Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Familial Cancer 4/2020

01-10-2020 | Breast Cancer | Original Article

Women’s responses and understanding of polygenic breast cancer risk information

Authors: T. Yanes, R. Kaur, B. Meiser, M. Scheepers-Joynt, S. McInerny, K. Barlow-Stewart, Y. Antill, L. Salmon, C. Smyth, P. A. James, M. A. Young

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 4/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

It is estimated that polygenic factors can explain up to 18% of familial breast cancer. Clinical implementation of polygenic testing has begun, with several commercial laboratories now testing. Despite commercial implementation, there is little research investigating how women respond and understand polygenic risk information. This study aimed to explore women’s experience receiving their personalised polygenic risk score (PRS) and compare responses of women at different levels of polygenic risk. Eligible participants were affected and unaffected women from families clinically assessed to be at high risk for breast cancer who had received their personalised PRS as part of the Variants in Practice Psychosocial Study (ViPPs). In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 women (mean age 53.4 years) up to four weeks after receiving their PRS. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Eleven women received a PRS that was in the top quartile of PRS distribution and 10 in the lowest quartile. Women’s lived experience with breast cancer informed how they responded to their PRS, constructed and made sense of breast cancer risk following receipt of their PRS, and integrated this new information into their breast cancer risk management. Regardless of polygenic risk level, all participants demonstrated broad knowledge of concepts related to polygenic information and were able to accurately describe the implications of their PRS. Receiving PRS did not appear to negatively impact women’s reported distress levels. Our findings suggest polygenic breast cancer information is well received and understood by women at high-risk for breast cancer.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bahcall O (2013) Common variation and heritability estimates for breast, ovarian and prostate cancers. Nat Genet 35:23–25 Bahcall O (2013) Common variation and heritability estimates for breast, ovarian and prostate cancers. Nat Genet 35:23–25
2.
3.
go back to reference Michailidou K et al (2015) Genome-wide association analysis of more than 120,000 individuals identifies 15 new susceptibility loci for breast cancer. Nat Genet 47(4):373–380PubMedPubMedCentral Michailidou K et al (2015) Genome-wide association analysis of more than 120,000 individuals identifies 15 new susceptibility loci for breast cancer. Nat Genet 47(4):373–380PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Mavaddat N et al (2015) Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants. J Natl Cancer Inst 107(5):036 Mavaddat N et al (2015) Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants. J Natl Cancer Inst 107(5):036
5.
go back to reference Sawyer S et al (2012) A role for common genomic variants in the assessment of familial breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(35):4330–4336PubMed Sawyer S et al (2012) A role for common genomic variants in the assessment of familial breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(35):4330–4336PubMed
6.
go back to reference Mavaddat N et al (2019) Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes. Am J Hum Genet 104(1):21–34PubMed Mavaddat N et al (2019) Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes. Am J Hum Genet 104(1):21–34PubMed
7.
go back to reference Black M et al (2018) Validation of a polygenic risk score for breast cancer in unaffected caucasian women referred for genetic testing. J Clin Oncol 36:1508 Black M et al (2018) Validation of a polygenic risk score for breast cancer in unaffected caucasian women referred for genetic testing. J Clin Oncol 36:1508
8.
go back to reference Hughes E et al (2017) Development and validation of a residual risk score to predict breast cancer risk in unaffected women negative for mutations on a multi-gene hereditary cancer panel. J Clin Oncol 35:1579–1579 Hughes E et al (2017) Development and validation of a residual risk score to predict breast cancer risk in unaffected women negative for mutations on a multi-gene hereditary cancer panel. J Clin Oncol 35:1579–1579
9.
go back to reference Young MA et al (2018) Making sense of SNPs: women's understanding and experiences of receiving a personalized profile of their breast cancer risks. J Genet Counsel 27(3):702–708 Young MA et al (2018) Making sense of SNPs: women's understanding and experiences of receiving a personalized profile of their breast cancer risks. J Genet Counsel 27(3):702–708
10.
go back to reference Forrest LE et al (2018) High-risk women’s risk perception after receiving personalized polygenic breast cancer risk information. J Community Genet 10:197–208PubMedPubMedCentral Forrest LE et al (2018) High-risk women’s risk perception after receiving personalized polygenic breast cancer risk information. J Community Genet 10:197–208PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Bancroft EK et al (2015) The psychological impact of undergoing genetic-risk profiling in men with a family history of prostate cancer. Psychooncology 24(11):1492–1499PubMed Bancroft EK et al (2015) The psychological impact of undergoing genetic-risk profiling in men with a family history of prostate cancer. Psychooncology 24(11):1492–1499PubMed
12.
go back to reference Bancroft EK et al (2014) 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. Fam Cancer 13(4):625–635PubMed Bancroft EK et al (2014) 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. Fam Cancer 13(4):625–635PubMed
14.
go back to reference Yanes T et al (2017) Psychosocial and behavioral impact of breast cancer risk assessed by testing for common risk variants: protocol of a prospective study. BMC Cancer 17(1):491PubMedPubMedCentral Yanes T et al (2017) Psychosocial and behavioral impact of breast cancer risk assessed by testing for common risk variants: protocol of a prospective study. BMC Cancer 17(1):491PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Yanes T et al (2020) Uptake of polygenic risk information among women at increased risk of breast cancer. Clin Genet 97(3):492–501PubMed Yanes T et al (2020) Uptake of polygenic risk information among women at increased risk of breast cancer. Clin Genet 97(3):492–501PubMed
16.
go back to reference Kaur R et al (2018) Development and pilot testing of a leaflet informing women with breast cancer about genomic testing for polygenic risk. Fam Cancer 18:147–152 Kaur R et al (2018) Development and pilot testing of a leaflet informing women with breast cancer about genomic testing for polygenic risk. Fam Cancer 18:147–152
17.
go back to reference Liamputtong P (2013) (2013) Qualitative research methods, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne Liamputtong P (2013) (2013) Qualitative research methods, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne
18.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77–101 Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77–101
19.
go back to reference Nvivo Qualitative data analysis software. 2016, QSR International Pty Ltd. Nvivo Qualitative data analysis software. 2016, QSR International Pty Ltd.
20.
go back to reference Smit AK et al (2015) Exploring the potential emotional and behavioural impact of providing personalised genomic risk information to the public: a focus group study. Public Health Genom 18(5):309–317 Smit AK et al (2015) Exploring the potential emotional and behavioural impact of providing personalised genomic risk information to the public: a focus group study. Public Health Genom 18(5):309–317
21.
go back to reference Leventhal K-G et al (2013) “Is it really worth it to get tested?”: primary care patients’ impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer. J Genet Counsel 22(1):138–151 Leventhal K-G et al (2013) “Is it really worth it to get tested?”: primary care patients’ impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer. J Genet Counsel 22(1):138–151
22.
go back to reference Cox DG et al (2018) Transmission of breast cancer polygenic risk based on single nucleotide polymorphisms. Breast 41:14–18PubMed Cox DG et al (2018) Transmission of breast cancer polygenic risk based on single nucleotide polymorphisms. Breast 41:14–18PubMed
23.
go back to reference Lakeman IMM et al (2019) Addition of a 161-SNP polygenic risk score to family history-based risk prediction: impact on clinical management in non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families. J Med Genet 56:581–589PubMed Lakeman IMM et al (2019) Addition of a 161-SNP polygenic risk score to family history-based risk prediction: impact on clinical management in non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families. J Med Genet 56:581–589PubMed
24.
go back to reference Lee A et al (2019) BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction modelincorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genetics in Medicine 21(8):1708–1718PubMedPubMedCentral Lee A et al (2019) BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction modelincorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genetics in Medicine 21(8):1708–1718PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Hesse-Biber S (2014) The genetic testing experience of BRCA-positive women: deciding between surveillance and surgery. Qual Health Res 24(6):773–789PubMed Hesse-Biber S (2014) The genetic testing experience of BRCA-positive women: deciding between surveillance and surgery. Qual Health Res 24(6):773–789PubMed
26.
go back to reference McAllister M (2003) Personal theories of inheritance, coping strategies, risk perception and engagement in hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer families offered genetic testing. Clin Genet 64(3):179–189PubMed McAllister M (2003) Personal theories of inheritance, coping strategies, risk perception and engagement in hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer families offered genetic testing. Clin Genet 64(3):179–189PubMed
27.
go back to reference Nusbaum R et al (2013) Translational genomic research: Protocol development and initial outcomes following SNP testing for colon cancer risk. Transl Behav Med 3(1):17–29PubMed Nusbaum R et al (2013) Translational genomic research: Protocol development and initial outcomes following SNP testing for colon cancer risk. Transl Behav Med 3(1):17–29PubMed
28.
go back to reference d'Agincourt-Canning L (2005) The effect of experiential knowledge on construction of risk perception in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 14(1):55–69PubMed d'Agincourt-Canning L (2005) The effect of experiential knowledge on construction of risk perception in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 14(1):55–69PubMed
29.
go back to reference Meisel SF et al (2015) Adjusting the frequency of mammography screening on the basis of genetic risk: attitudes among women in the UK. Breast 24(3):237–241PubMedPubMedCentral Meisel SF et al (2015) Adjusting the frequency of mammography screening on the basis of genetic risk: attitudes among women in the UK. Breast 24(3):237–241PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Henneman L et al (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 Genom 14(4–5):238–247 Henneman L et al (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 Genom 14(4–5):238–247
31.
go back to reference Yanes T et al (2019) Uptake of polygenic risk information among women at increased risk of breast cancer. Clin Genet 97:492–501PubMed Yanes T et al (2019) Uptake of polygenic risk information among women at increased risk of breast cancer. Clin Genet 97:492–501PubMed
32.
go back to reference Armstrong K et al (2003) Early adoption of BRCA1/2 testing: who and why. Genet Med 5(2):92–98PubMed Armstrong K et al (2003) Early adoption of BRCA1/2 testing: who and why. Genet Med 5(2):92–98PubMed
33.
go back to reference Facio FM et al (2011) Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. Eur J Hum Genet 19(12):1213–1217PubMedPubMedCentral Facio FM et al (2011) Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. Eur J Hum Genet 19(12):1213–1217PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
go back to reference Yanes T et al (2020) Clinical applications of polygenic breast cancer risk: a critical review and perspectives of an emerging field. Breast Cancer Res 22(1):21PubMedPubMedCentral Yanes T et al (2020) Clinical applications of polygenic breast cancer risk: a critical review and perspectives of an emerging field. Breast Cancer Res 22(1):21PubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Shieh Y et al (2017) Breast cancer screening in the precision medicine era: risk-based screening in a population-based trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 109(5):290 Shieh Y et al (2017) Breast cancer screening in the precision medicine era: risk-based screening in a population-based trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 109(5):290
36.
go back to reference Esserman LJ et al (2017) The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate. NPJ Breast Cancer 3(1):34PubMedPubMedCentral Esserman LJ et al (2017) The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate. NPJ Breast Cancer 3(1):34PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Women’s responses and understanding of polygenic breast cancer risk information
Authors
T. Yanes
R. Kaur
B. Meiser
M. Scheepers-Joynt
S. McInerny
K. Barlow-Stewart
Y. Antill
L. Salmon
C. Smyth
P. A. James
M. A. Young
Publication date
01-10-2020
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-020-00185-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

Familial Cancer 4/2020 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

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