Access to personalized medicine: factors influencing the use and value of gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment.

UNLABELLED: Genomic information is increasingly being used to personalize health care. One example is gene expression profiling (gep) tests, which estimate recurrence risk to inform chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer. Recently, gep tests were publicly funded in Ontario. We explored the perceived utility of gep tests, focusing on the factors influencing their use and value in treatment decision-making by patients and oncologists. METHODS: We conducted interviews with oncologists (n = 14) and interviews and a focus group with early-stage breast cancer patients (n = 28) who underwent gep testing. Both groups were recruited through oncology clinics in Ontario. Data were analyzed using the content analysis and constant comparison techniques. RESULTS: Narratives from patients and oncologists provided insights into various factors facilitating and restricting access to gep. First, oncologists are positioned as gatekeepers of gep, providing access in medically appropriate cases. However, varying perceptions of appropriateness led to perceived inequities in access and negative impacts on the doctor-patient relationship. Second, media attention facilitated patient awareness of gep, but also complicated gatekeeping. Third, the dedicated administration attached to gep was burdensome and led to long waits for results and also to increased patient anxiety and delayed treatment. Collectively, because of barriers to access, those factors inadvertently heightened the perceived value of gep for patients relative to other prognostic indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Our study delineates the factors facilitating and restricting access to gep, and highlights the roles of media and organization of services in the perceived value and utilization of gep. The results identify a need for administrative changes and practice guidelines to support streamlined and standardized use of gep tests.

Patients' perceptions of gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Determining the likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer patients depends on estimating baseline recurrence risk. Gene expression profile (gep) testing of tumours informs risk prediction, but evidence of its clinical utility is limited. We explored patient perceptions of gep testing and the impact of those perceptions on chemotherapy decisions. METHODS: We conducted one focus group (n = 4) and individual interviews (n = 24) with patients who used gep testing, recruited through clinics at two hospitals in Ontario. Data were analyzed using content analysis and constant comparison techniques. RESULTS: Patients' understanding of gep testing was variable, and misapprehensions were common. Patients valued the test because it provided them with certainty amidst confusion, with options and a sense of empowerment, and with personalized, authoritative information. They commonly believed that the test was better and fundamentally different from other clinical tests, attributing to it unique power and truth-value. This kind of "magical thinking" was derived from an amplified perception of the test's validity and patients' need for reassurance about their treatment choices. Despite misperceptions or magical thinking, gep was widely considered to be the deciding factor in treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients tend to overestimate the truth-value of gep testing based on misperceptions of its validity. Our results identify a need to better support patient understanding of the test and its limitations. Findings illustrate the deep emotional investment patients make in gep test results and the impact of that investment on their treatment decisions.

Knowledge of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination act among individuals affected by Huntington disease.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 was the first US legislation to address genetic discrimination. We sought to assess understanding of GINA among individuals affected by the autosomal dominant condition, Huntington disease (HD). We conducted a cross-sectional survey of individuals with varying risk of HD to assess their familiarity with GINA. As a control, individuals were surveyed about their familiarity with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Those who reported familiarity with GINA were asked about their knowledge of specific provisions of the legislation. The survey was offered to 776 participants and completed by 410 (response rate 53%). Respondents across all groups were less familiar with GINA (41% slightly, somewhat, or very familiar) than with HIPAA (65%; p < 0.0001). Of individuals with or at risk for HD who reported some familiarity with GINA, less than half correctly identified GINA's protections, and less than 15% correctly identified its limitations. Thus, among individuals affected by HD, familiarity with and knowledge of GINA are low. The effectiveness of the legislation may be limited by this lack of knowledge.

Genetic discrimination: international perspectives.

Genetic discrimination (GD) is a complex, multifaceted ethical, psychosocial, and legal phenomenon. It is defined as the differential treatment of asymptomatic individuals or their relatives on the basis of their real or assumed genetic characteristics. This article presents an overview of GD within the contemporary international context. It describes the concept of GD and its contextual features, reviews research evidence regarding people's experiences of GD and the impact of GD within a range of domains, and provides an overview of legal and policy responses to GD that have emerged globally. We argue that GD is a significant and internationally established phenomenon that requires multilevel responses to ensure social justice and equitable outcomes for all citizens. Future research should monitor GD and its impacts within the community as well as institutions and should evaluate the effectiveness of legislative, policy, community education, and systemic responses.

Adoption and the communication of genetic risk: experiences in Huntington disease.

Adoption agencies can use genetic information to determine the eligibility of prospective adoptive parents and to establish a child's suitability for adoption. We describe experiences and implications of communicating genetic risk for Huntington disease (HD) in the context of adoption. A secondary analysis was employed using data collected from a cross-sectional survey (n = 233) and two qualitative studies on the psychosocial effects of predictive testing for HD. We demonstrate several ethical and practical challenges in the search for and communication of genetic information for adoptees and their birth relatives. We also found that concern for adoption discrimination was reported by 13.7% of survey respondents (n = 32). Concerns were higher among tested respondents than those who had not been tested (n = 29 vs n = 3, p = 0.010). However, more respondents were concerned about being discriminated based on their family history (FHx) vs their genetic test results (GTR) (concern based on FHx: n = 18 vs based on GTR: n = 1 vs based on both: n =10). These findings contribute to the limited empirical literature by offering evidence on the experiences and implications of communicating genetic risk information in the context of adoption with reference to HD.

Clinical obligations and public health programmes: healthcare provider reasoning about managing the incidental results of newborn screening.

BACKGROUND: Expanded newborn screening generates incidental results, notably carrier results. Yet newborn screening programmes typically restrict parental choice regarding receipt of this non-health serving genetic information. Healthcare providers play a key role in educating families or caring for screened infants and have strong beliefs about the management of incidental results. METHODS: To inform policy on disclosure of infant sickle cell disorder (SCD) carrier results, a mixed-methods study of healthcare providers was conducted in Ontario, Canada, to understand attitudes regarding result management using a cross-sectional survey (N = 1615) and semistructured interviews (N = 42). RESULTS: Agreement to reasons favouring disclosure of SCD carrier results was high (65.1%-92.7%) and to reasons opposing disclosure was low (4.1%-18.1%). Genetics professionals expressed less support for arguments favouring disclosure (35.3%-78.8%), and more agreement with arguments opposing disclosure (15.7%-51.9%). A slim majority of genetics professionals (51.9%) agreed that a reason to avoid disclosure was the importance of allowing the child to decide to receive results. Qualitatively, there was a perceived "duty" to disclose, that if the clinician possessed the information, the clinician could not withhold it. DISCUSSION: While a majority of respondents perceived a duty to disclose the incidental results of newborn screening, the policy implications of these attitudes are not obvious. In particular, policy must balance descriptive ethics (ie, what providers believe) and normative ethics (ie, what duty-based principles oblige), address dissenting opinion and consider the relevance of moral principles grounded in clinical obligations for public health initiatives.

Managing genetic discrimination: strategies used by individuals found to have the Huntington disease mutation.

The introduction of predictive testing for Huntington disease (HD) over 20 years ago has led to the advent of a new group of individuals found to have the HD mutation that are currently asymptomatic, yet destined in all likelihood to become affected at some point in the future. Genetic discrimination, a social risk associated with predictive testing, is the differential treatment of individuals based on genotypic difference rather than physical characteristics. While evidence for genetic discrimination exists, little is known about how individuals found to have the HD mutation cope with the potential for or experiences of genetic discrimination. The purpose of this study was to explore how individuals found to have the HD mutation manage the risk and experience of genetic discrimination. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 37 individuals who were found to have the HD mutation and analysed using grounded theory methods. The findings suggest four main strategies: "keeping low", minimizing, pre-empting and confronting genetic discrimination. Strategies varied depending on individuals' level of engagement with genetic discrimination and the nature of the experience (actual experience of genetic discrimination or concern for its potential). This exploratory framework may explain the variation in approaches and reactions to genetic discrimination among individuals living with an increased risk for HD and may offer insight for persons at risk for other late-onset genetic diseases to cope with genetic discrimination.