Implementing Risk-stratified Screening for Common Cancers: a Review of Potential Ethical, Legal and Social Issues

Overview

Journal J Public Health (Oxf)

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Public Health

Date 2013 Aug 30

PMID 23986542

Citations 30

Authors

A E Hall

S Chowdhury

N Hallowell

N Pashayan

T Dent

P Pharoah

H Burton

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The identification of common genetic variants associated with common cancers including breast, prostate and ovarian cancers would allow population stratification by genotype to effectively target screening and treatment. As scientific, clinical and economic evidence mounts there will be increasing pressure for risk-stratified screening programmes to be implemented.

Methods: This paper reviews some of the main ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) raised by the introduction of genotyping into risk-stratified screening programmes, in terms of Beauchamp and Childress's four principles of biomedical ethics--respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice. Two alternative approaches to data collection, storage, communication and consent are used to exemplify the ELSI issues that are likely to be raised.

Results: Ultimately, the provision of risk-stratified screening using genotyping raises fundamental questions about respective roles of individuals, healthcare providers and the state in organizing or mandating such programmes, and the principles, which underpin their provision, particularly the requirement for distributive justice.

Conclusions: The scope and breadth of these issues suggest that ELSI relating to risk-stratified screening will become increasingly important for policy-makers, healthcare professionals and a wide diversity of stakeholders.

Citing Articles

Assessing the rates of false-positive ovarian cancer screenings and surgical interventions associated with screening tools: a systematic review.

Silverwood S, Backer G, Galloway A, Reid K, Jeter A, Harrison M BMJ Oncol. 2025; 3(1):e000404.

PMID: 39886168 PMC: 11261692. DOI: 10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000404.

Women's perspectives on the acceptability of risk-based cervical cancer screening.

Remmel M, Suija K, Raudne R, Tisler A, kivite-Urtane A, Stankunas M BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):1314.

PMID: 39455985 PMC: 11515292. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-13050-7.

Development of a Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Integrating Monogenic, Polygenic, and Epidemiologic Risk.

Kalia S, Boddicker N, Yadav S, Huang H, Na J, Hu C Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2024; 33(11):1490-1499.

PMID: 39259185 PMC: 11530304. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-24-0594.

Ethical and legal implications of implementing risk algorithms for early detection and screening for oesophageal cancer, now and in the future.

Brigden T, Mitchell C, Redrup Hill E, Hall A PLoS One. 2023; 18(10):e0293576.

PMID: 37903120 PMC: 10615292. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293576.

Prostate cancer screening in African American men: a review of the evidence.

Kensler K, Johnson R, Morley F, Albrair M, Dickerman B, Gulati R J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023; 116(1):34-52.

PMID: 37713266 PMC: 10777677. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djad193.

References

Zawati M, Knoppers B . International normative perspectives on the return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks. Genet Med. 2012; 14(4):484-9. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.13. View

Collins R, Wright A, Marteau T . Impact of communicating personalized genetic risk information on perceived control over the risk: a systematic review. Genet Med. 2010; 13(4):273-7. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181f710ca. View

Clayton E, McGuire A . The legal risks of returning results of genomics research. Genet Med. 2012; 14(4):473-7. PMC: 3779603. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.10. View

Pharoah P, Antoniou A, Easton D, Ponder B . Polygenes, risk prediction, and targeted prevention of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(26):2796-803. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa0708739. View

Francke U, Dijamco C, Kiefer A, Eriksson N, Moiseff B, Tung J . Dealing with the unexpected: consumer responses to direct-access BRCA mutation testing. PeerJ. 2013; 1:e8. PMC: 3628894. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8. View

Pashayan N, Pharoah P . Population-based screening in the era of genomics. Per Med. 2012; 9(4):451-455. PMC: 3442228. DOI: 10.2217/pme.12.40. View

Hasegawa L, Fergus K, Ojeda N, Au S . Parental attitudes toward ethical and social issues surrounding the expansion of newborn screening using new technologies. Public Health Genomics. 2010; 14(4-5):298-306. PMC: 3214890. DOI: 10.1159/000314644. View

. Balancing interests in the use of personal genetic data. Human Genetics Commission, UK, May 2002. Rev Derecho Genoma Hum. 2002; (16):260-2. View

McGuire A, Fisher R, Cusenza P, Hudson K, Rothstein M, McGraw D . Confidentiality, privacy, and security of genetic and genomic test information in electronic health records: points to consider. Genet Med. 2008; 10(7):495-9. DOI: 10.1097/gim.0b013e31817a8aaa. View

10.

Park J, Wacholder S, Gail M, Peters U, Jacobs K, Chanock S . Estimation of effect size distribution from genome-wide association studies and implications for future discoveries. Nat Genet. 2010; 42(7):570-5. PMC: 4615599. DOI: 10.1038/ng.610. View

11.

Turner A, Kader A, Xu J . Utility of genome-wide association study findings: prostate cancer as a translational research paradigm. J Intern Med. 2012; 271(4):344-52. PMC: 3753782. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2012.02522.x. View

12.

Bittles A, Black M . Evolution in health and medicine Sackler colloquium: Consanguinity, human evolution, and complex diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 107 Suppl 1:1779-86. PMC: 2868287. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0906079106. View

13.

Wolf S, Crock B, Van Ness B, Lawrenz F, Kahn J, Beskow L . Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med. 2012; 14(4):361-84. PMC: 3597341. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.23. View

14.

Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, Edwards K, Fullerton S, Kanellopoulou N . From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet. 2012; 13(5):371-6. PMC: 3806497. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3218. View

15.

van Zitteren M, van der Net J, Kundu S, Freedman A, Van Duijn C, Janssens A . Genome-based prediction of breast cancer risk in the general population: a modeling study based on meta-analyses of genetic associations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011; 20(1):9-22. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0329. View

16.

Michailidou K, Hall P, Gonzalez-Neira A, Ghoussaini M, Dennis J, Milne R . Large-scale genotyping identifies 41 new loci associated with breast cancer risk. Nat Genet. 2013; 45(4):353-61, 361e1-2. PMC: 3771688. DOI: 10.1038/ng.2563. View

17.

Howell A, Astley S, Warwick J, Stavrinos P, Sahin S, Ingham S . Prevention of breast cancer in the context of a national breast screening programme. J Intern Med. 2012; 271(4):321-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2012.02525.x. View

18.

Pashayan N, Duffy S, Chowdhury S, Dent T, Burton H, Neal D . Polygenic susceptibility to prostate and breast cancer: implications for personalised screening. Br J Cancer. 2011; 104(10):1656-63. PMC: 3093360. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.118. View

19.

Dent T, Jbilou J, Rafi I, Segnan N, Tornberg S, Chowdhury S . Stratified cancer screening: the practicalities of implementation. Public Health Genomics. 2013; 16(3):94-9. DOI: 10.1159/000345941. View

20.

Bailey Jr D, Skinner D, Davis A, Whitmarsh I, Powell C . Ethical, legal, and social concerns about expanded newborn screening: fragile X syndrome as a prototype for emerging issues. Pediatrics. 2008; 121(3):e693-704. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-0820. View