Outcomes from a Novel Approach to Studying Consumer Genetic Testing for Germline Cancer and Cardiovascular Risk.

IF 1.7 4区 生物学 Q3 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Madison K Kilbride, Daniel Chavez-Yenter, Bob Wong, J Scott Roberts, Jacqueline Park, Jason Iuliano, Angela R Bradbury
{"title":"Outcomes from a Novel Approach to Studying Consumer Genetic Testing for Germline Cancer and Cardiovascular Risk.","authors":"Madison K Kilbride, Daniel Chavez-Yenter, Bob Wong, J Scott Roberts, Jacqueline Park, Jason Iuliano, Angela R Bradbury","doi":"10.1002/ajmg.a.64169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the growing availability of consumer genetic testing for serious disease risks, outcomes data remain limited for individuals undergoing testing for high- and moderate-penetrance genes. To address this gap, we evaluated the feasibility of the Consumer Genetic Testing Outcomes Evaluation Paradigm (CGT-OEP), a novel approach for studying cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes in individuals pursuing physician-mediated genetic testing. We recruited participants to purchase Color Health's genetic test for cancer and cardiovascular disease risk. Participants completed Baseline (T0), Pre-Disclosure (T1), and Two-Week Post-Disclosure (T2) surveys and shared results with the study team. Of 185 consented participants, 105 (56.8%) purchased tests, with 103 (98.1%) completing all requirements. Purchasers were predominantly white (89%), female (73%), and college-educated (80%). Participants reported high satisfaction and minimal negative emotions, uncertainty, or decisional regret; most (n = 67, 65%) planned to share results with providers. Although genetic knowledge increased and anxiety decreased post-disclosure, many participants misinterpreted negative and VUS results as indicating lower-than-average risk for cancer (n = 41, 42%) and cardiovascular disease (n = 45, 46%). Our findings demonstrate that the CGT-OEP is a feasible, effective approach for studying consumer genetic testing. While participants reported positive experiences, findings highlight concerns about result comprehension and potential false reassurance, particularly for negative/VUS results.</p>","PeriodicalId":7507,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A","volume":" ","pages":"e64169"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.64169","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the growing availability of consumer genetic testing for serious disease risks, outcomes data remain limited for individuals undergoing testing for high- and moderate-penetrance genes. To address this gap, we evaluated the feasibility of the Consumer Genetic Testing Outcomes Evaluation Paradigm (CGT-OEP), a novel approach for studying cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes in individuals pursuing physician-mediated genetic testing. We recruited participants to purchase Color Health's genetic test for cancer and cardiovascular disease risk. Participants completed Baseline (T0), Pre-Disclosure (T1), and Two-Week Post-Disclosure (T2) surveys and shared results with the study team. Of 185 consented participants, 105 (56.8%) purchased tests, with 103 (98.1%) completing all requirements. Purchasers were predominantly white (89%), female (73%), and college-educated (80%). Participants reported high satisfaction and minimal negative emotions, uncertainty, or decisional regret; most (n = 67, 65%) planned to share results with providers. Although genetic knowledge increased and anxiety decreased post-disclosure, many participants misinterpreted negative and VUS results as indicating lower-than-average risk for cancer (n = 41, 42%) and cardiovascular disease (n = 45, 46%). Our findings demonstrate that the CGT-OEP is a feasible, effective approach for studying consumer genetic testing. While participants reported positive experiences, findings highlight concerns about result comprehension and potential false reassurance, particularly for negative/VUS results.

一种研究生殖系癌症和心血管风险的消费者基因检测新方法的结果。
尽管针对严重疾病风险的消费者基因检测越来越多,但对于接受高外显率和中等外显率基因检测的个人,结果数据仍然有限。为了解决这一差距,我们评估了消费者基因检测结果评估范式(CGT-OEP)的可行性,CGT-OEP是一种研究寻求医生介导的基因检测的个体认知、情感和行为结果的新方法。我们招募参与者购买Color Health的癌症和心血管疾病风险基因测试。参与者完成基线(T0)、披露前(T1)和披露后两周(T2)调查,并与研究团队分享结果。在185名同意的参与者中,105人(56.8%)购买了测试,103人(98.1%)完成了所有要求。购买者主要是白人(89%)、女性(73%)和受过大学教育的(80%)。参与者报告了高满意度和最小的负面情绪、不确定性或决策后悔;大多数(n = 67, 65%)计划与提供者分享结果。尽管遗传知识在披露后增加,焦虑减少,但许多参与者错误地将阴性和VUS结果解读为癌症(n = 41,42%)和心血管疾病(n = 45,46%)的风险低于平均水平。我们的研究结果表明,CGT-OEP是研究消费者基因检测的一种可行、有效的方法。虽然参与者报告了积极的经历,但研究结果强调了对结果理解和潜在的虚假保证的担忧,特别是对于负面/VUS结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
432
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Medical Genetics - Part A (AJMG) gives you continuous coverage of all biological and medical aspects of genetic disorders and birth defects, as well as in-depth documentation of phenotype analysis within the current context of genotype/phenotype correlations. In addition to Part A , AJMG also publishes two other parts: Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics , covering experimental and clinical investigations of the genetic mechanisms underlying neurologic and psychiatric disorders. Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics , guest-edited collections of thematic reviews of topical interest to the readership of AJMG .
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信