and Attendance
    Buchanan, Adam H.
    Datta, Santanu K.
    Skinner, Celette Sugg
    Hollowell, Gail P.
    Beresford, Henry F.
    Freeland, Thomas
    Rogers, Benjamin
    Boling, John
    Marcom, P. Kelly
    Adams, Martha B.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENETIC COUNSELING, 2015, 24 (06) : 961 - 970
  • [8] Alternate Service Delivery Models in Cancer Genetic Counseling: A Mini-Review
    Buchanan, Adam Hudson
    Rahm, Alanna Kulchak
    Williams, Janter L.
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2016, 6
  • [9] Chew LD, 2004, FAM MED, V36, P588
  • [10] Identification of Genetic Counseling Service Delivery Models in Practice: A Report from the NSGC Service Delivery Model Task Force
    Cohen, Stephanie A.
    Marvin, Monica L.
    Riley, Bronson D.
    Vig, Hetal S.
    Rousseau, Julie A.
    Gustafson, Shanna L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENETIC COUNSELING, 2013, 22 (04) : 411 - 421