Nav: Home

Canadians' preferences for receiving incidental findings from genetic testing

March 09, 2015

Although many people value receiving information about incidental findings identified from genomic sequencing, not everyone wants to know about genetic conditions regardless of potential health implications, found a study of Canadian preferences in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).

An incidental finding refers to discovery of a genetic condition that may cause a disease, but the finding is unrelated to why genomic testing was initially ordered by the physician. For example, a test to determine if there is a genetic cause of a patient's colon cancer may find that the patient is at risk of other diseases unrelated to the diagnosis. For some diseases identified incidentally, treatment may not be available.

Advances in technology and research indicate that individual genomic sequencing will soon be available to help provide individual-specific health care, although there is debate over whether people should be informed about incidental findings.

A survey of 1200 people set out to understand Canadians' preferences for hearing about incidental findings discovered during genetic testing that indicate possible risks for other diseases.

"We found that most participants valued receiving news of incidental findings, but that personal utility depended on the type of findings uncovered, and that not all participants wanted to receive results, regardless of potential health implications," states Dr. Dean Regier, Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, BC Cancer Agency, and School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia.

People thought it useful to hear about diseases for which they were at risk (80%-90%) if there were lifestyle modifications or medical treatment available. If risk of diseases that had no treatment or those that had mild health effects were detected incidentally, the information was less useful to people and could negatively affect quality of life. However, preferences for receiving this information varied.

"We also found evidence of benefit related to offering participants a choice between receipt of incidental findings for both treatable and untreatable diseases or receipt of information about incidental findings for diseases with only medical intervention available."

The authors suggest that individuals should be offered an informed choice about the types of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing they prefer to be told about.
-end-


Canadian Medical Association Journal

Related Genetic Testing Articles:

New technique isolates placental cells for non-invasive genetic testing
A new technique for isolating cells carrying the full fetal genome from cervical swabs could enable doctors to diagnose genetic disorders without using needles to harvest cells from the placenta.
BRCA1/2 genetic testing recommendations still leave issues unresolved
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force offers new guidelines on BRCA1/2 genetic testing.
Does genetic testing pose psychosocial risks?
For the last quarter century, researchers have been asking whether genetic information might have negative psychosocial effects.
Genetic testing has a data problem; New software can help
As at-home genetic testing becomes more popular, companies are grappling with how to store all the accumulating data and how to process results quickly.
Genetic testing gives answers on developmental disorders during pregnancy
Genetic testing improves diagnoses of abnormalities in developing babies picked up during ultrasound scans, scientists report today in The Lancet.
More Genetic Testing News and Genetic Testing Current Events

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Rethinking Anger
Anger is universal and complex: it can be quiet, festering, justified, vengeful, and destructive. This hour, TED speakers explore the many sides of anger, why we need it, and who's allowed to feel it. Guests include psychologists Ryan Martin and Russell Kolts, writer Soraya Chemaly, former talk radio host Lisa Fritsch, and business professor Dan Moshavi.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#537 Science Journalism, Hold the Hype
Everyone's seen a piece of science getting over-exaggerated in the media. Most people would be quick to blame journalists and big media for getting in wrong. In many cases, you'd be right. But there's other sources of hype in science journalism. and one of them can be found in the humble, and little-known press release. We're talking with Chris Chambers about doing science about science journalism, and where the hype creeps in. Related links: The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial This...