Back

The Breast Cancer Genetic Testing Experience: Probing the Potential Utility of an Online Decision Aid in Risk Perception and Decision Making

Vaynrub, A.; Salazar, B.; Feng, Y. E.; West, H.; Michel, A.; Umakanth, S.; Crew, K.; Kukafka, R.

2024-09-14 health informatics
10.1101/2024.09.13.24313647 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDespite the role of pathogenic variants (PVs) in cancer predisposition genes conferring significantly increased risk of breast cancer (BC), uptake of genetic testing (GT) remains low, especially among ethnic minorities. Our prior study identified that a patient decision aid, RealRisks, improved patient-reported outcomes relative to standard educational materials. This study examined patients GT experience and its influence on subsequent actions. We also sought to identify areas for improvement in RealRisks that would expand its focus from improved GT decision-making to understanding results. MethodsWomen enrolled in the parent randomized controlled trial were recruited and interviewed. Demographic data was collected from surveys in the parent study. Interviews were conducted, transcribed, and coded to identify recurring themes. Descriptive statistics were generated to compare the interviewed subgroup to the original study cohort of 187 women. ResultsOf the 22 women interviewed, 11 (50%) had positive GT results, 2 (9.1%) with a BRCA1/2 PV, and 9 (40.9%) with variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Median age was 40.5 years and 15 (71.4%) identified as non-Hispanic. Twenty (90.9%) reported a family history of BC, and 2 (9.1%) reported a family history of BRCA1/2 PV. The emerging themes included a preference for structured communication of GT results and the need for more actionable knowledge to mitigate BC risk, especially among patients with VUS or negative results. Few patients reported lifestyle changes following the return of their results, although they did understand that their behaviors can impact their BC risk. ConclusionsPatients preferred a structured explanation of their GT results to facilitate a more personal testing experience. While most did not change lifestyle behaviors in response to their GT results, there was a consistent call for further guidance following the initial discussion of GT results. Empowering patients, especially those with negative or VUS results, with the knowledge and context to internalize the implications of their results and form accurate risk perception represents a powerful opportunity to mediate subsequent risk management strategies. Informed by this study, future work will expand RealRisks to foster an accurate perception of GT results and include decision support to navigate concrete next steps.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.0%
2
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.5%
4
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.7%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.7%
7
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
8
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
9
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.4%
11
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
12
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
13
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
14
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
15
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
16
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
17
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
18
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.8%
22
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
25
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
26
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
27
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
28
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
29
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
30
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%