Alvord Teala W, Marriott Lisa K, Nguyen Phuc T, Shafer Autumn, Brown Kim, Stoller Wesley, Volpi Jennifer L, Vandehey-Guerrero Jill, Ferrara Laura K, Blakesley Steven, Solomon Erin, Kuehl Hannah, Palma Amy J, Farris Paige E, Hamman Kelly J, Cotter Madisen, Shannon Jackilen
OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
BUILD EXITO Trainee, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA.
J Genet Couns. 2020 Apr;29(2):259-281. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1262. Epub 2020 Mar 27.
The potential for using widespread genetic testing to inform health care has become a viable option, particularly for heritable cancers. Yet, little is known about how to effectively communicate the benefits and risks of both personal genetic testing and participation in biorepositories that aid scientific advancements. Nationwide efforts are engaging communities in large genetic studies to better estimate the population-wide prevalence of heritable cancers but have been met with hesitance or declination to participate in some communities. To successfully engage an Oregon population in longitudinal research that includes predictive genetic testing for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with an increased risk for cancer, researchers conducted 35 focus groups (two of which were held in Spanish) in 24 of Oregon's 36 counties to better understand knowledge and attitudes related to genetic testing and willingness to participate in longitudinal genetic research. A total of 203 adults (mean = 45.6 years; range 18-88), representing a range of education levels and prior knowledge of genetic research, participated in the focus groups. The majority (85%) of participants reported personal or family diagnoses of cancer (e.g., self, family, friends). A majority (87%) also reported a strong interest in cancer genetic testing and receiving genetic information about themselves. Nearly all focus groups (94%, 33 of 35 sites) included participant discussion citing their families (e.g., children, close relatives, and extended family members) as key motivators for participation in genetic research. For example, participants reported interest in increasing personal knowledge about their own and their families' cancer risks in order to respond proactively, if a pathogenic variant was found. While most focus groups (94%, 33 of 35 sites) included participant discussion describing barriers to predictive genetic, testing such as concerns about outcomes, the desire to learn about health risks in oneself mitigated or outweighed those fears for many participants. Other commonly reported concerns were related to potential mistrust of insurance companies, researchers, or institutions, or lack of knowledge about genetics, genetic testing, or genetic research. Participants, particularly in rural areas, highlighted critical factors for research recruitment, such as trust, personal interaction, public education about genetic research, and clear communication about study goals and processes. Our statewide findings reflect that public interest in predictive cancer genetic testing and cancer genetic research can surpass lack of knowledge of the complex topics, particularly when benefits for self and family are emphasized and when study considerations are well articulated.
利用广泛的基因检测为医疗保健提供信息的可能性已成为一种可行的选择,尤其是对于遗传性癌症。然而,对于如何有效地传达个人基因检测以及参与有助于科学进步的生物样本库的益处和风险,人们知之甚少。全国范围内正在努力让社区参与大型基因研究,以更好地估计全人群中遗传性癌症的患病率,但在一些社区遭遇了犹豫或拒绝参与的情况。为了成功让俄勒冈州的人群参与一项纵向研究,该研究包括对与癌症风险增加相关的致病或可能致病变异进行预测性基因检测,研究人员在俄勒冈州36个县中的24个县开展了35个焦点小组(其中两个用西班牙语进行),以更好地了解与基因检测相关的知识和态度以及参与纵向基因研究的意愿。共有203名成年人(平均年龄 = 45.6岁;范围18 - 88岁)参与了焦点小组,他们代表了不同的教育水平以及对基因研究的先验知识。大多数(85%)参与者报告有个人或家族癌症诊断(如本人、家人、朋友)。大多数(87%)参与者还表示对癌症基因检测以及获取自己的基因信息有浓厚兴趣。几乎所有焦点小组(94%,35个小组中的33个)都有参与者讨论提到他们的家人(如孩子、近亲、远亲)是参与基因研究的关键动机。例如,参与者表示有兴趣增加对自己和家人癌症风险的个人了解,以便在发现致病变异时能积极应对。虽然大多数焦点小组(94%,35个小组中的33个)都有参与者讨论描述了预测性基因检测的障碍,如对检测结果的担忧,但对自身健康风险的了解愿望减轻或超过了许多参与者的这些恐惧。其他常见的担忧与对保险公司、研究人员或机构的潜在不信任,或对遗传学、基因检测或基因研究缺乏了解有关。参与者,尤其是农村地区的参与者,强调了研究招募的关键因素,如信任、人际互动、关于基因研究的公众教育以及对研究目标和流程的清晰沟通。我们在全州范围内的研究结果表明,公众对预测性癌症基因检测和癌症基因研究的兴趣可以超越对这些复杂主题的知识缺乏,特别是当强调对自身和家人有益以及清晰阐述研究考量时。