Psychosocial Effects of Multigene Panel Testing in the Context of Cancer Genomics

Overview

Journal Hastings Cent Rep

Specialty Medical Ethics

Date 2019 Jul 4

PMID 31268573

Citations 9

Authors

Jada G Hamilton

Mark E Robson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In recent years, with both the development of next-generation sequencing approaches and the Supreme Court decision invalidating gene patents, declining costs have contributed to the emergence of a new model of hereditary cancer genetic testing. Multigene panel testing (or multiplex testing) involves using next-generation sequencing technology to determine the sequence of multiple cancer-susceptibility genes. In addition to high-penetrance cancer-susceptibility genes, multigene panels frequently include genes that are less robustly associated with cancer predisposition. Scientific understanding about associations between many specific moderate-penetrance gene variants and cancer risks is incomplete. The emergence of multigene panel tests has created unique challenges that may have meaningful psychosocial implications. Contrasted with the serial testing process, wherein patients consider the personal and clinical implications of each evaluated gene, with multigene panel testing, patients provide broad consent to whichever genes are included in a particular panel and then, after the test, receive in-depth genetic counseling to clarify the distinct implications of their specific results. Consequently, patients undergoing multigene panel testing may have a less nuanced understanding of the test and its implications, and they may have fewer opportunities to self-select against the receipt of particular types of genetic-risk information. Evidence is conflicting regarding the emotional effects of this testing.

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.

Schoolhouse risk: Can we mitigate the polygenic Pygmalion effect?.

Matthews L, Zhang Z, Martschenko D Acta Psychol (Amst). 2024; 248:104403.

PMID: 39003994 PMC: 11343671. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104403.

Oncologists' perceptions of tumor genomic profiling and barriers to communicating secondary hereditary risks to African American cancer patients.

Hall M, DAvanzo P, Chertock Y, Kelly P, Brajuha J, Singley K BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):412.

PMID: 38566032 PMC: 10988900. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12184-y.

Prevalence of psychological distress and associated factors among patients undergoing comprehensive genomic profiling testing: protocol for a multicentre, prospective, observational study.

Matsuoka A, Fujimori M, Koyama T, Sato A, Mori K, Hirata M BMJ Open. 2023; 13(11):e072472.

PMID: 37996226 PMC: 10668223. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072472.

Risk-reducing mastectomy decisions among women with mutations in high- and moderate- penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes.

Comeaux J, Culver J, Lee J, Dondanville D, McArthur H, Quinn E Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2022; 10(10):e2031.

PMID: 36054727 PMC: 9544212. DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.2031.

References

Willis A, Smith S, Meiser B, Ballinger M, Thomas D, Young M . Sociodemographic, psychosocial and clinical factors associated with uptake of genetic counselling for hereditary cancer: a systematic review. Clin Genet. 2016; 92(2):121-133. DOI: 10.1111/cge.12868. View

Weitzel J, Blazer K, MacDonald D, Culver J, Offit K . Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: State of the Art and Future Directions in the Era of Personalized Medicine. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61(5):327-59. PMC: 3346864. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20128. View

Fehniger J, Lin F, Beattie M, Joseph G, Kaplan C . Family communication of BRCA1/2 results and family uptake of BRCA1/2 testing in a diverse population of BRCA1/2 carriers. J Genet Couns. 2013; 22(5):603-12. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-013-9592-4. View

ONeill S, Rini C, Goldsmith R, Valdimarsdottir H, Cohen L, Schwartz M . Distress among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 results: 12-month outcomes. Psychooncology. 2009; 18(10):1088-96. PMC: 3503506. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1467. View

Han P, Kobrin S, Klein W, Davis W, Stefanek M, Taplin S . Perceived ambiguity about screening mammography recommendations: association with future mammography uptake and perceptions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007; 16(3):458-66. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0533. View

Offit K, Bradbury A, Storm C, Merz J, Noonan K, Spence R . Gene patents and personalized cancer care: impact of the Myriad case on clinical oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(21):2743-8. PMC: 5795665. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.7388. View

Syngal S, Brand R, Church J, Giardiello F, Hampel H, Burt R . ACG clinical guideline: Genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015; 110(2):223-62. PMC: 4695986. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.435. View

Mishel M . Uncertainty in acute illness. Annu Rev Nurs Res. 1997; 15:57-80. View

Tung N, Domchek S, Stadler Z, Nathanson K, Couch F, Garber J . Counselling framework for moderate-penetrance cancer-susceptibility mutations. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016; 13(9):581-8. PMC: 5513673. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.90. View

10.

Kiviniemi M, Hay J . Awareness of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommended changes in mammography screening guidelines, accuracy of awareness, sources of knowledge about recommendations, and attitudes about updated screening guidelines in women ages 40-49.... BMC Public Health. 2012; 12:899. PMC: 3541091. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-899. View

11.

Sharaf R, Myer P, Stave C, Diamond L, Ladabaum U . Uptake of genetic testing by relatives of lynch syndrome probands: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013; 11(9):1093-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.04.044. View

12.

Hamilton J, Lobel M, Moyer A . Emotional distress following genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a meta-analytic review. Health Psychol. 2009; 28(4):510-8. PMC: 2807362. DOI: 10.1037/a0014778. View

13.

Peters J, OCONNELL J, Aston C, Whitcomb D . Motivations and concerns of patients with access to genetic testing for hereditary pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001; 96(5):1610-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03787.x. View

14.

Smithson . Conflict Aversion: Preference for Ambiguity vs Conflict in Sources and Evidence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999; 79(3):179-198. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2844. View

15.

Richter S, Haroun I, Graham T, Eisen A, Kiss A, Warner E . Variants of unknown significance in BRCA testing: impact on risk perception, worry, prevention and counseling. Ann Oncol. 2013; 24 Suppl 8:viii69-viii74. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt312. View

16.

Han P, Moser R, Klein W . Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: relationship to perceptions of cancer preventability, risk, and worry. J Health Commun. 2006; 11 Suppl 1:51-69. PMC: 4194067. DOI: 10.1080/10810730600637541. View

17.

Joseph G, Pasick R, Schillinger D, Luce J, Guerra C, Cheng J . Information Mismatch: Cancer Risk Counseling with Diverse Underserved Patients. J Genet Couns. 2017; 26(5):1090-1104. PMC: 5582075. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0089-4. View

18.

Hamilton J, Long J, Brandt A, Brower J, Symecko H, Salo-Mullen E . Patients' Medical and Psychosocial Experiences After Detection of a Variant With Multigene Panel Testing. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019; 3. PMC: 6738946. DOI: 10.1200/PO.18.00300. View

19.

Politi M, Legare F . Physicians' reactions to uncertainty in the context of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 80(2):155-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.030. View

20.

Butow P, Lobb E, Meiser B, Barratt A, Tucker K . Psychological outcomes and risk perception after genetic testing and counselling in breast cancer: a systematic review. Med J Aust. 2003; 178(2):77-81. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05069.x. View