van der Schaar Jetske, van der Lee Sven J, Asscher Eva C A, Pijnenburg Yolande A L, de Geus Christa M, Bredenoord Annelien L, van der Flier Wiesje M, van den Hoven Mariette A, Smets Ellen M A, Visser Leonie N C
Section Genomics of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Aging, Department of Human Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alzheimers Dement. 2025 Apr;21(4):e70140. doi: 10.1002/alz.70140.
We explored patients' and families' interest in, predictors of, and considerations regarding genetic testing for monogenic causes of dementia in a diagnostic setting.
This mixed-methods study evaluated 519 consecutive Alzheimer Center Amsterdam patients for monogenic testing eligibility. Among those qualifying, differences between testers and non-testers were analyzed. Thirty-three patients completed questionnaires. Additionally, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with 15 patients and 18 relatives. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed inductively.
Of 138 (27%) eligible patients (46% female, age 61 ± 8 years, Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 22 ± 6), 75 (54%) underwent genetic testing. Testers had better cognition, higher quality of life, and more often undetermined diagnoses than non-testers (all p < 0.05). Decisions were guided by intuitive, value-driven judgments: testers sought to provide heredity information to relatives, enhance actionability, and reduce uncertainty, while non-testers worried about psychosocial impact on family, or unfavorable timing.
The substantial interest in genetic testing for monogenic causes of dementia underscores the need for further research into the implications of disclosing test results to memory clinic patients.
Half of memory clinic patients' who met eligibility criteria proceeded with genetic testing. Those tested were more likely to have an undetermined diagnosis, better cognition, and higher quality of life. Decisions were motivated less by deliberation of factual information, and more by quick, intuitive judgments. Motivations pro included providing information, enhancing actionability, and resolving uncertainty. Motivations con comprised concerns about the emotional burden and disruptive impact on their family.
我们在诊断环境中探讨了患者及其家属对单基因性痴呆病因基因检测的兴趣、预测因素及相关考虑因素。
这项混合方法研究评估了阿姆斯特丹阿尔茨海默病中心连续的519例患者是否符合单基因检测条件。在符合条件的患者中,分析了进行检测者与未进行检测者之间的差异。33例患者完成了问卷调查。此外,我们对15例患者和18名亲属进行了21次半结构化访谈。对逐字记录进行归纳分析。
在138例(27%)符合条件的患者中(46%为女性,年龄61±8岁,简易精神状态检查表[MMSE]评分为22±6),75例(54%)接受了基因检测。与未进行检测者相比,进行检测者认知功能更好、生活质量更高,且未确诊的比例更高(所有p<0.05)。决策由直观的、价值驱动的判断引导:进行检测者试图向亲属提供遗传信息、增强可操作性并减少不确定性,而未进行检测者则担心对家庭的心理社会影响或时机不利。
对单基因性痴呆病因基因检测的浓厚兴趣凸显了进一步研究向记忆门诊患者披露检测结果的影响的必要性。
符合条件的记忆门诊患者中有一半进行了基因检测。接受检测者更有可能未确诊、认知功能更好且生活质量更高。决策较少受事实信息的考虑驱动,更多受快速、直观的判断驱动。支持检测的动机包括提供信息、增强可操作性和解决不确定性。反对检测的动机包括担心情感负担及其对家庭的破坏性影响。