Likelihood of Undergoing Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk: A Population-Based Study

Bosompra, Kwadwo; Flynn, Brian S.; Ashikaga, Takamaru; Rairikar, Chintamani J.; Worden, John K.; Solomon, Laura J.

doi:10.1006/pmed.1999.0610

Cited by 87 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…16 Several other studies focusing on general cancer risk or risk of breast or colon cancer have had similar findings. 17,18 An analysis of the 2000 NHIS found that awareness of genetic testing was higher for those with any family history of cancer (48.3%) than for those with no family history (37.5%), 19 and a subsequent study using data from the 2000 and 2005 NHIS found that women at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer were more likely than average risk women to have discussed genetic testing with a health professional and to have undergone testing. 14 Our finding that individuals with a personal history of cancer were generally more likely to report the genetic testing outcomes is not surprising, and may in fact signal an appropriate approach, as testing should begin with an affected proband.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Familial Risk of Cancer and Knowledge and Use of Genetic Testing

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Identification of genetic risk factors for common diseases, including cancer, highlights the importance of familial risk assessment. Little is known about patterns of familial cancer risk in the general population, or whether this risk is associated with knowledge and use of genetic testing. OBJECTIVE: To examine the distribution of familial cancer risk and its associations with genetic testing in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the 2005 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). PARTICIPANTS: 31,428 adults who completed the NHIS Cancer Control Supplement. MAIN MEASURES: Familial cancer risk was estimated based on the number of first-degree relatives with a breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (BRCA)-or a Lynchassociated cancer, age of onset (<50 or ≥50 years), and personal history of any cancer. Outcomes included having heard of genetic testing, discussed genetic testing with a physician, been advised by a physician to have testing, and received genetic testing. KEY RESULTS: Most adults (84.5%) had no family history of BRCA-or Lynch syndrome-associated cancer; 12.9% had a single first-degree relative (5.3% with early onset); and 2.7% had ≥2 first-degree relatives. Although 40.2% of adults had heard of genetic testing for cancer risk, only 5.6% of these individuals had discussed testing with a physician, and of these 36.9% were advised to be tested. Overall, only 1.4% of adults who had heard of genetic testing received a test. Familial risk was associated with higher rates of testing; 49.5% of participants in the highest risk group had heard of testing, of those 14.8% had discussed it with their physician, and 4.5% had received genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: These nationally representative data provide estimates of the prevalence of familial cancer risk in the US and suggest that information about genetic testing is not reaching many at higher risk of inherited cancer.KEY WORDS: family history; primary care practice; cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Familial Risk of Cancer and Knowledge and Use of Genetic Testing

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to the HBM constructs, several additional variables were included from relevant literature. For example, awareness of genetic testing, family history and smoking habits have often been discussed in the literature as important variables associated with intention to use genetic tests [11,13,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Also, demographic variables such as gender, education, age and ethnicity were other factors that appear to be related to awareness and intention to use genetic testing, were included [10,18,20,22,25,26].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic Testing for Risk of Lung Cancer: A Pilot Study Examining Perceived Benefits and Barriers using Health Belief Model

Desai¹,

Shah²,

Rahim³

et al. 2014

AJCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To (i) assess participants' awareness of the availability of genetic testing to determine the risk of different types of cancer; (ii) to assess participants' beliefs about genetic testing for the risk of lung cancer using Health Belief Model; and (iii) to explore factors affecting intention to use genetic testing for risk of lung cancer. Methods: A sample of 360 New Jersey residents were surveyed by interviewers from three densely populated cities in the northern, central and southern regions of New Jersey. The survey instrument was developed using the Health Belief Model and measures were adapted from the literature. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used to examine factors associated with intention to use genetic testing. Results: A total of 360 individuals were surveyed in three cities in New Jersey. Of these, 50% were non-Hispanic White, female, and with an annual income of less than $50,000; 66% were nonsmokers without a family history of lung cancer. The overall intention to use the genetic test to determine lung cancer risk was low (35%), even though the majority of participants believed genetic testing for lung cancer to be highly beneficial, and despite believing it to be a severe condition [M(SD)=11.5(2.3)}. Approximately 50% of participants were aware of the availability of genetic tests for the risk of lung cancer, and respondents believed they were moderately susceptible to lung cancer [M(SD)=25.3(3.7)].Gender, education, smoking habits and perceived benefits of testing were significant predictors of intention. Conclusion: Awareness and intention to use genetic testing for the risk of lung cancer was low. This study provides useful information for healthcare professionals interested in promoting the use of genetic testing for at-risk populations such as smokers, and how to tailor interventions.

show abstract

“…8,13,17,20 Previous research suggests theoretical models such as the HBM, 24 as used in this study, can explain the relationship between participants' perceptions and testing intentions. 14,16,21,28 Specifically, those who view genetic testing positively, and perceive that potential benefits can be accrued, are more likely to undergo testing.…”

Section: Willingness-to-paymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11 The potential psychological impacts, along with concerns regarding family planning, fertility, lifestyle choices and health management, 5,12 indicate individualized management and genetic counseling should remain a priority. 3,10 A large body of research has investigated public [13][14][15][16][17] and patient 1,3,[18][19][20][21][22] perceptions of genetic testing, and reported that despite low levels of understanding, perceived benefits outweigh the risks. Patients' most highly-rated benefits include increased knowledge, better outcomes, and more effective prevention strategies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic testing for the risk of developing late effects among survivors of childhood cancer: Consumer understanding, acceptance, and willingness to pay

Georgiou

Wakefield

McGill

et al. 2016

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Genetic testing to determine cancer survivors' risk of developing late effects from their cancer treatment will be increasingly used in survivorship care. This 2‐stage study with 64 survivors of childhood cancer and their parents investigated the preferences and acceptability of testing among those who may be at risk of developing late effects. METHODS The first stage (Stage 1) identified the most commonly perceived benefits and concerns regarding genetic testing for the risk of late effects among 24 participants. In Stage 2, during interviews, 20 survivors (55% of whom were female; mean age, 26.0 years [range, 18‐39 years]; standard deviation [SD], 0.80) and 20 parents (55% of whom were male; mean age of child survivor, 14.2 years [range, 10‐19 years]; SD, 0.79) rated the 7 most common benefits and concerns from those identified in Stage 1. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed. Decisional balance ratios were calculated by dividing the participants' average concerns scores with the average benefits scores. RESULTS Genetic testing for late effects was highly acceptable: 95% of participants leaned toward testing, and the majority (65.9%) would pay up to Australian $5000. The majority (97.2%) reported it was acceptable to wait for up to 6 months to receive results, and to be offered testing immediately after treatment or when the survivor reached adulthood (62.9%). Survivors and parents had a highly positive decisional balance (Mean (M), 0.5 [SD, 0.38] and M, 0.5 [SD, 0.39], respectively), indicating that perceived benefits outweighed concerns. CONCLUSIONS Although to our knowledge clinical efficacy has yet to be clearly demonstrated, survivors and parents described positive interest in genetic testing for the risk of developing late effects. Perceived benefits outweighed harms, and the majority of participants would be willing to pay, and wait, for testing. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2876–2885. © 2016 American Cancer Society

show abstract

Likelihood of Undergoing Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk: A Population-Based Study

Cited by 87 publications

References 35 publications

Familial Risk of Cancer and Knowledge and Use of Genetic Testing

Familial Risk of Cancer and Knowledge and Use of Genetic Testing

Genetic Testing for Risk of Lung Cancer: A Pilot Study Examining Perceived Benefits and Barriers using Health Belief Model

Genetic testing for the risk of developing late effects among survivors of childhood cancer: Consumer understanding, acceptance, and willingness to pay

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About