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":"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?","authors":"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","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":"{\"title\":\"A Genomic Test for Colorectal Cancer Risk: Is This Acceptable and Feasible in Primary Care?\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"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}","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
摘要
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。
A Genomic Test for Colorectal Cancer Risk: Is This Acceptable and Feasible in Primary Care?
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.
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.