ArticleBMC medical genomics2015
The impact of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing on perceived risk of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer: findings from the PGen study.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Article
- Test-takers' perspectives on consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Polygenic Scores in the Direct-to-Consumer Setting: Challenges and Opportunities for a New Era in Consumer Genetic Testing.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- May direct-to-consumer genetic testing have an impact on general practitioners' daily practice? a cross-sectional study of patients' intentions towards this approach.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Cascading After Peridiagnostic Cancer Genetic Testing: An Alternative to Population-Based Screening.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020Article
- What do people think about genetics? A systematic review.Journal of community genetics · 2019Review
- Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Consumer Perspectives on Access to Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Role of Demographic Factors and the Testing Experience.The Milbank quarterly · 2017Article
- Diet and exercise changes following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing.BMC medical genomics · 2017Article
- Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017Article
- An eMERGE Clinical Center at Partners Personalized Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2016Article
- Direct-to-Consumer Genomics: Harmful or Empowering?: It is important to stress that genetic risk is not the same as genetic destiny.Missouri medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDirect access to genomic information has the potential to transform cancer risk counseling. We measured the impact of direct-to-consumer genomic risk information on changes to perceived risk (ΔPR) of breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer among personal genomic testing (PGT) customers. We hypothesized that ΔPR would reflect directionality of risk estimates, attenuate with time, and be modified by participant characteristics.
methodsPathway Genomics and 23andMe customers were surveyed prior to receiving PGT results, and 2 weeks and 6 months post-results. For each cancer, PR was measured on a 5-point ordinal scale from "much lower than average" to "much higher than average." PGT results, based on genotyping of common genetic variants, were dichotomized as elevated or average risk. The relationship between risk estimate and ΔPR was evaluated with linear regression; generalized estimating equations modeled this relationship over time.
resultsWith the exception of lung cancer (for which ΔPR was positive regardless of result), elevated risk results were significantly associated with positive ΔPR, and average risk results with negative ΔPR (e.g., prostate cancer, 2 weeks: least squares-adjusted ΔPR = 0.77 for elevated risk versus -0.21 for average risk; p-valuedifference < 0.0001) among 1154 participants. Large changes were rare: for each cancer, <4 % of participants overall reported a ΔPR of ±3 or more units. Effect modification by age, cancer family history, and baseline interest was observed for breast, colorectal, and lung cancer, respectively. A pattern of decreasing impact on ΔPR over time was consistently observed, but this trend was significant only in the case of colorectal cancer.
conclusionsWe have quantified the effect on consumer risk perception of returning genetic-based cancer risk information directly to consumers without clinician mediation. Provided via PGT, this information has a measurable but modest effect on perceived cancer risk, and one that is in some cases modified by consumers' non-genetic risk context. Our observations of modest marginal effect sizes, infrequent extreme changes in perceived risk, and a pattern of diminishing impact with time, suggest that the ability of PGT to effect changes to cancer screening and prevention behaviors may be limited by relatively small changes to perceived risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.