Genetics patients’ perspectives on clinical genomic testing

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: ▪ of interest ▪▪ of considerable interest

References

• 1  Mcguire AL, Ponder B, Stefansson K. Personalized genomic information: preparing for the future of genetic medicine. Nat. Rev. Genet.11(2),161–165 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 2  Lifton RP. Individual genomes on the horizon. N. Engl. J. Med.362(13),1235–1236 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 3  Samani NJ, Tomaszewski M, Schunkert H. The personal genome – the future of personalised medicine? Lancet375(9725),1497–1498 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 4  Lupski JR, Reid JG, Gonzaga-Jauregui C et al. Whole-genome sequencing in a patient with Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy. N. Engl. J. Med.362(13),1181–1191 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 5  Worthey EA, Mayer AN, Syverson GD et al. Making a definitive diagnosis: successful clinical application of whole exome sequencing in a child with intractable inflammatory bowel disease. Genet. Med.13(3),255–262 (2011).▪ Illustrates how whole-exome sequencing might be used to diagnose disease in patients for whom a genetic diagnosis has been elusive.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 6  Tweardy DJ, Belmont JW. “Personalizing” academic medicine: opportunities and challenges in implementing genomic profiling. Transl. Res.154(6),288–294 (2009).▪ Suggests that next-generation sequencing tools are likely to be adopted first by physicians who are consulted to assist in providing a diagnosis for patients with complex clinical presentations, particularly in cases where genetic contributions are suspected but have proven difficult to identify.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 7  Gahl WA, Markello TC, Toro C et al. The National Institutes of Health Undiagnosed Diseases Program: insights into rare diseases. Genet. Med.14(1),51–59 (2011).▪ A report from the NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Program regarding their implementation of genomic technologies to establish diagnoses. While they report some successful diagnoses, the authors suggest that genomic testing may not be able to meet many patients’ expectations or resolve diagnostic uncertainties.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 8  Prainsack B, Reardon J, Hindmarsh R et al. Personal genomes: misdirected precaution. Nature456(7218),34–35 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 9  Speicher MR, Geigl JB, Tomlinson IP. Effect of genome-wide association studies, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and high-speed sequencing technologies on predictive genetic counselling for cancer risk. Lancet Oncol.11(9),890–898 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 10  Sharp RR. Downsizing genomic medicine: approaching the ethical complexity of whole-genome sequencing by starting small. Genet. Med.13(3),191–194 (2011).▪ Argues that to the extent that early experiences with clinical genomic testing will play an important role in the emergence of other forms of personalized genomic medicine, it is important to consider the ethical and social challenges that must be successfully navigated in this context.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 11  Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N. Engl. J. Med.364(6),524–534 (2011).▪ Reports on a quantitative study of experiences of consumers of commercial genomic risk assessment products and suggests limited psychosocial, behavioral and clinical effects of these tests.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 12  McGowan ML, Fishman JR, Lambrix MA. Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early users. N. Genet. Soc.29(3),261–290 (2010).▪▪ Reports on a qualitative study of early consumers’ motivations and experiences with commercial genomic risk assessment products. The study focuses on users’ evaluations of the technologies and how they incorporate genomic risk assessment results into health-related decisions and behaviors.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 13  Mcguire AL, Diaz CM, Wang T, Hilsenbeck SG. Social networkers’ attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Am. J. Bioethics9(6–7),3–10 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 14  Mayer AN, Dimmock DP, Arca MJ et al. A timely arrival for genomic medicine. Genet. Med.13(3),195–196 (2011).▪ Argues that it is likely that genomic technologies will be initially introduced to patients who are already considering some type of genetic evaluation for an undiagnosed condition and that their responses to these technologies will play a key role in future developments in personalized medicine.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 15  Foster MW, Sharp RR. Ethical issues in medical-sequencing research: implications of genotype-phenotype studies for individuals and populations. Hum. Mol. Genet.15(Spec. No. 1),R45–R49 (2006).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 16  Merriam SB. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. John Wiley & Sons, CA, USA (2009).Google Scholar
• 17  Kuzel AJ. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Doing Qualitative Research (2nd Edition). Crabtree BF, Miller WL (Eds). CA, USA, 33–45 (1999).Google Scholar
• 18  Kondracki N, Wellman N, Amundson D. Content analysis: review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav.34(4),224–230 (2002).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 19  Hruschka DJ, Schwartz D, St John DC et al. Reliability in coding open-ended data: lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods16,3307–3331 (2004).Google Scholar
• 20  McGuire AL, Lupski JR. Personal genome research: what should the participant be told? Trends Genet.26(5),199–201 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 21  Pagon RA, Pinsky L, Beahler CC. Online medical genetics resources: a US perspective. BMJ322(7293),1035–1037 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 22  Rahm AK, Feigelson HS, Wagner N et al. Perception of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic tests among members of a large managed care organization. J. Genet. Couns.21(3),448–461 (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 23  Gollust SE, Gordon ES, Zayac C et al. Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics15(1),22–30 (2012).▪▪ Reports on a survey of prospective participants in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative, a study of genomic risk profiling in a research context. The results focus on participants’ enthusiasm for genomic risk assessment, perceptions of risks and benefits of participation in the study, and intentions to engage healthcare providers regarding the application of their results in health promotion.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 24  Deverka PA, Schully SD, Ishibe N et al. Stakeholder assessment of the evidence for cancer genomic tests: insights from three case studies. Genet. Med.14(7),656–662 (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 25  Green RC, Berg JS, Berry GT et al. Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genet. Med.14(4),405–410 (2012).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 26  Mcguire AL, Burke W. An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. J. Am. Med. Assoc.300(22),2669–2671 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 27  Gooding HC, Linnenbringer EL, Burack J et al. Genetic susceptibility testing for Alzheimer disease: motivation to obtain information and control as precursors to coping with increased risk. Patient Educ. Couns.64(1–3),259–267 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 28  Cassidy MR, Roberts JS, Bird TD et al. Comparing test-specific distress of susceptibility versus deterministic genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement.4(6),406–413 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 29  Chao S, Roberts JS, Marteau TM et al. Health behavior changes after genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: the REVEAL study. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord.22(1),94–97 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 30  Bunnik E, Janssens AC, Schermer M. How attitudes research contributes to overoptimistic expectations of personal genome testing. Am. J. Bioeth.9(6–7),23–25 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 31  McGowan ML, Lambrix MM. Are social networkers and genome testers one in the same? The limitations of public opinion research for guiding clinical practice. Am. J. Bioethics9(6–7),21–23 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 101  Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010. United States Census Bureau, Washington DC, USA (2011).www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/county/CO-EST00INT-01.htmlGoogle Scholar
• 102  Educational Attainment 2005–2009: American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. United States Census Bureau, Washington DC, USA (2011).www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2009_releaseGoogle Scholar