SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Genetic testing”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources

PubMed2002

The cost-effectiveness of interleukin-1 genetic testing for periodontal disease.

BACKGROUND: A genetic test for a composite interleukin-1 (IL-1) genotype is being marketed to predict risk for progression of periodontal disease. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical scenario required to produce cost-effective results with the use of IL-1 testing to identify high-risk patients. METHODS: A disease simulation model was developed using decision-analytic techniques and a 30-year time frame. RESULTS: Using different modeling scenarios, the genetic test produced results ranging from cost savings of $830,140 and 52.8 fewer cases of severe periodontitis to increased costs of $300,430 and 3.6 additional cases of severe periodontitis (per 1,000 patients). Three parameters in the analysis were highly influential: 1) the compliance rate for maintenance therapy in test positive versus non-tested patients; 2) the effectiveness of non-surgical therapy; and 3) the relative risk of disease progression for test positive patients. CONCLUSION: The model produced a wide range of outcomes reflecting our incomplete understanding of the biology, optimal treatment, and genetic susceptibility of periodontal diseases. However, the model demonstrates that three clinical parameters are highly influential in determining if IL-1 testing can be implemented in a primary care setting in a cost-effective manner.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Psychosocial impact of breast/ovarian (BRCA1/2) cancer-predictive genetic testing in a UK multi-centre clinical cohort.

This multi-centre UK study assesses the impact of predictive testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition genes (BRCA1/2) in the clinical context. In the year following predictive testing, 261 adults (59 male) from nine UK genetics centres participated; 91 gene mutation carriers and 170 noncarriers. Self-report questionnaires were completed at baseline (pre-genetic testing) and 1, 4 and 12 months following the genetic test result. Men were assessed for general mental health (by general health questionnaire (GHQ)) and women for general mental health, cancer-related worry, intrusive and avoidant thoughts, perception of risk and risk management behaviour. Main comparisons were between female carriers and noncarriers on all measures and men and women for general mental health. Female noncarriers benefited psychologically, with significant reductions in cancer-related worry following testing (P<0.001). However, younger female carriers (<50 years) showed a rise in cancer-related worry 1 month post-testing (P<0.05). This returned to pre-testing baseline levels 12 months later, but worry remained significantly higher than noncarriers throughout (P<0.01). There were no significant differences in GHQ scores between males and females (both carriers and noncarriers) at any time point. Female carriers engaged in significantly more risk management strategies than noncarriers in the year following testing (e.g. mammograms; 92% carriers vs 30% noncarriers). In the 12 months post-testing, 28% carriers had bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy and 31% oophorectomy. Oophorectomy was confined to older (mean 41 yrs) women who already had children. However, worry about cancer was not assuaged by surgery following genetic testing, and this requires further investigation. In all, 20% of female carriers reported insurance problems. The data show persistent worry in younger female gene carriers and confirm changes in risk management consistent with carrier status. Men were not adversely affected by genetic testing in terms of their general mental health.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Genetic testing for inherited breast cancer risk in African Americans.

As genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations is increasingly integrated into the clinical management of high-risk women, it will be important to understand barriers and motivations for genetic counseling among women from underserved minority groups to ensure equitable access to these services. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to synthesize literature on knowledge and attitudes about genetic counseling and testing for inherited breast cancer risk in African Americans. We also review studies that evaluated genetic testing intentions in this population. We conducted a search of the PubMed database to identify studies related to BRCA1/2 testing in African Americans that were published between 1995 and 2003. Overall, studies have evaluated ethnic differences in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing or have compared African American and Caucasian women in terms of genetic testing intentions. These studies have shown that knowledge about breast cancer genetics and exposure to information about the availability of testing is low among African Americans, whereas expectations about the benefits of genetic testing are endorsed highly. However, much less is known about the psychological and behavioral impact of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations in African Americans. Additional research is needed to understand barriers and motivations for participating in genetic testing for inherited cancer risk in African Americans. The lack of studies on psychological functioning, cancer surveillance, and preventive behaviors following testing is a significant void; however, for these studies to be conducted, greater access to genetic counseling and testing in African Americans will be needed.

Black People↗

PubMed2004

Attitude toward genetic testing for cancer risk in Istanbul.

To identify attitudes toward genetic testing, and the effects of this information on decisions regarding issues such as pregnancy, abortion, and prophylactic surgery, several subsets of the Turkish population were surveyed in hospital settings. Individuals (n = 179) chosen arbitrarily from four different subsets of a Turkish population were asked to participate in a confidential 23-question survey. Survey participants were familiar with the concept of cancer being a familial disease (85.5%), and 84.7% of them expressed interest in genetic testing to determine cancer risk, 83.9% would have their fetuses tested for such cancer risk, 65.1% would terminate their pregnancies, 92.2% would have their children tested if they were determined to have an increased cancer risk, 71.9% would agree to undergo prophylactic oophorectomy or orchiectomy and 67.6% would have mastectomy/prostatectomy should there be an increased cancer risk to these organs. It appears that at least the sampled segment of a Turkish population is willing to undergo genetic testing to determine if they are at increased risk for cancer. The feasibility and acceptance of genetic testing and the influence of education and genetic counseling in the Turkish people should further be evaluated with a larger stratified sample of the population.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Attitudes of physicians regarding receiving and storing patients' genetic testing results for cancer susceptibility.

In order to determine interest in and support for a genetic counseling program for heritable cancers, a four-item questionnaire was sent to 700 physicians in San Diego County likely to encounter patients with significant family histories of cancer. Included in the questionnaire was an item requesting information about physician attitudes and practices regarding their record keeping for patient results of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Ninety-two questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 13%. The low response rate introduces caution when interpreting the results, particularly if the physicians most interested in the topic were the most likely to respond. In this light, of note was the marked variability found in the attitudes of respondents regarding where the results of patients' genetic testing results should be placed in relation to the medical record. Whereas one group of physicians would place the testing results into the medical record, just as they would any laboratory test result, other physicians do not even want written notice of the results in order to maintain patient confidentiality. Another group acknowledges the sensitivity of the information, but prefers to store genetic testing results separately, as they would results of HIV testing or history of psychiatric treatment. Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility is associated with patient concerns regarding confidentiality of testing results and fears of the consequences of release of this information to insurance companies. While the small and possibly biased sample must be considered when interpreting the results, the lack of consistency among physicians about where to store genetic testing results in terms of the patient medical record underscores the need for both a consensus statement and legal protection for both patient and physician. Variability in physician practices suggests that the process of obtaining informed consent for genetic testing should include a discussion with the patient about how the confidentiality of test results will be maintained.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed1999

What is a genetic test, and why does it matter?

How the term 'genetic test' is defined, matters for social policy. The past few years have witnessed many efforts to enact legal barriers specifically against genetic discrimination. To the extent that information derived from genetic tests receives special protection, both enthusiasts for genetic medicine and those who stress its perils have an incentive to adopt a broad interpretation of genetic testing. However, the consequences have not always been those anticipated.

Confidentiality↗

PubMed2003

"Cancer in the family" and genetic testing: implications for life insurance.

The potential for discrimination when applying for insurance can be of concern for individuals with a family history of cancer or of a genetic disorder and who are considering genetic counselling or genetic testing. The actual incidence of "genetic discrimination", however, is not known, despite considerable media coverage of this issue. The clinical details required by insurers have received less attention. We obtained primary application and personal statement forms used by 21 different underwriters of voluntary life insurance and found substantial differences in the information requested about family history and genetic testing. All insurance applications, however, contained a duty of disclosure that would require revealing the result, if known by the applicant, of a genetic test in a family member. Therefore, decisions made by family members can affect insurance applications, and people considering genetic testing may also need to consider the implications of the results for other family members. Health practitioners should balance the potential benefits of appropriate genetic testing against potential restriction to life and income-protection insurance when advising people about genetic testing.

Australia↗

PubMed1998

Do physicians discuss genetic testing with family-history-positive breast cancer patients?

Genetic testing for carriers of known germ-cell mutations involved in hereditary breast cancer in families should start with affected family members, in order to avoid ambiguous test results in unaffected members. A survey was conducted (May to August 1997) of physicians involved in the follow-up care of family-history-positive breast cancer patients diagnosed in 1994 and 1995, identified in the Connecticut Tumor Registry. Only 14 (18%) of 76 responding physicians reported having received an advertisement about commercially available tests for genes involved in inherited breast cancer, and only 12 (16%) reported discussing genetic testing with a patient included in this study. None of the 74 patients involved were known (by the responding physicians) to have been tested. However, further surveys are needed because awareness of the availability of genetic tests may be growing.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Diagnostic genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients: women's looking back on the pre-test period and a psychological evaluation.

The aim of this retrospective, exploratory study was to gain insight into how cancer patients who had a diagnostic genetic test for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer looked back on the pre-test period and to gain insight into the psychological impact of the genetic test result. Data were collected by semistructured interviews and self-report questionnaires in 19 BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, 7 noncarriers, and 36 patients with an inconclusive genetic test result. Cancer patients had a genetic test mainly for other persons, especially relatives in the descendant line. Mutation carriers felt more in control, but they also reported negative effects of genetic testing such as negative emotional impact and being concerned about their children. Non-carriers were relieved. The group of women where no BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation was found in the family was heterogeneous. Some misinterpreted the genetic test result as revealing the absence of a genetic predisposition. Others were relieved but also still aware of an increased risk, whereas a last group experienced continuing uncertainty and felt less in control. Self-report questionnaires did not reveal differences in general and cancer-specific distress as a function of the genetic test result. Furthermore, no differences among the three groups were found regarding perceived seriousness of breast and ovarian cancer and perceived control of breast cancer. Perceived control of ovarian cancer was highest in the inconclusive group.

Breast Neoplasms↗

PubMed2000

Genetic testing, adverse selection, and the demand for life insurance.

The dramatic increase in genetic testing for adult-onset diseases has created a debate regarding whether or not insurance companies should be able to use genetic test results in underwriting. We use data from women who have been tested for the BRCA1 gene mutation along with data from otherwise comparable untested women to assess the potential for adverse selection in the life insurance market when tested individuals know their genetic test results but insurers do not. Our analyses show that women who test positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation do not capitalize on their informational advantage by purchasing more life insurance than those women who have not undergone genetic testing.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: evaluating direct-to-consumer marketing--Atlanta, Denver, Raleigh-Durham, and Seattle, 2003.

Breast and ovarian cancer are the second and fifth leading causes of cancer death, respectively, among women in the United States. One in eight women will have breast cancer during their lifetimes, and one in 70 will have ovarian cancer. Mutations in two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2), are associated with predisposition for inherited breast and ovarian cancer and are identified in 5%-10% of women with breast or ovarian cancer (BOC). Since 1996, genetic testing for these mutations has been available clinically; however, population-based screening is not recommended because of the complexity of test interpretation and limited data on clinical validity and utility. Despite the test's limited applicability in the general population, the U.S. provider of clinical BRCA1/2 testing (Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah) conducted a pilot direct-to-consumer (DTC) marketing campaign in two cities (Atlanta, Georgia, and Denver, Colorado) during September 2002-February 2003. Although DTC advertisements have been used to raise consumer awareness about pharmaceuticals, this was the first time an established genetic test was marketed to the public. To assess the impact of the campaign on consumer behaviors and health-care provider practices, CDC and the respective state health departments for the pilot cities and two comparison cities (Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, and Seattle, Washington) surveyed consumers and providers. This report summarizes results of those surveys, which indicated that consumer and provider awareness of BRCA1/2 testing increased in the pilot cities and that providers in these cities perceived an impact on their practice (e.g., more questions asked about testing, more BRCA1/2 tests requested, and more tests ordered). However, in all four cities, providers often lacked knowledge to advise patients about inherited BOC and testing. These findings underscore the need for evidence-based recommendations on appropriate use of genetic tests and education of providers and the public to achieve maximum individual and public health benefit from genetic testing.

Adult↗

PubMed1995

Need for certainty and interest in genetic testing.

The relation among need for certainty, type of information presented about a genetic test, and level of interest in predictive genetic testing was examined. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 descriptions of the test. The only difference between the descriptions was that one included a paragraph that emphasized the cancer risk remaining for those who test negative for gene mutations. As predicted, a significant interaction between need for certainty and type of information presented was observed. Whereas women high in need for certainty were more interested in genetic testing when provided with the standard description and less interested when provided with the more complete one, women low in need for certainty showed the opposite pattern. The results suggest that interest in genetic testing is determined by the correspondence between an individual's personal goals and her perception of the kind of information provided by the test.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1996

Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, Adopted on February 20, 1996.

As the leading organization of physicians who treat people with cancer, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recognizes that cancer specialists must be fully informed of the range of issues involved in genetic testing for cancer risk. The newly discovered and still developing ability to identify individuals at highest risk for cancer holds the promise of improved prevention and early detection of cancers. It also poses potential medical, psychological, and other personal risks that must be addressed in the context of informed consent for genetic testing. ASCO firmly believes that any physician who offers genetic testing should be aware of, and able to communicate, the benefits and limits of current testing procedures, and the range of prevention and treatment options available to patients and their families. For these reasons, ASCO endorses the following principles: ASCO affirms the role of clinical oncologists in documenting a family history of cancer in their patients, providing counseling regarding familial cancer risk and options for prevention and early detection, and recognizing those families for which genetic testing may serve as an aid in counseling. To the greatest extent possible, genetic testing for cancer susceptibility should be performed in the setting of long-term outcome studies. ASCO endorses the formulation and implementation of a national cooperative study/registry with appropriate confidentiality to define the clinical significance of mutations in known cancer susceptibility genes. ASCO is committed to providing educational opportunities for physicians concerning methods of quantitative cancer risk assessment, genetic testing, and pre- and post-test genetic counseling so that oncologists may more responsibly integrate genetic counseling and testing into the practice of clinical and preventive oncology. Oncologists must assure that informed consent has been given by the patient as an integral part of the process of genetic predisposition testing, whether such testing is offered on a clinical or research basis. ASCO recommends that cancer predisposition testing be offered only when: 1) the person has a strong family history of cancer or very early age of onset of disease; 2) the test can be adequately interpreted; and 3) the results will influence the medical management of the patient or family member. As clinical testing becomes more widely available, the Society encourages oncologists to utilize laboratories committed to the validation of testing methodologies, and to facilitate families' participation in long-term outcome studies. ASCO recommends that oncologists include in pre- and post-test counseling discussion of possible risks and benefits of cancer early detection and prevention modalities, which have presumed but unproven efficacy for individuals at the highest hereditary risk for cancer. ASCO endorses efforts to strengthen regulatory authority over laboratories that provide cancer predisposition tests that will be utilized to inform clinical decisions. These regulatory requirements should include appropriate oversight of the products used in genetic testing, interlaboratory comparisons of reference samples, as well as quality control mechanisms. ASCO endorses all efforts including legislation to prohibit discrimination by insurance companies or employers based on an individual's inherited susceptibility to cancer. All individuals at hereditary risk for cancer should have access to appropriate genetic testing and associated medical care, which should be covered by public and private third-party payers. ASCO endorses continued support of patient-oriented research to analyze the psychological impact of genetic testing of at-risk populations.

Disclosure↗

PubMed2002

Current status of genetic testing for colorectal cancer susceptibility.

Over 130,000 new cases of colon cancer are diagnosed annually. Approximately 20% to 30% of these are attributable to familial risk, and 3% to 5% belong to a hereditary colorectal cancer predisposition syndrome. Recent discoveries of the genes responsiblefor the inherited colorectal cancer conditions have expanded the field of commercial genetic testing. Health-care providers who use genetic testing in clinical practice are aware of the benefits that genetic testing can confer on screening, prevention, and treatment options for patients with a personal and/or family history of colon cancer. When genetic test results are correctly interpreted, the information they provide can offer medical guidance for the entire family. The psychological impact, however, of presymptomatic testing can be multifaceted. There are unprecedented benefits but also complex issues surrounding genetic testing. For these reasons, the practice of offering genetic testing to individuals at high risk for colon cancer is heavily fortified with guidelines and recommendations. This review covers the current availability and limitations of genetic testing for inherited colorectal cancer syndromes and focuses on guidelines that address the psychological, ethical, and social concerns stemming from genetic testing.

Adenomatous Polyposis Coli↗

PubMed2025

How do parents decide on genetic testing in pediatrics? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aims to identify the factors that influence parents' decisions regarding pediatric diagnostic genetic testing (DT) and predictive genetic testing (PT). These factors are integrated into a conceptual decision-making model. Implications for genetic counseling, research, and ethics were derived. METHODS: PubMed, PsychInfo, WebofScience, and related references were searched for original publications between 2000 and 2023. The extracted factors were categorized using existing models. RESULTS: Of the 5843 publications, 56 met the inclusion criteria. The included studies differentiated between DT, traditional PT, and expanded PT and described factors affecting parental decisions to have the child genetically tested and to be informed about additional findings. Factors included (1) benefits/hopes, (2) worries/concerns, (3) values and beliefs, (4) individual circumstances, and (5) emotional states. CONCLUSION: Our work extends the existing empirical decision model of family decisions about genome sequencing to genetic testing in pediatrics in general, adding the categories of individual circumstances and emotional states. These factors can be further integrated into the Health Belief Model; the importance of emotional states is reflected in dual-process theories, such as the Fuzzy Trace Theory. Research is required on emotional states, differences between DT and PT, parents' decisions regarding result disclosure, and dyadic variables as decision-making predictors.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

[Ethical guidelines on genetic testing and gene therapy].

According to the recent and rapid advances in molecular genetics research, genetic testing and gene therapy have a potential of giving unexpected influence to the human beings. To prevent and to solve various ethical, legal and social implementations (ELSI) of genetic testing and gene therapy, several guidelines have been established. In Japan, all researchers and all clinicians have to know and keep the following three guidelines on genetic testing and a guideline on gene therapy: 1) "Guidelines for Researches on Human Genome and Gene (2001)" by the three Ministries (Education, Health and Economy), 2) "Guidelines for Genetic Testing (2001)" by the Genetic--medicine--related 10 societies, 3) "Ethical Principles on Entrusted Genetic Testing (2001)" by the Japan Registered Clinical Laboratories Association, and 4) "Guidelines for Clinical Research on Gene Therapy (2002)" by the two Ministries (Health and Education).

Bioethics↗

PubMed2002

Factors influencing intention to obtain a genetic test for colon cancer risk: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The availability of genetic testing for cancer risk has prompted an examination of the intention of the general public to undergo testing. This study expands a previous psychosocial model of factors influencing intention to undergo genetic testing for cancer in general to the context of colon cancer. METHODS: A sample of 1,836 adult residents of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine were interviewed via telephone. The survey instrument included measures derived from the Health Belief Model and additional psychosocial measures adapted from the literature. Structural Equation Modeling techniques were used to examine factors associated with the likelihood to undergo genetic testing. RESULTS: Perceived barriers and benefits of testing, and perceived susceptibility to colon cancer had direct associations with likelihood. Optimism and pessimism had both direct and indirect effects. Age, socioeconomic status, family history, and awareness of genetic testing had indirect effects, and acted through the other factors. The model explained 22% of the variance in likelihood. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived barriers, benefits, susceptibility, optimism, and pessimism directly influenced likelihood, and may also mediate the effect of background factors examined in this study. These findings suggest effective educational strategies to improve decision-making concerning genetic testing for colon cancer risk in the general population.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Individuals and families dealing with the possibility of hereditary cancer risk face numerous decisions, including whether to obtain genetic testing. The purpose of this article is to determine what is known about the rate at which people obtain cancer genetic testing. METHODS: Using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PSYCHINFO plus reviewing reference lists of relevant articles, we identified 40 studies in May 2002 that addressed breast cancer-related decisions, enrolled adult participants, were published in 1990 or more recently, were peer-reviewed primary clinical studies, addressed genetic testing either alone or in combination with genetic counseling, and reported rates at which participants showed interest in and/or underwent cancer genetic testing. Information regarding study design, participants, and genetic testing uptake rates was recorded. Each article was reviewed for methodologic quality using a flexible quality review system applicable to all study types. RESULTS: Of the 40 studies, 25 provided information about hypothetical genetic testing decisions, 14 about real decisions, and 1 about both. Mean hypothetical uptake was 66% (range, 20-96%) and real uptake was 59% (range, 25-96%). Multivariate logistic regression analyses found that decision type (real/hypothetical), personal and family history of breast cancer, and variability in sampling strategy, recruitment setting, and criteria for real and hypothetical uptake were independently associated with uptake. Our systematic review identified additional explanations for uptake variability (investigator influences, small sample sizes, variability in target populations, lack of clearly described sampling strategies, sampling methods open to bias, and variability in reporting associated risk factors). CONCLUSION: In addition to clinical characteristics, research methodologic issues are likely to be major determinants of variability in published breast cancer genetic testing uptake rates. An understanding of these issues will clarify to clinicians why their clinical experience may not be congruent with published rates and help guide future research.

Adult↗