Cited by 139BRCA gene mutations in cancerCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Attitudes of Patients With Cancer About Personalized Medicine and Somatic Genetic Testing

Open access
Gray, Stacy W., Hicks-Courant, Katherine, Lathan, Christopher S., Garraway, Levi, Park, Elyse R., Weeks, Jane C.·2012·Journal of Oncology Practice

Abstract

PURPOSE: Dramatic advances in genomic technology stand to revolutionize cancer care; however, little is known about patients' understanding and acceptance of personalized medicine and widespread genetic testing (GT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a formative, semi-structured interview study with a random sample of patients with lung, colorectal, and breast cancers to assess awareness of personalized medicine and GT and attitudes about somatic GT. Willingness to undergo GT was elicited through hypothetic scenarios. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients participated; 71% were women; 42% were black; median age was 59 years; and 42% had an education level ≥ college. We found that a majority of patients either were not aware of the term "personalized medicine" or defined it in unexpected ways. Although many patients identified relevant benefits of somatic testing (eg, informs treatment), many patients also expressed significant concerns (ie, psychological harm and discrimination). A majority of patients expressed a willingness to undergo somatic (predictive, 96%, prognostic, 93%) and germline (cancer risk without incidental information, 87%; cancer risk with incidental information, 81%; pharmacogenetic, 91%) testing; however, far fewer patients expressed a willingness to undergo full genome sequencing (62%). Reluctance was attributed to concerns over incidental findings, information overload, and the lack of a clear benefit. CONCLUSION: Many patients relayed misunderstandings about somatic testing and a reluctance to undergo full sequencing; oncologists must carefully consider how they present testing to patients so that concerns over discrimination and psychological harm do not hinder test uptake. More work is needed to identify effective ways to communicate complex genomic concepts to patients and research participants.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jop.2012.000626

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gray, S. W., Hicks-Courant, K., Lathan, C. S., Garraway, L., Park, E. R., & Weeks, J. C.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
Journal of Oncology Practice
Published
2012-11
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
329-335
ISSN
  • 1554-7477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-469X
OpenAlex
W2100787935
Cited by
139
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10
FWCI
3.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Oncology Practice (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center
  • National Cancer Institute (R25CA092203)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
personalized medicine, patient attitudes, willingness to test, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, germline genetic testing, pharmacogenetic testing, incidental finding, genetic discrimination, psychological harm, full genome sequencing, patient education
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude to Health, Female, Genetic Testing, Humans, Male, Massachusetts, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Precision Medicine, Social Discrimination

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