Cited by 26BRCA gene mutations in cancerPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Personalized Medicine Through SNP Testing for Breast Cancer Risk: Clinical Implementation

Howe, Rebecca, Miron‐Shatz, Talya, Hanoch, Yaniv, Omer, Zehra B., O'Donoghue, Cristina, Ozanne, Elissa M.·2015·Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have the potential to improve personalized medicine in breast cancer care. As new SNPs are discovered, further enhancing risk classification, SNP testing may serve to complement family history and phenotypic risk factors when assessed in a clinical setting. SNP analysis is particularly relevant to high-risk women who may seek out such information to guide their decision-making around risk-reduction. However, little is known about how high-risk women may respond to SNP testing with regard to clinical decision-making. We examined high-risk women's interest in SNP testing for breast cancer risk through an online survey of hypothetical testing scenarios. Women stated their preferences for sharing test results and selected the most likely follow-up action they would pursue in each of the test result scenarios (above average and below average risk for breast cancer). Four hundred seventy-eight women participated. Most women (89 %) did not know what a SNP was prior to the study. Once SNP testing was described, 75 % were interested in SNP testing. Participants stated an interest in lifestyle interventions for risk-reduction and wanted to discuss their testing results with their doctor or a genetic counselor. Women are interested in SNP testing and are prepared to make lifestyle changes based on testing results. Women's preference for discussing testing results with a healthcare provider aligns with the current trend towards SNP testing in a clinical setting.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10897-014-9803-7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. 10.1056/NEJMp1316367 · DOI
  2. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-1907 · DOI
  3. 10.1097/PPO.0b013e3182610e38 · DOI
  4. 10.1056/NEJMoa1011893 · DOI
  5. Bowen D., 1997, Importance of psychological variables in understanding risk perceptions and breast cancer screening of African American women, Women's Health (Hillsdale, N.J.), 3, 227
  6. 10.1038/bjc.2013.747 · DOI
  7. 10.1093/jnci/djr265 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s13187-010-0097-7 · DOI
  9. 10.1007/BF01807037 · DOI
  10. 10.1038/nature05887 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Edwards A. G., 2013, Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online), 2, CD001865
  12. 10.1177/0272989X07304449 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0576 · DOI
  14. 10.1159/000324703 · DOI
  15. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0825 · DOI
  16. 10.1001/archinte.165.5.523 · DOI
  17. 10.1089/gtmb.2011.0235 · DOI
  18. Hanoch Y. Miron‐Shatz T. Cole H. Himmelstein M. &Federman A.(2010).Choice numeracy and physicians‐in‐training performance: the case of Medicare Part D. Retrieved fromhttps://vpn.ucsf.edu/pubmed/ DanaInfo=www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+?term=Hanoch +Y. +Miron‐Shatz +T +Cole +H. +Himmelstein +M. +&+Federman +A.+D.+(2010).+Choice +numeracy++and+physicians‐in‐training+performance:+the+case+of+Medicare+Part+D.+Health+Psychology +29(4) +454‐459. · DOI
  19. 10.1038/ejhg.2011.224 · DOI
  20. 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182011636 · DOI
  21. Ingham S. L. Warwick J. Byers H. Lalloo F. Newman W. G. &Evans D. G. R.(2012).Is multiple SNP testing in BRCA2 and BRCA1 female carriers ready for use in clinical practice? Results from a large Genetic Centre in the UK.Clinical Genetics. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23050611 · DOI
  22. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-0038 · DOI
  23. Kaphingst K. A. McBride C. M. Wade C. Alford S. H. Reid R. Larson E. …Brody L. C.(2012).Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results.Genetics in Medicine : Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics.Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22481132 · DOI
  24. 10.1007/s10897-012-9483-0 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/jnci/djq388 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/ng.2563 · DOI
  27. 10.1007/s00439-011-1028-3 · DOI
  28. 10.1007/s10897-011-9390-9 · DOI
  29. 10.1007/s10897-012-9506-x · DOI
  30. 10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003 · DOI
  31. 10.1177/0272989X08327395 · DOI
  32. 10.1038/nature06915 · DOI
  33. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024184 · DOI
  34. 10.3322/caac.20128 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Howe, R., Miron‐Shatz, T., Hanoch, Y., Omer, Z. B., O'Donoghue, C., & Ozanne, E. M.
Affiliations
  • Quinnipiac University (US)
  • Ono Academic College (IL)
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Department of Surgery University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago IL USA
  • Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (US)
Corresponding author
Ozanne, Elissa M.
Venue
Journal of Genetic Counseling
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12-18
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
744-751
ISSN
  • 1059-7700 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3599
OpenAlex
W2057029250
Cited by
26
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Genetic Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Cancer Society
  • National Cancer Institute (CA-97-004, N01-PC-55049-40, CA-97-019)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
single nucleotide polymorphisms, breast cancer risk, genetic testing, personalized medicine, high-risk women, risk communication, lifestyle intervention, genetic counseling, clinical implementation, patient preferences
MeSH terms
Adult, Breast Neoplasms, Decision Making, Female, Genetic Testing, Humans, Middle Aged, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Precision Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review