Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Familial Cancer
Published in: Familial Cancer 2/2018

Open Access 01-04-2018 | Original Article

Cancer patients’ intentions towards receiving unsolicited genetic information obtained using next-generation sequencing

Authors: Rhodé M. Bijlsma, Hester Wessels, Roel H. P. Wouters, Anne M. May, Margreet G. E. M. Ausems, Emile E. Voest, Annelien L. Bredenoord

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 2/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can be used to generate information about a patient’s tumour and personal genome. This powerful diagnostic tool provides solicited and unsolicited hereditary genetic (risk) information that could have consequences for cancer patients and their quality of life. A well-defined approach for returning appropriate genetic risk information is needed in personalized cancer care. A qualitative design with semi-structured interviews was used. We conducted interviews with 24 Dutch patients with different types of cancer, both NGS-experienced and NGS-inexperienced, to learn their intentions, needs and preferences towards receiving unsolicited genetic information obtained using NGS. Almost all participants had a positive attitude towards receiving unsolicited findings. After receiving comprehensive background information on NGS, including a binning model of four categories of unsolicited findings, most participants preferred to receive only subsets of genetic information. Their main concern was their own and others’ (including family members) ability to cope with (the increased risk of having) a genetic disorder. Providing background information gave cancer patients the opportunity to select subsets of findings and increased their ability to make an informed choice. Special attention is needed for social and emotional factors to support the patients themselves and when communicating test results with their family members.
Literature
1.
Bredenoord AL, Onland-Moret NC, van Delden JJ (2011) Feedback of individual genetic results to research patients: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum Mutat 32:861–867CrossRefPubMed
2.
Bredenoord AL, de Vries MC, van Delden JJ (2013) Next-generation sequencing: does the next generation still have a right to an open future? Nat Rev Genet 14:306CrossRefPubMed
3.
Bredenoord AL, Kroes HY, Cuppen E, Parker M, van Delden JJM (2011) Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet 27:41–47CrossRefPubMed
4.
Lolkema MP, Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk CG, Bredenoord AL et al (2013) Ethical, legal, and counseling challenges surrounding the return of genetic results in oncology. J Clin Oncol 31:1842–1848CrossRefPubMed
5.
Bredenoord AL, Bijlsma RM, van Delden JJM (2015) Always allow an opt out. Am J Bioethics 15:28–29CrossRef
6.
Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR et al (2010) Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 3:574–580CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Knoppers BM, Avard D, Senecal K, Zawati MH (2014) Return of whole-genome sequencing results in paediatric research: a statement of the P3G international paediatrics platform. Eur J Hum Genet 22:3–5CrossRefPubMed
8.
van El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P et al (2013) Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet 21(Suppl 1):S1–S5
9.
Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW et al (2013) ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 15:565–574CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Wright MF, Lewis KL, Fisher TC et al (2014) Preferences for results delivery from exome sequencing/genome sequencing. Genet Med 16:442–447CrossRefPubMed
11.
Facio FM, Eidem H, Fisher T et al (2013) Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study. Eur J Hum Genet 21:261–265CrossRefPubMed
12.
Bollinger JM, Scott J, Dvoskin R, Kaufman D (2012) Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet Med 14:451–457CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Shahmirzadi L, Chao EC, Palmaer E, Parra MC, Tang S, Gonzalez KD (2014) Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genet Med 16:395–399CrossRefPubMed
14.
Jelsig AAM, Qvist N, Brusgaard K, Ousager LB (2015) Research participants in NGS studies want to know about incidental findings. Eur J Hum Genet 23:1423–1426CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Hitch K, Joseph G, Guiltinan J, Kianmahd J, Youngblom J, Blanco A (2014) Lynch syndrome patients’ views of and preferences for return of results following whole exome sequencing. J Genet Couns 23:539–551CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Kaphingst KA, Ivanovich J, Biesecker BB et al (2016) Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age. Clin Genet 89:378–384CrossRefPubMed
17.
Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Bytautas JP et al (2014) Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late stage cancer care. Eur J Hum Genet 22:391–395CrossRefPubMed
18.
Mackley MP, Fletcher B, Parker M, Watkins H, Ormondroyd E (2017) Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Genet Med 19:283–293CrossRefPubMed
19.
Bijlsma RM, Bredenoord AL, Gadellaa-Hooijdonk CG et al (2016) Unsolicited findings of next-generation sequencing for tumor analysis within a Dutch consortium: clinical daily practice reconsidered. Eur J Hum Genet 24(10):1496–1500CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Biesecker LG, Mullikin JC, Facio FM et al (2009) The ClinSeq project: piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine. Genome Res 19:1665–1674CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Ajzen I (2002) Constructing a TpB questionnaire: conceptional and methodological considerations. Brief description of the Theory of Planned Behavior
22.
Strauss AL, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, London
23.
Malterud K (2001) Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 358:483–488CrossRefPubMed
24.
Guest G, Brunce A, Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18:59–82CrossRef
25.
Gray SW, Park ER, Najita J et al (2016) Oncologists’ and cancer patients’ views on whole-exome sequencing and incidental findings: results from the CanSeq study. Genet Med 18:1011–1019CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E et al (2016) Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet 24:21–29CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
Austoker J, Ong G (1994) Written information needs of women who are recalled for further investigation of breast screening: results of a multicenter study. J Med Screen 1:238–244CrossRefPubMed
29.
Hallowell N, Murton F (1998) The value of written summaries of genetic consultations. Patient Educ Couns 35:27–34CrossRefPubMed
30.
Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L et al (2011) How should we define health? BMJ 343:1–3CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cancer patients’ intentions towards receiving unsolicited genetic information obtained using next-generation sequencing
Authors
Rhodé M. Bijlsma
Hester Wessels
Roel H. P. Wouters
Anne M. May
Margreet G. E. M. Ausems
Emile E. Voest
Annelien L. Bredenoord
Publication date
01-04-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-017-0033-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Familial Cancer 2/2018 Go to the issue

Short Communication

Sporadic endometrial adenocarcinoma with MMR deficiency due to biallelic MSH2 somatic mutations

Original Article

Dental anomalies in pediatric patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

Review

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor in a patient with a TSC1 variant: case report and review of the literature

Original Article

Discovery of mutations in homologous recombination genes in African-American women with breast cancer

Short Communication

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a germline PTEN p.Arg234Gln mutation

Short Communication

Issues related to family history of cancer at the end of life: a palliative care providers’ survey
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
Image Credits