多基因风险评分在乳腺癌症风险认知和决策中的作用。

IF 1.5 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY Journal of Community Genetics Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-13 DOI:10.1007/s12687-023-00655-x
Leslie Riddle, Galen Joseph, Mikaella Caruncho, Barbara Ann Koenig, Jennifer Elyse James
{"title":"多基因风险评分在乳腺癌症风险认知和决策中的作用。","authors":"Leslie Riddle, Galen Joseph, Mikaella Caruncho, Barbara Ann Koenig, Jennifer Elyse James","doi":"10.1007/s12687-023-00655-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have the potential to improve the accuracy of clinical risk assessments, yet questions about their clinical validity and readiness for clinical implementation persist. Understanding how individuals integrate and act on the information provided by PRS is critical for their effective integration into routine clinical care, yet few studies have examined how individuals respond to the receipt of polygenic risk information. We conducted an embedded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) study to examine if and how unaffected participants in a US population breast cancer screening trial understood and utilized PRS, as part of a multifactorial risk score combining traditional risk factors with a genetic risk assessment, to make screening and risk-reduction decisions. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 trial participants who were designated at elevated risk for breast cancer due to their combined risk score. Interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Participants understood PRS conceptually and accepted it as one of many risk factors to consider, yet the value and meaning they ascribed to this risk estimate varied. Most participants reported financial and insurance barriers to enhanced screening with MRI and were not interested in taking risk-reducing medications. These findings contribute to our understanding of how PRS may be best translated from research to clinical care. Furthermore, they illuminate ethical concerns about identifying risk and making recommendations based on polygenic risk in a population screening context where many may have trouble accessing appropriate care.</p>","PeriodicalId":46965,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Genetics","volume":" ","pages":"489-501"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10576692/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of polygenic risk scores in breast cancer risk perception and decision-making.\",\"authors\":\"Leslie Riddle, Galen Joseph, Mikaella Caruncho, Barbara Ann Koenig, Jennifer Elyse James\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12687-023-00655-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have the potential to improve the accuracy of clinical risk assessments, yet questions about their clinical validity and readiness for clinical implementation persist. Understanding how individuals integrate and act on the information provided by PRS is critical for their effective integration into routine clinical care, yet few studies have examined how individuals respond to the receipt of polygenic risk information. We conducted an embedded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) study to examine if and how unaffected participants in a US population breast cancer screening trial understood and utilized PRS, as part of a multifactorial risk score combining traditional risk factors with a genetic risk assessment, to make screening and risk-reduction decisions. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 trial participants who were designated at elevated risk for breast cancer due to their combined risk score. Interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Participants understood PRS conceptually and accepted it as one of many risk factors to consider, yet the value and meaning they ascribed to this risk estimate varied. Most participants reported financial and insurance barriers to enhanced screening with MRI and were not interested in taking risk-reducing medications. These findings contribute to our understanding of how PRS may be best translated from research to clinical care. Furthermore, they illuminate ethical concerns about identifying risk and making recommendations based on polygenic risk in a population screening context where many may have trouble accessing appropriate care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46965,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Community Genetics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"489-501\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10576692/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Community Genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-023-00655-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Community Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-023-00655-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多基因风险评分(PRS)有可能提高临床风险评估的准确性,但关于其临床有效性和临床实施准备情况的问题仍然存在。了解个体如何整合PRS提供的信息并对其采取行动,对于其有效整合到常规临床护理中至关重要,但很少有研究研究个体对收到多基因风险信息的反应。我们进行了一项嵌入式伦理、法律和社会影响(ELSI)研究,以检查美国人群癌症筛查试验中未受影响的参与者是否以及如何理解和利用PRS,作为将传统风险因素与遗传风险评估相结合的多因素风险评分的一部分,来做出筛查和风险降低决策。对24名试验参与者进行了半结构化定性访谈,这些参与者因其综合风险评分而被指定为癌症风险较高的人群。访谈采用扎根理论方法进行分析。参与者从概念上理解PRS,并将其视为需要考虑的众多风险因素之一,但他们对该风险估计的价值和含义各不相同。大多数参与者报告说,MRI强化筛查存在财务和保险障碍,对服用降低风险的药物不感兴趣。这些发现有助于我们理解PRS如何最好地从研究转化为临床护理。此外,它们阐明了在人群筛查背景下识别风险并根据多基因风险提出建议的伦理问题,在这种情况下,许多人可能难以获得适当的护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
The role of polygenic risk scores in breast cancer risk perception and decision-making.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have the potential to improve the accuracy of clinical risk assessments, yet questions about their clinical validity and readiness for clinical implementation persist. Understanding how individuals integrate and act on the information provided by PRS is critical for their effective integration into routine clinical care, yet few studies have examined how individuals respond to the receipt of polygenic risk information. We conducted an embedded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) study to examine if and how unaffected participants in a US population breast cancer screening trial understood and utilized PRS, as part of a multifactorial risk score combining traditional risk factors with a genetic risk assessment, to make screening and risk-reduction decisions. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 trial participants who were designated at elevated risk for breast cancer due to their combined risk score. Interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Participants understood PRS conceptually and accepted it as one of many risk factors to consider, yet the value and meaning they ascribed to this risk estimate varied. Most participants reported financial and insurance barriers to enhanced screening with MRI and were not interested in taking risk-reducing medications. These findings contribute to our understanding of how PRS may be best translated from research to clinical care. Furthermore, they illuminate ethical concerns about identifying risk and making recommendations based on polygenic risk in a population screening context where many may have trouble accessing appropriate care.

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
Journal of Community Genetics
Journal of Community Genetics GENETICS & HEREDITY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Journal of Community Genetics is an international forum for research in the ever-expanding field of community genetics, the art and science of applying medical genetics to human communities for the benefit of their individuals. Community genetics comprises all activities which identify persons at increased genetic risk and has an interest in assessing this risk, in order to enable those at risk to make informed decisions. Community genetics services thus encompass such activities as genetic screening, registration of genetic conditions in the population, routine preconceptional and prenatal genetic consultations, public education on genetic issues, and public debate on related ethical issues. The Journal of Community Genetics has a multidisciplinary scope. It covers medical genetics, epidemiology, genetics in primary care, public health aspects of genetics, and ethical, legal, social and economic issues. Its intention is to serve as a forum for community genetics worldwide, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. The journal features original research papers, reviews, short communications, program reports, news, and correspondence. Program reports describe illustrative projects in the field of community genetics, e.g., design and progress of an educational program or the protocol and achievement of a gene bank. Case reports describing individual patients are not accepted.
期刊最新文献
Population molecular genetics in Brazil: From genomic databases and research to the implementation of precision medicine. Knowledge and perception of medical students on genetics in the genomic era. Key challenges in developing a gene therapy for Usher syndrome: machine-assisted scoping review. Key contextual factors involved with participation in medical and genomic screening and research for African American and White Americans: a qualitative inquiry. Factors influencing pregnant women's decision to accept or decline prenatal screening and diagnosis - a qualitative study.
×
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