Discussing race-related limitations of genomic testing for colon cancer risk: implications for education and counseling.

This study examines communication about limitations of genomic results interpretation for colon cancer risk during education and counseling of minority participants. As part of a larger study conducted from 2010 to 2012, participants recruited from a large primary care clinic were offered testing for a research panel of 3 genomic markers (single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) for colorectal cancer risk. Genetic counselors conducted pre- and post-test sessions which included discussion of limitations of result interpretation due to the lack of racial/ethnic diversity in research populations from which risk data are derived. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed. Many participants did not respond directly to this limitation. Among the participants that responded directly to this race-related limitation, many responses were negative. However, a few participants connected the limited minority information about SNPs with the importance of their current research participation. Genetic counselor discussions of this limitation were biomedically focused with limited explanations for the lacking data. The communication process themes identified included: low immediacy (infrequent use of language directly involving a participant), verbal dominance (greater speaking ratio of the counselor to the patient) and wide variation in the degree of interactivity (or the amount of turn-taking during the discussion). Placed within the larger literature on patient-provider communication, these present results provide insight into the dynamics surrounding race-related educational content for genomic testing and other emerging technologies. Clinicians may be better able to engage patients in the use of new genomic technology by increasing their awareness of specific communication processes and patterns during education or counseling sessions.

Translational Genomic Research: Protocol Development and Initial Outcomes following SNP Testing for Colon Cancer Risk.

Although single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) testing for disease susceptibility is commercially available, translational studies are necessary to understand how to communicate genomic information and potential implications for public health. We explored attitudes about and initial responses to genomic testing for colon cancer risk. Following development of the educational materials, we offered testing for three colon cancer SNPs in a pilot study with primary care patients. Participants completed pre- and post-test sessions and interviews. We analyzed interview transcripts with qualitative software using thematic analysis. All 20 participants opted for SNP testing. Qualitative analysis identified several themes: Motivations for SNP Testing, Before/After: Meaning of Results, Emotional Responses to SNP Results and Genomic Literacy/ Information Delivery. Results demonstrate that individuals will pursue SNP testing in the context of pre and post-test education. SNP results may influence health behaviors like healthy eating and exercise yet did not appear to impact colon cancer screening intentions.

Behavioral and psychosocial responses to genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk.

We conducted a translational genomic pilot study to evaluate the impact of genomic information related to colorectal cancer (CRC) risk on psychosocial, behavioral and communication outcomes. In 47 primary care participants, 96% opted for testing of three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to CRC risk. Participants averaged 2.5 of 6 possible SNP risk alleles (10% lifetime risk). At 3-months, participants did not report significant increases in cancer worry/distress; over half reported physical activity and dietary changes. SNP risk scores were unrelated to behavior change at 3-months. Many participants (64%) shared their SNP results, including 28% who shared results with a physician. In this pilot, genomic risk education, including discussion of other risk factors, appeared to impact patients' health behaviors, regardless of the level of SNP risk. Future work can compare risk education with and without SNP results to evaluate if SNP information adds value to existing approaches.

"Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer.

Despite significant progress in genomics research over the past decade, we remain years away from the integration of genomics into routine clinical care. As an initial step toward the implementation of genomic-based medicine, we explored primary care patients' ideas about genomic testing for common complex diseases to help develop future patient education materials and interventions to communicate genomic risk information. We conducted a mixed-methods study with participants from a large primary care clinic. Within four focus groups, we used a semi-structured discussion guide and administered brief pre- and post- discussion quantitative surveys to assess participants' interest, attitudes, and preferences related to testing and receipt of test results. Prior to the discussion, moderators presented a plain-language explanation of DNA and genetics, defined "SNP", and highlighted what is known and unknown about the risks associated with testing for SNPs related to colorectal cancer risk. We used the NVIVO 8 software package to analyze the transcripts from the focus group discussions. The majority of participants (75 %) were "very" or "somewhat interested" in receiving information from a colon cancer SNP test, even after learning about and discussing the small and still clinically uncertain change in risk conferred by SNPs. Reported interest in testing was related to degree of risk conferred, personal risk factors, family history, possible implications for managing health /disease prevention and curiosity about genetic results. Most people (85 %) preferred that genetic information be delivered in person by a healthcare or genetics professional rather than through print materials or a computer. These findings suggest that patients may look to genetic counselors, physicians or other healthcare professionals as gatekeepers of predictive genomic risk information.