Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtros adicionais

Intervalo de ano
Clin Genet ; 2018 Nov 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30417332


Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible.

J Natl Cancer Inst ; 110(9): 985-993, 2018 Sep 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29490071


Background: Germline genetic testing is standard practice in oncology. Outcomes of telephone disclosure of a wide range of cancer genetic test results, including multigene panel testing (MGPT) are unknown. Methods: Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone disclosure (TD) of genetic test results with usual care, in-person disclosure (IPD) after tiered-binned in-person pretest counseling. Primary noninferiority outcomes included change in knowledge, state anxiety, and general anxiety. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific distress, depression, uncertainty, satisfaction, and screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions. To declare noninferiority, we calculated the 98.3% one-sided confidence interval of the standardized effect; t tests were used for secondary subgroup analyses. Only noninferiority tests were one-sided, others were two-sided. Results: A total of 1178 patients enrolled in the study. Two hundred eight (17.7%) participants declined random assignment due to a preference for in-person disclosure; 473 participants were randomly assigned to TD and 497 to IPD; 291 (30.0%) had MGPT. TD was noninferior to IPD for general and state anxiety and all secondary outcomes immediately postdisclosure. TD did not meet the noninferiority threshold for knowledge in the primary analysis, but it did meet the threshold in the multiple imputation analysis. In secondary analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between arms in screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions, and no statistically significant differences in outcomes by arm among those who had MGPT. In subgroup analyses, patients with a positive result had statistically significantly greater decreases in general anxiety with telephone disclosure (TD -0.37 vs IPD +0.87, P = .02). Conclusions: Even in the era of multigene panel testing, these data suggest that telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is as an alternative to in-person disclosure for interested patients after in-person pretest counseling with a genetic counselor.

Gynecol Oncol ; 146(1): 123-128, 2017 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28495237


OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of multigene panel testing among Ashkenazi Jewish compared with non-Ashkenazi Jewish patients. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records for all patients who underwent multigene panel testing and targeted BRCA1/2 testing at a single institution between 6/2013-1/2015. Clinical actionability for identified pathogenic mutations was characterized based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and consensus statements and expert opinion for genes not addressed by these guidelines. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-four patients underwent multigene panel screening, including 138 Ashkenazi Jewish patients. The median patient age was fifty-two years. Three hundred and fifty-four patients (78%) had a personal history of cancer. Two hundred and fifty-one patients had breast cancer, 49, ovarian cancer, 26, uterine cancer and 20, colorectal cancer. We identified 62 mutations in 56 patients and 291 variants of uncertain significance in 196 patients. Among the 56 patients with mutations, 51 (91%) had actionable mutations. Twenty mutations were identified by multigene panels among Ashkenazi Jewish patients, 18 of which were in genes other than BRCA1/2. A review of targeted BRCA1/2 testing performed over the same study period included 103 patients and identified six mutations in BRCA1/2, all of which occurred in Ashkenazi Jewish patients. Among all Ashkenazi Jewish patients undergoing genetic testing, 25/183 (14%) had a mutation, 24/25 of which were actionable (96%) and 17/25 patients (68%) had mutations in non BRCA1/2 genes. CONCLUSIONS: With the rapid acceptance of multigene panels there is a pressing need to understand how this testing will affect patient management. While traditionally many Ashkenazi Jewish patients have undergone targeted BRCA1/2 testing, our data suggest consideration of multigene panels in this population as the majority of the results are clinically actionable and often in genes other than BRCA1/2.

Testes Genéticos/métodos , Judeus/genética , Família Multigênica , Mutação , Neoplasias/etnologia , Neoplasias/genética , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Saúde da Família , Feminino , Genes BRCA1 , Genes BRCA2 , Predisposição Genética para Doença , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev ; 24(8): 1222-8, 2015 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26014803


BACKGROUND: Little is known about genetic factors associated with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). To gain insight into NPC etiology, we performed whole exome sequencing on germline and tumor DNA from three closely related family members with NPC. METHODS: The family was ascertained through the Pediatric Familial Cancer Clinic at The University of Chicago (Chicago, IL). The diagnosis of NPC was confirmed pathologically for each individual. For each sample sequenced, 97.3% of the exome was covered at 5×, with an average depth of 44×. Candidate germline and somatic variants associated with NPC were identified and prioritized using a custom pipeline. RESULTS: We discovered 72 rare deleterious germline variants in 56 genes shared by all three individuals. Of these, only three are in previously identified NPC-associated genes, all of which are located within MLL3, a gene known to be somatically altered in NPC. One variant introduces an early stop codon in MLL3, which predicts complete loss-of-function. Tumor DNA analysis revealed somatic mutations and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) integration events; none, however, were shared among all three individuals. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that inherited mutations in MLL3 may have predisposed these three individuals from a single family to develop NPC, and may cooperate with individually acquired somatic mutations or EBV integration events in NPC etiology. IMPACT: Our finding is the first instance of a plausible candidate high penetrance inherited mutation predisposing to NPC.

Proteínas de Ligação a DNA/genética , Genômica/métodos , Neoplasias Nasofaríngeas/genética , Carcinoma , Mutação em Linhagem Germinativa , Humanos , Mutação , Carcinoma Nasofaríngeo
Genet Med ; 17(6): 485-92, 2015 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25297947


PURPOSE: Multiplex genetic testing, including both moderate- and high-penetrance genes for cancer susceptibility, is associated with greater uncertainty than traditional testing, presenting challenges to informed consent and genetic counseling. We sought to develop a new model for informed consent and genetic counseling for four ongoing studies. METHODS: Drawing from professional guidelines, literature, conceptual frameworks, and clinical experience, a multidisciplinary group developed a tiered-binned genetic counseling approach proposed to facilitate informed consent and improve outcomes of cancer susceptibility multiplex testing. RESULTS: In this model, tier 1 "indispensable" information is presented to all patients. More specific tier 2 information is provided to support variable informational needs among diverse patient populations. Clinically relevant information is "binned" into groups to minimize information overload, support informed decision making, and facilitate adaptive responses to testing. Seven essential elements of informed consent are provided to address the unique limitations, risks, and uncertainties of multiplex testing. CONCLUSION: A tiered-binned model for informed consent and genetic counseling has the potential to address the challenges of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility and to support informed decision making and adaptive responses to testing. Future prospective studies including patient-reported outcomes are needed to inform how to best incorporate multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility into clinical practice.Genet Med 17 6, 485-492.

Aconselhamento Genético , Predisposição Genética para Doença , Testes Genéticos/métodos , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido , Modelos Teóricos , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/genética , Testes Genéticos/ética , Humanos