Sibel Saya, Jennifer G McIntosh, Ingrid M Winship, Mark Clendenning, Shakira Milton, Jasmeen Oberoi, James G Dowty, Daniel D Buchanan, Mark A Jenkins, Jon D Emery
{"title":"A Genomic Test for Colorectal Cancer Risk: Is This Acceptable and Feasible in Primary Care?","authors":"Sibel Saya, Jennifer G McIntosh, Ingrid M Winship, Mark Clendenning, Shakira Milton, Jasmeen Oberoi, James G Dowty, Daniel D Buchanan, Mark A Jenkins, Jon D Emery","doi":"10.1159/000508963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Genomic tests can predict risk and tailor screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). Primary care could be suitable for their widespread implementation.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of administering a CRC genomic test in primary care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants aged 45-74 years recruited from 4 Australian general practices were offered a genomic CRC risk test. Participants received brief verbal information about the test comprising 45 CRC-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms, before choosing whether to undertake the test. Personalized risks were given to testers. Uptake and knowledge of the genomic test, cancer-specific anxiety (Cancer Worry Scale), psychosocial impact (Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment [MICRA] score), and impact on CRC screening behaviour within 6 months were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 150 participants, test uptake was high (126, 84%), with 125 (83%) having good knowledge of the genomic test. Moderate risk participants were impacted more by the test (MICRA mean: 15.9) than average risk participants (mean: 9.5, difference in means: 6.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 11.2, p = 0.01), but all scores were low. Average risk participants' cancer-specific anxiety decreased (mean differences from baseline: 1 month -0.5, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.1, p = 0.03; 6 months -0.6, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.2, p = 0.01). We found limited evidence for genomic testers being more likely to complete the risk-appropriate CRC screening than non-testers (41 vs. 17%, odds ratio = 3.4, 95% CI: 0.6, 34.8, p = 0.19), but some mediators of screening behaviour were altered in genomic testers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Genomic testing for CRC risk in primary care is acceptable and likely feasible. Further development of the risk assessment intervention could strengthen the impact on screening behaviour.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":"23 3-4","pages":"110-121"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000508963","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000508963","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11
Abstract
Introduction: Genomic tests can predict risk and tailor screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). Primary care could be suitable for their widespread implementation.
Objective: We aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of administering a CRC genomic test in primary care.
Methods: Participants aged 45-74 years recruited from 4 Australian general practices were offered a genomic CRC risk test. Participants received brief verbal information about the test comprising 45 CRC-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms, before choosing whether to undertake the test. Personalized risks were given to testers. Uptake and knowledge of the genomic test, cancer-specific anxiety (Cancer Worry Scale), psychosocial impact (Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment [MICRA] score), and impact on CRC screening behaviour within 6 months were measured.
Results: In 150 participants, test uptake was high (126, 84%), with 125 (83%) having good knowledge of the genomic test. Moderate risk participants were impacted more by the test (MICRA mean: 15.9) than average risk participants (mean: 9.5, difference in means: 6.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 11.2, p = 0.01), but all scores were low. Average risk participants' cancer-specific anxiety decreased (mean differences from baseline: 1 month -0.5, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.1, p = 0.03; 6 months -0.6, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.2, p = 0.01). We found limited evidence for genomic testers being more likely to complete the risk-appropriate CRC screening than non-testers (41 vs. 17%, odds ratio = 3.4, 95% CI: 0.6, 34.8, p = 0.19), but some mediators of screening behaviour were altered in genomic testers.
Conclusions: Genomic testing for CRC risk in primary care is acceptable and likely feasible. Further development of the risk assessment intervention could strengthen the impact on screening behaviour.
期刊介绍:
''Public Health Genomics'' is the leading international journal focusing on the timely translation of genome-based knowledge and technologies into public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole. This peer-reviewed journal is a bimonthly forum featuring original papers, reviews, short communications, and policy statements. It is supplemented by topic-specific issues providing a comprehensive, holistic and ''all-inclusive'' picture of the chosen subject. Multidisciplinary in scope, it combines theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplines, notably public health, molecular and medical sciences, the humanities and social sciences. In so doing, it also takes into account rapid scientific advances from fields such as systems biology, microbiomics, epigenomics or information and communication technologies as well as the hight potential of ''big data'' for public health.