A Genomic Test for Colorectal Cancer Risk: Is This Acceptable and Feasible in Primary Care?

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY Public Health Genomics Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-07-20 DOI:10.1159/000508963
Sibel Saya, Jennifer G McIntosh, Ingrid M Winship, Mark Clendenning, Shakira Milton, Jasmeen Oberoi, James G Dowty, Daniel D Buchanan, Mark A Jenkins, Jon D Emery
{"title":"A Genomic Test for Colorectal Cancer Risk: Is This Acceptable and Feasible in Primary Care?","authors":"Sibel Saya,&nbsp;Jennifer G McIntosh,&nbsp;Ingrid M Winship,&nbsp;Mark Clendenning,&nbsp;Shakira Milton,&nbsp;Jasmeen Oberoi,&nbsp;James G Dowty,&nbsp;Daniel D Buchanan,&nbsp;Mark A Jenkins,&nbsp;Jon D Emery","doi":"10.1159/000508963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Genomic tests can predict risk and tailor screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). Primary care could be suitable for their widespread implementation.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of administering a CRC genomic test in primary care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants aged 45-74 years recruited from 4 Australian general practices were offered a genomic CRC risk test. Participants received brief verbal information about the test comprising 45 CRC-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms, before choosing whether to undertake the test. Personalized risks were given to testers. Uptake and knowledge of the genomic test, cancer-specific anxiety (Cancer Worry Scale), psychosocial impact (Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment [MICRA] score), and impact on CRC screening behaviour within 6 months were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 150 participants, test uptake was high (126, 84%), with 125 (83%) having good knowledge of the genomic test. Moderate risk participants were impacted more by the test (MICRA mean: 15.9) than average risk participants (mean: 9.5, difference in means: 6.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 11.2, p = 0.01), but all scores were low. Average risk participants' cancer-specific anxiety decreased (mean differences from baseline: 1 month -0.5, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.1, p = 0.03; 6 months -0.6, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.2, p = 0.01). We found limited evidence for genomic testers being more likely to complete the risk-appropriate CRC screening than non-testers (41 vs. 17%, odds ratio = 3.4, 95% CI: 0.6, 34.8, p = 0.19), but some mediators of screening behaviour were altered in genomic testers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Genomic testing for CRC risk in primary care is acceptable and likely feasible. Further development of the risk assessment intervention could strengthen the impact on screening behaviour.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":"23 3-4","pages":"110-121"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000508963","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000508963","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Introduction: Genomic tests can predict risk and tailor screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). Primary care could be suitable for their widespread implementation.

Objective: We aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of administering a CRC genomic test in primary care.

Methods: Participants aged 45-74 years recruited from 4 Australian general practices were offered a genomic CRC risk test. Participants received brief verbal information about the test comprising 45 CRC-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms, before choosing whether to undertake the test. Personalized risks were given to testers. Uptake and knowledge of the genomic test, cancer-specific anxiety (Cancer Worry Scale), psychosocial impact (Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment [MICRA] score), and impact on CRC screening behaviour within 6 months were measured.

Results: In 150 participants, test uptake was high (126, 84%), with 125 (83%) having good knowledge of the genomic test. Moderate risk participants were impacted more by the test (MICRA mean: 15.9) than average risk participants (mean: 9.5, difference in means: 6.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 11.2, p = 0.01), but all scores were low. Average risk participants' cancer-specific anxiety decreased (mean differences from baseline: 1 month -0.5, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.1, p = 0.03; 6 months -0.6, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.2, p = 0.01). We found limited evidence for genomic testers being more likely to complete the risk-appropriate CRC screening than non-testers (41 vs. 17%, odds ratio = 3.4, 95% CI: 0.6, 34.8, p = 0.19), but some mediators of screening behaviour were altered in genomic testers.

Conclusions: Genomic testing for CRC risk in primary care is acceptable and likely feasible. Further development of the risk assessment intervention could strengthen the impact on screening behaviour.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结直肠癌风险的基因组检测:在初级保健中可接受和可行吗?
基因组检测可以预测结直肠癌(CRC)的风险和定制筛查建议。初级保健可能适合它们的广泛实施。目的:我们旨在评估在初级保健中实施CRC基因组检测的可行性和可接受性。方法:从4个澳大利亚全科医院招募的年龄在45-74岁的参与者进行了CRC基因组风险测试。在选择是否进行测试之前,参与者收到了关于包含45个crc相关单核苷酸多态性的测试的简短口头信息。给测试者个性化的风险。对基因组测试、癌症特异性焦虑(癌症担忧量表)、心理社会影响(癌症风险评估的多维影响[MICRA]评分)的摄取和知识以及6个月内对CRC筛查行为的影响进行了测量。结果:在150名参与者中,测试摄取率很高(126,84%),其中125(83%)对基因组测试有很好的了解。中度风险受试者受测试的影响(MICRA平均值:15.9)大于平均风险受试者(平均值:9.5,平均值差:6.4,95%可信区间(CI): 1.5, 11.2, p = 0.01),但得分均较低。平均风险参与者的癌症特异性焦虑降低(与基线的平均差异:1个月-0.5,95% CI: -1.0, -0.1, p = 0.03;6个月-0.6,95% CI: -1.0, -0.2, p = 0.01)。我们发现有限的证据表明,基因组测试者比非测试者更有可能完成适合风险的CRC筛查(41比17%,优势比= 3.4,95% CI: 0.6, 34.8, p = 0.19),但基因组测试者的一些筛查行为介质发生了改变。结论:在初级保健中对结直肠癌风险进行基因组检测是可以接受且可能可行的。风险评估干预措施的进一步发展可以加强对筛查行为的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Genomics
Public Health Genomics 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Public Health Genomics'' is the leading international journal focusing on the timely translation of genome-based knowledge and technologies into public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole. This peer-reviewed journal is a bimonthly forum featuring original papers, reviews, short communications, and policy statements. It is supplemented by topic-specific issues providing a comprehensive, holistic and ''all-inclusive'' picture of the chosen subject. Multidisciplinary in scope, it combines theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplines, notably public health, molecular and medical sciences, the humanities and social sciences. In so doing, it also takes into account rapid scientific advances from fields such as systems biology, microbiomics, epigenomics or information and communication technologies as well as the hight potential of ''big data'' for public health.
期刊最新文献
Investigating the impact of screen-sharing visual aids during genomic results disclosure via telehealth in diverse families in the TeleKidSeq pilot study. Adopting public health genomics when the house is on fire: How will we navigate to 2030? Modern Family: An Ethical Justification for System-Led Contact of Relatives Eligible for Cascade Screening in the United States. Variation Exists in Service Delivery: Similarities and Differences in the Provision of a Whole Genome Sequencing Service for Paediatric Rare Disease Patients in the National Health Service in England. Evaluating the Implementation of the Rapid Prenatal Exome Sequencing Service in England.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1