在人群乳腺癌筛查试验中接受致病变体:一项混合方法研究。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY Public Health Genomics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1159/000540680
Leslie Riddle, Jennifer Elyse James, Arash Naeim, Lisa Madlensky, Susie Brain, Diana DeRosa, Martin Eklund, Allison Stover Fiscalini, Diane Heditsian, Barbara Koenig, Katherine Ross, Leah P Sabacan, Barry Tong, Neil Wenger, Galen Joseph
{"title":"在人群乳腺癌筛查试验中接受致病变体:一项混合方法研究。","authors":"Leslie Riddle, Jennifer Elyse James, Arash Naeim, Lisa Madlensky, Susie Brain, Diana DeRosa, Martin Eklund, Allison Stover Fiscalini, Diane Heditsian, Barbara Koenig, Katherine Ross, Leah P Sabacan, Barry Tong, Neil Wenger, Galen Joseph","doi":"10.1159/000540680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Risk-based breast cancer screening aims to address persistent high morbidity and mortality. This study examined the experience of participants in the Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of Risk (WISDOM) trial who received a pathogenic variant in one of nine high or moderate penetrance breast cancer genes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants completed a brief survey (n = 181) immediately following the results disclosure and 1 year later. Descriptive statistics were computed and comparisons between participants at different risk levels were performed using Fisher's exact and McNemar's tests. Analysis of qualitative interviews (n = 42) at 2-4 weeks and 6 months post-results disclosure compared responses at the 2 time points and explained and elaborated on the survey data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>66.3% of survey respondents felt very or moderately prepared to receive genomic results. At the T1 survey, 80.7% of participants had shared the genetic result with a blood relative, increasing to 88.4% at T2; providing information and encouraging cascade testing were the most common reasons for sharing. Communication with a blood relative, other healthcare providers beyond the primary care provider, and cascade testing were higher for participants with a high risk than low or moderate risk genomic finding. Qualitative interviews elucidated varied reasons why participants felt (un)prepared for the results, including whether or not they had a family history of breast cancer, and illustrated the complexity of decision-making about sharing results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although most participants communicated results with family members and healthcare providers in accordance with their risk level, questions remain about how to adequately prepare individuals to receive pathogenic results, ensure timely and accessible follow-up care, and facilitate genetic counseling and cascade testing of at-risk relatives in the setting of population risk-based screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"177-196"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Receiving a Pathogenic Variant in a Population Breast Cancer Screening Trial: A Mixed Method Study.\",\"authors\":\"Leslie Riddle, Jennifer Elyse James, Arash Naeim, Lisa Madlensky, Susie Brain, Diana DeRosa, Martin Eklund, Allison Stover Fiscalini, Diane Heditsian, Barbara Koenig, Katherine Ross, Leah P Sabacan, Barry Tong, Neil Wenger, Galen Joseph\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000540680\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Risk-based breast cancer screening aims to address persistent high morbidity and mortality. This study examined the experience of participants in the Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of Risk (WISDOM) trial who received a pathogenic variant in one of nine high or moderate penetrance breast cancer genes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants completed a brief survey (n = 181) immediately following the results disclosure and 1 year later. Descriptive statistics were computed and comparisons between participants at different risk levels were performed using Fisher's exact and McNemar's tests. Analysis of qualitative interviews (n = 42) at 2-4 weeks and 6 months post-results disclosure compared responses at the 2 time points and explained and elaborated on the survey data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>66.3% of survey respondents felt very or moderately prepared to receive genomic results. At the T1 survey, 80.7% of participants had shared the genetic result with a blood relative, increasing to 88.4% at T2; providing information and encouraging cascade testing were the most common reasons for sharing. Communication with a blood relative, other healthcare providers beyond the primary care provider, and cascade testing were higher for participants with a high risk than low or moderate risk genomic finding. Qualitative interviews elucidated varied reasons why participants felt (un)prepared for the results, including whether or not they had a family history of breast cancer, and illustrated the complexity of decision-making about sharing results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although most participants communicated results with family members and healthcare providers in accordance with their risk level, questions remain about how to adequately prepare individuals to receive pathogenic results, ensure timely and accessible follow-up care, and facilitate genetic counseling and cascade testing of at-risk relatives in the setting of population risk-based screening.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Genomics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"177-196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Genomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540680\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540680","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:基于风险的乳腺癌筛查旨在解决发病率和死亡率居高不下的问题。本研究调查了 WISDOM(根据风险措施进行筛查的女性知情者)试验的参与者的经历,这些参与者接受了九种高或中度渗透性乳腺癌基因中一种基因的致病变异:参与者在结果公布后立即和一年后填写了一份简短的调查问卷(181 人)。使用费雪精确检验和麦克尼玛检验计算描述性统计数字,并对不同风险水平的参与者进行比较。在结果公开后 2-4 周和 6 个月时,对定性访谈(42 人)进行了分析,比较了两个时间点的回答,并对调查数据进行了解释和阐述:66.3%的调查对象认为自己对接收基因组结果的准备程度很高或一般。在 T1 调查中,80.7% 的参与者与血亲分享了基因结果,而在 T2 调查中,这一比例上升至 88.4%;提供信息和鼓励逐级检测是分享基因结果的最常见原因。与血亲、主治医生以外的其他医疗服务提供者沟通以及进行连带检测的参与者中,高风险基因组结果的比例高于低风险或中风险基因组结果。定性访谈阐明了参与者对结果感到(未)做好准备的各种原因,包括他们是否有乳腺癌家族史,并说明了分享结果决策的复杂性:尽管大多数参与者都根据自己的风险水平与家庭成员和医疗服务提供者交流了结果,但在基于人群风险的筛查中,如何让个人做好充分准备以接收致病结果、确保及时和方便的后续治疗、促进遗传咨询和对高风险亲属的逐级检测等问题依然存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Receiving a Pathogenic Variant in a Population Breast Cancer Screening Trial: A Mixed Method Study.

Introduction: Risk-based breast cancer screening aims to address persistent high morbidity and mortality. This study examined the experience of participants in the Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of Risk (WISDOM) trial who received a pathogenic variant in one of nine high or moderate penetrance breast cancer genes.

Methods: Participants completed a brief survey (n = 181) immediately following the results disclosure and 1 year later. Descriptive statistics were computed and comparisons between participants at different risk levels were performed using Fisher's exact and McNemar's tests. Analysis of qualitative interviews (n = 42) at 2-4 weeks and 6 months post-results disclosure compared responses at the 2 time points and explained and elaborated on the survey data.

Results: 66.3% of survey respondents felt very or moderately prepared to receive genomic results. At the T1 survey, 80.7% of participants had shared the genetic result with a blood relative, increasing to 88.4% at T2; providing information and encouraging cascade testing were the most common reasons for sharing. Communication with a blood relative, other healthcare providers beyond the primary care provider, and cascade testing were higher for participants with a high risk than low or moderate risk genomic finding. Qualitative interviews elucidated varied reasons why participants felt (un)prepared for the results, including whether or not they had a family history of breast cancer, and illustrated the complexity of decision-making about sharing results.

Conclusions: Although most participants communicated results with family members and healthcare providers in accordance with their risk level, questions remain about how to adequately prepare individuals to receive pathogenic results, ensure timely and accessible follow-up care, and facilitate genetic counseling and cascade testing of at-risk relatives in the setting of population risk-based screening.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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