Top

Published in:

01-12-2014 | Original Article

“It’s all very well reading the letters in the genome, but it’s a long way to being able to write”: Men’s interpretations of undergoing genetic profiling to determine future risk of prostate cancer

Authors: Elizabeth K. Bancroft, Elena Castro, Audrey Ardern-Jones, Clare Moynihan, Elizabeth Page, Natalie Taylor, Rosalind A. Eeles, Emma Rowley, Karen Cox

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 4/2014

Abstract

A family history of prostate cancer (PC) is one of the main risk factors for the disease. A number of common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that confer small but cumulatively substantial risks of PC have been identified, opening the possibility for the use of SNPs in PC risk stratification for targeted screening and prevention in the future. The objective of this study was to explore the psychosocial impact of receiving information about genetic risk of PC. The participants were men who had a family history of PC and were enrolled in a screening study providing research genetic profiling alongside screening for PC. A combination of questionnaires and in-depth interviews were used. Questionnaires were completed by men at two time points: both before and after joining the study and going through the genetic profiling process. The interviews were completed after all study process were complete and were analysed using a framework analysis. In total 95 men completed both questionnaires and 26 men were interviewed. A number of issues facing men at risk of PC were identified. The results fell into two main categories: personal relevance and societal relevance. The strength of men’s innate beliefs about their risk, shaped by genetic and environmental assumptions, outweigh the information provided by genetic testing. Men felt genetic profile results would have future use for accessing prostate screening, being aware of symptoms and in communicating with others. The findings reinforce the importance of providing contextual information alongside genetic profiling test results, and emphasises the importance of the counselling process in providing genetic risk information. This research raises some key issues to facilitate clinical practice and future research related to the use of genetic profiling to determine risk of PC and other diseases.

Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK, Iliadou A, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M, Pukkala E, Skytthe A, Hemminki K (2000) Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer: analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N Engl J Med 343(2):78–85PubMedCrossRef

Human Genomics Strategy Group (2012) Building on our inheritance: genomic technology in healthcare. The Department of Health. www.dh.gov.uk. Accessed 4 Oct 2012

Department of Health (2003) Our inheritance, our future: realising the potential of genetics in the NHS. Department of Health, London

Goh CL, Schumacher FR, Easton D, Muir K, Henderson B, Kote-Jarai Z, Eeles RA (2012) Genetic variants associated with predisposition to prostate cancer and potential clinical implications. J Int Med 271(4):353–365CrossRef

Witte JS (2008) Prostate cancer genomics: towards a new understanding. Nat Rev Genet 10(2):77–82PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Zheng SL, Sun J, Wiklund F, Smith S, Stattin P, Li G, Adami HO, Hsu FC, Zhu Y, Bälter K, Kader AK, Turner AR, Liu W, Bleecker ER, Meyers DA, Duggan D, Carpten JD, Chang BL, Isaacs WB, Xu J, Grönberg H (2007) Cumulative association of five genetic variants with prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 358:910–919CrossRef

Eeles R, Goh C, Castro E, Bancroft E, Guy M, Olama AA, Easton D, Kote-Jarai Z (2014) The genetic epidemiology of prostate cancer and its clinical implications. Nat Rev Urol 11(1):18–31PubMedCrossRef

Antoniou AC, Easton DF (2006) Models of genetic susceptibility to breast cancer. Oncogene 25(43):5898–5905PubMedCrossRef

Pharoah PD, Antoniou AC, Easton DF, Ponder BA (2008) Polygenes, risk prediction, and targeted prevention of breast cancer. N Eng J Med 358(26):2796–2803CrossRef

10.

Lango H, Weedon MN (2008) What will whole genome searches for susceptibility genes for common complex disease offer to clinical practice? J Intern Med 263(1):16–27PubMedCrossRef

11.

Lerman C, Shields AE (2004) Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: the promise and the pitfalls. Nat Rev Cancer 4(3):235–241PubMedCrossRef

12.

Eeles RA (2004) Future possibilities in the prevention of breast cancer: intervention strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res 2(4):283–290CrossRef

13.

Hallowell N, Foster C, Eeles R, Ardern-Jones A, Murday V, Watson M (2003) Balancing autonomy and responsibility: the ethics of generating and disclosing genetic information. J Med Ethics 29(2):74–79PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

14.

Lerman C, Croyle RT, Tercyak KP, Hamann H (2002) Genetic testing: psychological aspects and implications. J Consul Clin Psychol 70(3):784–797CrossRef

15.

Meiser B, Butow P, Friedlander M, Barratt A, Schnieden V, Watson M, Brown J, Tucker K (2002) Psychological impact of genetic testing in women from high-risk breast cancer families. Eur J Cancer 38(15):2025–2031PubMedCrossRef

16.

Davison C, Macintyre S, Smith GD (1994) The potential social impact of predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to common chronic diseases: a review and proposed research agenda. Sociol Health Illn 16(3):340–371PubMedCrossRef

17.

Hunter DJ, Khoury MJ, Drazen JM (2008) Letting the genome out of the bottle—‘will we get our wish? N Engl J Med 358(2):105–107PubMedCrossRef

18.

Pearson H (2008) Genetic testing for everyone. Nature 453(7195):570–571PubMedCrossRef

19.

Javitt GH, Hudson K (2007) The right prescription for personalized genetic medicine. Personal Med 4(2):115–118CrossRef

20.

Leighton JW, Valverde K, Bernhardt BA (2012) The general public’s understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomic 15(1):11–21CrossRef

21.

Burke Johnson R, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA (2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res 1:112–133CrossRef

22.

UKGPCS (2013) The UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study: www.icr.ac.uk/ukgpcs. Accessed 14 Jan 2013

23.

Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago

24.

Ritchie J, Lewis J (2003) Qualitative research practice. Sage, London

25.

Ritchie J, Spencer L (1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess G (eds) Analyzing qualitative data. Routledge, London, pp 173–194CrossRef

26.

Bryman A, Burgess RG (eds) (1996) Analysing qualitative data. Routledge, London

27.

Henneman L, Timmermans DR, Bouwman CM, Cornel MC, Meijers-Heijboer H (2011) A low risk is still a risk: exploring women’s attitudes towards genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in order to target disease prevention. Public Health Genomic 14(4–5):238–247CrossRef

28.

Graves KD, Peshkin BN, Luta G, Tuong W, Schwartz MD (2011) Interest in genetic testing for modest changes in breast cancer risk: implications for SNP testing. Public Health Genomics 14(3):178–189PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

29.

Kelly K, Leventhal H, Andrykowski M, Toppmeyer D, Much J, Dermody J, Marvin M, Baran J, Schwalb M (2005) Using the common sense model to understand perceived cancer risk in individuals testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Psycho-oncology 14:34–48PubMedCrossRef

30.

Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24(2):311–322PubMedCrossRef

31.

Eeles R, Goh C, Castro E, Bancroft E, Guy M, Al Olama AA, Easton D, Kote-Jarai Z (2014) The genetic epidemiology of prostate cancer and its clinical implications. Nat Rev Urol 11(1):18–31PubMedCrossRef

32.

Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, Isaacs C, Kvale PA, Reding DJ, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, O’Brien B, Ragard LR, Clapp JD, Rathmell JM, Riley TL, Hsing AW, Izmirlian G, Pinsky PF, Kramer BS, Miller AB, Gohagan JK, Prorok PC (2012) Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:125–132PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

33.

Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Lilja H, Zappa M, Denis LJ, Recker F, Páez A, Määttänen L, Bangma CH, Aus G, Carlsson S, Villers A, Rebillard X, van der Kwast T, Kujala PM, Blijenberg BG, Stenman UH, Huber A, Taari K, Hakama M, Moss SM, de Koning HJ, Auvinen A, ERSPC Investigators (2012) Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 366:981–990PubMedCrossRef

34.

Catalona WJ, Antenor JA, Roehl KA, Moul JW (2002) Screening for prostate cancer in high risk populations. J Urol 168:1980–1983PubMedCrossRef

35.

Mäkinen T, Tammela TL, Stenman UH, Määttänen L, Rannikko S, Aro J, Juusela H, Hakama M, Auvinen A (2002) Family history and prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen. J Clin Oncol 20:2658–2663PubMedCrossRef

36.

Valeri A, Cormier L, Moineau MP, Cancel-Tassin G, Azzouzi R, Doucet L, Baschet F, Cussenot I, L’Her J, Berthon P, Mangin P, Cussenot O, Morin JF, Fournier G (2002) Targeted screening for prostate cancer in high risk families: early onset is a significant risk factor for disease in first degree relatives. J Urol 168:483–487PubMedCrossRef

37.

Stewart A, Brice P, Burton H, Pharoah P, Sanderson S, Zimmern R (2007) Genetics, health care and public policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

38.

Pashayan N, Pharoah P (2011) Translating genomics into improved population screening: hype or hope? Hum Genet 130(1):19–21PubMedCrossRef

39.

Pashayan N, Duffy SW, Chowdhury S, Dent T, Burton H, Neal DE, Easton DF, Eeles R, Pharoah P (2011) Polygenic susceptibility to prostate and breast cancer: implications for personalised screening. Br J Cancer 104(10):1656–1663PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

40.

Shiloh S (2006) Illness representations, self-regulation, and genetic counseling: a theoretical review. J Genet Couns 15(5):325–337PubMedCrossRef

41.

Leventhal H, Benyamini Y, Brownlee S, Deifenbach M, Leventhal EA, Patrick-Miller L, Robitaille C (1997) Illness representation: theoretical foundations. In: Weinman J, Petrie K (eds) Perceptions of health and illness. Harwood, London, pp 155–188

42.

Courtenay WH (2000) Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: a theory of gender and health. Soc Sci Med 50(10):1385–1401PubMedCrossRef

43.

UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (2009) Genomic Medicine. London, UK. http://www.publications.parliament.uk Accessed 01 May 2013

44.

US Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society (2010) Draft Report on genetics education and training, Bethesda, MD. http://oba.od.nih.gov Accessed 02 May 2013

45.

Rogowski WH, Grosse SD, Khoury MJ (2009) Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet 10:489–495PubMedCrossRef

Title: “It’s all very well reading the letters in the genome, but it’s a long way to being able to write”: Men’s interpretations of undergoing genetic profiling to determine future risk of prostate cancer
Authors: Elizabeth K. Bancroft
Elena Castro
Audrey Ardern-Jones
Clare Moynihan
Elizabeth Page
Natalie Taylor
Rosalind A. Eeles
Emma Rowley
Karen Cox
Publication date: 01-12-2014
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Familial Cancer / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-014-9734-3

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

Distinct gene expression profiles in ovarian cancer linked to Lynch syndrome

A polymorphism at miRNA-122-binding site in the IL-1α 3′UTR is associated with risk of epithelial ovarian cancer

Association of interleukin-23 receptor gene polymorphisms with risk of bladder cancer in Chinese

The secondary bile acid, deoxycholate accelerates intestinal adenoma–adenocarcinoma sequence in Apc min/+ mice through enhancing Wnt signaling

High prevalence of mismatch repair deficiency in prostate cancers diagnosed in mismatch repair gene mutation carriers from the colon cancer family registry

Phenotype of SDHB mutation carriers in the Netherlands

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer