scholarly journals Personalized Genetic Testing and Norovirus Susceptibility

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 222-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Prystajecky ◽  
Fiona SL Brinkman ◽  
Brian Auk ◽  
Judith L Isaac-Renton ◽  
Patrick Tang
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Nonsense Mutation ◽  
Genetic Test ◽  
Present Report ◽  
Viral Pathogen ◽  
Genetic Traits ◽  
The Public ◽  
Direct To Consumer ◽  
Genetic Test Results ◽  
Novel Associations

BACKGROUND: The availability of direct-to-consumer personalized genetic testing has enabled the public to access and interpret their own genetic information. Various genetic traits can be determined including resistance to norovirus through a nonsense mutation (G428A) in theFUT2gene. Although this trait is believed to confer resistance to the most dominant norovirus genotype (GII.4), the spectrum of resistance to other norovirus strains is unknown. The present report describes a cluster of symptomatic norovirus GI.6 infection in a family identified to have norovirus resistance through personalized genetic testing.CASE PRESENTATION: In January 2013, four members of a family determined by a direct-to-consumer genetic test to be homozygous for the norovirus resistance trait (A/A genotype for single nucleotide polymorphism rs601338) developed symptoms consistent with acute viral gastroenteritis. Stool and vomitus samples were submitted for enteric viral pathogen testing. Samples were positive for norovirus GI.6 in three of the four cases.CONCLUSIONS: The present report is the first to describe norovirus GI.6 infection in patients with the G428A nonsense mutation inFUT2; this cluster of cases suggests that the G428A mutation inFUT2may not confer resistance to norovirus GI.6. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is empowering members of the public to identify novel associations with their genetic traits. Expert consultation is important for the interpretation of personalized genetic test results, and follow-up laboratory testing can confirm any potentially novel associations.

scholarly journals The Symptom Discounting Effect : What to Do When Negative Genetic Test Results Become Risk Factors for Alcohol Use Disorder

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
woo-kyoung ahn ◽  
Annalise Perricone
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Alcohol Use Disorder ◽  
Genetic Test ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Markov Condition ◽  
Problematic Drinking ◽  
Direct To Consumer ◽  
Genetic Test Results ◽  
Testing Company

Abstract Most consumers of genetic testing for health conditions test negative, yet the psychological perils of this are hardly known. In three experiments (N=2,103) participants discounted repercussions of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), after learning or imagining that they were not genetically predisposed to AUD. Such discounting can lead people to avoid treatment and to feel safe to continue or even increase their drinking, ironically turning the negative genetic feedback into a risk factor for AUD. This misconception derives from not understanding the Causal Markov condition as applied to this case; once AUD symptoms are present, their ramifications remain the same regardless of whether genes or environments caused the symptoms. Educating participants about this principle mitigated the irrational discounting of threats of AUD, even among Individuals already engaging in problematic drinking, for whom the debriefing currently used by a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company was found to be ineffective in the current study.

Prioritizing Attention over Privacy: Analysis of Face Image Posting Behavior in Online Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Forum (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongtai Liu ◽  
Zhijun Yin ◽  
Zhiyu Wan ◽  
Chao Yan ◽  
Weiyi Xia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Face Image ◽  
Online Forums ◽  
The Public ◽  
Image Sharing ◽  
Direct To Consumer ◽  
Face Images ◽  
Identity Disclosure ◽  
The Face

BACKGROUND As direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) services have grown in popularity, the public has increasingly relied upon online forums to discuss and share their test results. Initially, users did so under a pseudonym, but more recently, they have included face images when discussing DTC-GT results. When these images truthfully represent a user, they reveal the identity of the corresponding individual. Various studies have shown that sharing images in social media tends to elicit more replies. However, users who do this clearly forgo their privacy. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate the face image sharing behavior of DTC-GT users in an online environment and determine if there exists the association between face image sharing and the attention received from others. METHODS This study focused on r/23andme, a subreddit dedicated to discussing DTC-GT results and their implications. We applied natural language processing to infer the themes associated with posts that included a face image. We applied a regression analysis to learn the association between the attention that a post received, in terms of the number of comments and karma scores (defined as the number of upvotes minus the number of downvotes), and whether the post contains a face image. RESULTS We collected over 15,000 posts from the r/23andme subreddit published between 2012 and 2020. Face image posting began in late 2019 and grew rapidly, with over 800 individuals’ revealing their faces by early 2020. The topics in posts including a face were primarily about sharing or discussing ancestry composition, and sharing family reunion photos with relatives discovered via DTC-GT. On average, posts including a face received 60% (5/8) more comments than other posts, and these posts had karma scores 2.4 times higher than other posts. CONCLUSIONS DTC-GT consumers in the r/23andme subreddit are increasingly posting face images and testing reports on social platforms. The association between face image posting and a greater level of attention suggests that people are forgoing their privacy in exchange for attention from others. To mitigate the risk of face image posting, platforms, or at least subreddit organizers, should inform users about the consequence of such behavior for identity disclosure.

scholarly journals Cases in Precision Medicine: When Patients Present With Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Test Results

2019 ◽  
Vol 170 (9) ◽  
pp. 643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael G. Artin ◽  
Deborah Stiles ◽  
Krzysztof Kiryluk ◽  
Wendy K. Chung
Keyword(s):  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Genetic Test ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Direct To Consumer ◽  
Genetic Test Results

Randomized trial of web-based genetic education versus usual care in advanced cancer patients undergoing tumor genetic testing: Results from the ECOG-ACRIN NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP; EAQ152) COMET trial.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2008-2008
Author(s):  
Angela R. Bradbury ◽  
Ju-Whei Lee ◽  
Jill B Gaieski ◽  
Shuli Li ◽  
Ilana F Gareen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Genetic Test ◽  
Genetic Knowledge ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Genetic Test Results ◽  
Anxiety Depression ◽  
Web Intervention

2008 Background: Enthusiasm for precision oncology may obscure the complex psychosocial and ethical considerations for tumor genetic testing. Low patient genetic knowledge has been documented and heightens the risk for adverse experiences. We developed a web-based intervention to increase genetic knowledge and decrease distress among advanced cancer patients undergoing tumor genetic testing. Methods: 594 patients (80% from NCORP Community Sites) were recruited and randomized to web-intervention (n = 293) or usual care (n = 301), prior to receipt of tumor genetic test results. Primary outcomes were genetic knowledge, anxiety, depression, and cancer-specific distress measured at T0 (prior to intervention), T1 (post-intervention), T2 (after receipt of tumor results) and T3 (3 months post receipt of tumor results). Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, regret and disappointment. The effect of web-intervention was evaluated using t-test, multiple linear regression and logistic regression, with an intent-to-treat approach. Results: Patients randomized to web-intervention had better knowledge improvement than those randomized to usual care (T1-T0, p < 0.0001; T2-T0, p = 0.003). No difference was observed in change scores for anxiety, depression or cancer-specific distress. To find the moderators of intervention effect (including sex, age, education, and literacy) two 2-way interactions were noted with statistical significance: higher depression among those in the intervention arm versus the control arm for patients with lower literacy (p = 0.03); and lower cancer-specific distress among women in the intervention arm than with usual care but no such effect noted in men (p = 0.01). 71% of patients reported receiving tumor test results and this did not differ by arm. Only 20% of patients reported regret and disappointment at T2, which was more likely for those without a mutation of interest (MOI) detected vs those with a MOI detected (OR = 2.08, 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.83, p = 0.02). Conclusions: Web-based education prior to receipt of tumor genetic test results increases patient understanding of tumor genetic testing. While the intervention did not significantly reduce distress, results suggest that women who received the intervention had lower cancer-specific distress than those with usual care. Future refinements to the web-intervention are needed to address low literacy groups, men and patients with no actionable results. Clinical trial information: NCT02823652.

scholarly journals Case-finding and genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care

Heart ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. heartjnl-2021-319742
Author(s):  
Nadeem Qureshi ◽  
Ralph Kwame Akyea ◽  
Brittany Dutton ◽  
Steve E Humphries ◽  
Hasidah Abdul Hamid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Familial Hypercholesterolaemia ◽  
Genetic Test ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Case Finding ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Family History Questionnaire ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Genetic Test Results

ObjectiveFamilial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a common inherited disorder that remains mostly undetected in the general population. Through FH case-finding and direct access to genetic testing in primary care, this intervention study described the genetic and lipid profile of patients found at increased risk of FH and the outcomes in those with positive genetic test results.MethodsIn 14 Central England general practices, a novel case-finding tool (Familial Hypercholetserolaemia Case Ascertainment Tool, FAMCAT1) was applied to the electronic health records of 86 219 patients with cholesterol readings (44.5% of total practices’ population), identifying 3375 at increased risk of FH. Of these, a cohort of 336 consenting to completing Family History Questionnaire and detailed review of their clinical data, were offered FH genetic testing in primary care.ResultsGenetic testing was completed by 283 patients, newly identifying 16 with genetically confirmed FH and 10 with variants of unknown significance. All 26 (9%) were recommended for referral and 19 attended specialist assessment. In a further 153 (54%) patients, the test suggested polygenic hypercholesterolaemia who were managed in primary care. Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels were higher in those patients with FH-causing variants than those with other genetic test results (p=0.010 and p=0.002).ConclusionElectronic case-finding and genetic testing in primary care could improve identification of FH; and the better targeting of patients for specialist assessment. A significant proportion of patients identified at risk of FH are likely to have polygenic hypercholesterolaemia. There needs to be a clearer management plan for these individuals in primary care.Trial registration numberNCT03934320.

scholarly journals Genetic testing for Parkinson disease

2020 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000831
Author(s):  
Lola Cook ◽  
Jeanine Schulze ◽  
Catherine Kopil ◽  
Tara Hastings ◽  
Anna Naito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Parkinson Disease ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Genetic Test ◽  
Genomic Testing ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Genetic Test Results ◽  
Genetic Status ◽  
Genetic Landscape ◽  
Busy Clinician

Purpose of reviewWith the advent of precision medicine and demand for genomic testing information, we may question whether it is time to offer genetic testing to our patients with Parkinson disease (PD). This review updates the current genetic landscape of PD, describes what genetic testing may offer, provides strategies for evaluating whom to test, and provides resources for the busy clinician.Recent findingsPatients with PD and their relatives, in various settings, have expressed an interest in learning their PD genetic status; however, physicians may be hesitant to widely offer testing due to the perceived low clinical utility of PD genetic test results. The rise of clinical trials available for patients with gene-specific PD and emerging information on genotype-phenotype correlations are starting to shift this discussion about testing.SummaryBy learning more about the various genetic testing options for PD and utility of results for patients and their care, clinicians may become more comfortable with widespread PD genetic testing in the research and clinical setting.

The positive impact of implementing an onsite guideline-based genetic testing procedure for prostate cancer in a multidisciplinary uro-oncology clinic.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 234-234
Author(s):  
Siddharth Ramanathan ◽  
Sadhna Ramanathan ◽  
Andrew Korman ◽  
Samer Ballouz ◽  
Michael Ghilezan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Genetic Test ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Genetic Test Results ◽  
To Receive

234 Background: Prior to the guidelines set forth by the 2017 Philadelphia consensus conference, genetic testing for prostate cancer was conducted based on personal and family history of malignancies pursuant to NCCN recommendations. The 2017 guidelines expanded testing criteria to included age at diagnosis, metastatic disease, and tumor sequencing. In spite of these advancements, limited literature is available regarding successful implementation of a streamlined system for genetic testing in prostate cancer. This paper explores the benefits of implementing an on-site guideline-based genetic testing process for prostate cancer patients treated at a multi-disciplinary uro-oncology practice. Methods: Data was retrospectively reviewed for 561 prostate cancer patients seen in a multi-disciplinary uro-oncology clinic since January 2017. Prior to January, 1, 2019 genetic testing was recommended to patients based on NCCN guidelines, and swabs for testing were procured off-site less than 1 mile from the clinic (n=107). After January, 1, 2019 genetic testing was recommended based on the guidelines set forth by the Philadelphia consensus conference, and swabs for testing were procured at the clinic itself (n=454). Results: A statistically significant increase in compliance with genetic testing was observed after the implementation of an on-site, guideline-based testing process. Patient compliance with genetic testing increased from 33.6% to 96.5%. The time to receive the genetic test results (calculated as the time between referral for genetic testing and obtaining the test results) was also significantly improved from 38 days to 21 days. Conclusions: The implementation of an on-site, guideline-based genetic testing model for prostate cancer patients significantly improved compliance with genetic testing to 96.5% and decreased the time to receive genetic test results by 17 days. Overall, adopting a guide-line based model with on-site genetic testing has the potential to significantly improve the detection rate for pathogenic and actionable mutations, increase the utilization of targeted therapies, and increase cascade testing to include at-risk family members.

Integration of germline multigene panel testing into breast and gynecologic oncology clinics.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 164-164
Author(s):  
Mariella Tejada ◽  
June YiJuan Hou ◽  
Katherine D. Crew ◽  
Melissa Kate Accordino ◽  
Kevin Kalinsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Genetic Test ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Genetic Test Results

164 Background: Germline genetic testing plays an important role in informing cancer screening and risk-reducing strategies, as well as treatment decisions with PARP inhibitors for BRCA-associated malignancies. Referrals to clinical genetics for pre-test counseling and results disclosure can be delayed due to financial and logistical barriers, which may ultimately delay clinical decision-making. Our study objective was to understand patient attitudes, knowledge, and anxiety/distress with point-of-care (POC) genetic testing in breast and gynecologic oncology clinics. Methods: We enrolled patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant treatment, metastatic breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or endometrial cancer undergoing POC multigene panel testing with their primary oncologist, rather than a genetic counselor. Pre-test counseling came from discussion with their primary oncologist. Participants completed a survey at time of genetic testing and one after return of genetic test results. Validated measures of genetic testing knowledge, cancer-related distress, and attitudes towards genetic testing were included. Descriptive statistics were generated for all data collected and paired t-tests were conducted for baseline and follow-up comparisons. Results: We enrolled 106 subjects, of which 97 completed the baseline survey. All participants were female with a mean age of 61.5 years (SD 13.5). The cohort consisted of participants with the following tumor types: 80 breast, 2 ovarian, and 16 endometrial. Almost 44% of women identified as Hispanic/Latina, 55% had highest level of education of community/technical college or less, and 51.2% reported annual incomes of less than $50,000. Forty-seven percent of participants had adequate baseline genetic testing knowledge scores (defined as at least 50% correct responses). A majority of participants (86.6%) had positive attitudes toward undergoing genetic testing. Results of genetic testing revealed 11 participants (11.3%) with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (of which 36.3% were in BRCA1/2), 25 (25.8%) with variants of unknown significance (VUS), and 61 (62.9%) with benign or likely benign results. The mean cancer-related distress score (scale from 15 to 60, higher score indicates higher levels of distress) was 32.78 (SD 9.74) at baseline and 26.5 (SD 8.9) after receiving genetic testing results (p = 0.002). Genetic test results informed cancer treatment decisions regarding medications and surgery in 15% and 13% of patients, respectively, the majority of which were breast cancer patients. Conclusions: As genetic testing is more frequently used for clinical decision-making it is important to develop ways to efficiently integrate POC testing in the oncology clinics. We demonstrated that POC genetic testing for breast and gynecologic cancers is feasible and can inform clinical decision-making.

scholarly journals The General Public’s Understanding and Perception of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Test Results

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.W. Leighton ◽  
K. Valverde ◽  
B.A. Bernhardt
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Test ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Direct To Consumer ◽  
Genetic Test Results
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document