» Articles » PMID: 25834950

Patient Feedback and Early Outcome Data with a Novel Tiered-binned Model for Multiplex Breast Cancer Susceptibility Testing

Abstract

Purpose: The risks, benefits, and utilities of multiplex panels for breast cancer susceptibility are unknown, and new counseling and informed consent models are needed. We sought to obtain patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex testing.

Methods: BRCA1/2-negative and untested patients completed pre- and posttest counseling and surveys evaluating testing experiences and cognitive and affective responses to multiplex testing.

Results: Of 73 patients, 49 (67%) completed pretest counseling. BRCA1/2-negative patients were more likely to proceed with multiplex testing (86%) than those untested for BRCA1/2 (43%; P < 0.01). Many patients declining testing reported concern for uncertainty and distress. Most patients would not change anything about their pre- (76%) or posttest (89%) counseling sessions. Thirty-three patients (72%) were classified as making an informed choice, including 81% of those who proceeded with multiplex testing. Knowledge increased significantly. Anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and cancer worry did not significantly increase with multiplex testing.

Conclusion: Some patients, particularly those without prior BRCA1/2 testing, decline multiplex testing. Most patients who proceeded with testing did not experience negative psychological responses, but larger studies are needed. The tiered-binned approach is an innovative genetic counseling and informed consent model for further study in the era of multiplex testing.Genet Med 18 1, 25-33.

Citing Articles

Test-takers' perspectives on consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk.

Kilbride M, Kessler L, Cronier B, Park J, Cacioppo C, Beem J Front Genet. 2024; 15:1374602.

PMID: 39050249 PMC: 11266061. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2024.1374602.


Men with metastatic prostate cancer carrying a pathogenic germline variant in breast cancer genes: disclosure of genetic test results to relatives.

Vlaming M, Ausems M, Schijven G, van Oort I, Kets C, Komdeur F Fam Cancer. 2024; 23(2):165-175.

PMID: 38722431 PMC: 11153271. DOI: 10.1007/s10689-024-00377-0.


The ENGAGE study: a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic services in childhood cancer survivors.

Henderson T, Allen M, Mim R, Egleston B, Fleisher L, Elkin E BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):253.

PMID: 38414045 PMC: 10900774. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-10586-z.


Changes in anxiety and depression levels and meat intake following recognition of low genetic risk for high body mass index, triglycerides, and lipoproteins: A randomized controlled trial.

Lee G, Chung K, Lee J, Kim J, Han S PLoS One. 2023; 18(9):e0291052.

PMID: 37683016 PMC: 10490956. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291052.


Psychological and health behaviour outcomes following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk: a mini-review of the literature.

Carlsson L, Thain E, Gillies B, Metcalfe K Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2022; 20(1):25.

PMID: 35733200 PMC: 9215075. DOI: 10.1186/s13053-022-00229-x.


References
1.
Burke W, Dimmock D . Clinical decisions. Screening an asymptomatic person for genetic risk. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370(25):2442-5. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMclde1311959. View

2.
Bradbury A, Patrick-Miller L, Long J, Powers J, Stopfer J, Forman A . Development of a tiered and binned genetic counseling model for informed consent in the era of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility. Genet Med. 2014; 17(6):485-92. PMC: 4983405. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.134. View

3.
Kaphingst K, McBride C, Wade C, Hensley Alford S, Reid R, Larson E . Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results. Genet Med. 2012; 14(7):681-7. PMC: 3417078. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.22. View

4.
Geller G, Botkin J, Green M, Press N, Biesecker B, Wilfond B . Genetic testing for susceptibility to adult-onset cancer. The process and content of informed consent. JAMA. 1997; 277(18):1467-74. View

5.
ONeill S, White D, Sanderson S, Lipkus I, Bepler G, Bastian L . The feasibility of online genetic testing for lung cancer susceptibility: uptake of a web-based protocol and decision outcomes. Genet Med. 2008; 10(2):121-30. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815f8e06. View