Predicting interest in genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility: The British Columbia Family Cancer Survey Pilot

Background: Our objective was to explore interest in genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility among adults living in British Columbia, Canada.

Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 104 men and women between the ages of 40 and 59 years living in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were used to measure sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors that may influence interest in genetic counseling and testing.

Results: Interest in genetic counseling (56.5%) was slightly greater than interest in testing (52.2%). Interest in both was significantly higher among older respondents, particularly those older than 50 years of age. A desire to prevent cancer, a concern for personal health, and awareness of a family history of cancer (real or perceived) motivated interest in both services.

Conclusions: Understanding public attitudes and interest in genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility will help to predict demand in anticipation of expanding genetic services.


Results from this study suggest that interest in genetic testing may be lower than previous studies indicated.


Background

Genetic counseling and testing for recognized cancer-related gene mutations is offered in most provinces in Canada. It is believed that only a small proportion of eligible subjects currently seek susceptibility testing, and that the demand for services will exceed available resources as public interest intensifies.[1] North American and European studies have suggested that interest in genetic testing for specific gene mutations ranges from 26% to 95% among different risk groups.[2-12] However, few researchers have examined samples from the general population, or interest within the context of a publicly funded health care system. On the basis of these considerations, we sought to identify sociodemographic, psychosocial, and clinical factors in British Columbia that may influence the public’s intended use of genetic services for assessing cancer susceptibility.

Methods

A random sample of 104 adults age 40 to 59 years and resident in the Greater Vancouver Regional District was generated from the population-based BC Medical Services Plan client registry. The province’s universal medical plan provides coverage to all BC residents, thereby ensuring a representative sampling frame.

A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to subjects in the spring of 2001. The survey included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, family history of cancer, and attitudes toward genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility. Self-reported family histories of cancer were incomplete in many cases, particularly in terms of information on second-degree relatives.[13] No follow-up was possible with nonrespondents because of privacy restrictions.

Following criteria outlined by Durfy[14] and Gwyn,[15] all outcome variables were dichotomized as “definite interest” or “no interest/uncertain.” Descriptive statistics were used to explore characteristics of the study participants, as well as factors that influenced their desire for genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility. Logistic regression analyses were used to predict interest in genetic counseling and testing according to respondents’ sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Statistical testing was performed using maximum likelihood methods and significance was assessed using a 2-tailed test with 5% alpha.

Results

Twenty-three people responded to the survey, for an overall response rate of 22.1%. Survey respondents did not differ from nonrespondents according to age or place of residence, but a significantly greater proportion of women participated than men (χ2 = 4.88, P = 0.03). Characteristics of survey respondents are shown in the Table.

Over half the respondents were interested in obtaining genetic counseling (56.5%) or testing for cancer susceptibility (52.2%), while one-third were undecided about use of either of these services (30.4% and 34.8%, respectively). A small proportion of respondents were not at all interested in receiving either of these services (13.1% and 13.0%, respectively).

The primary influences cited for interest in both services included a desire to prevent cancer, concern for personal health, and awareness of a family history of cancer. No survey respondents indicated religious beliefs as an influencing factor, and very few were dissuaded by privacy and confidentiality concerns.

Older age was the only significant predictor of interest in genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility, particularly for subjects over 50 years. Respondents with a self-reported family history of cancer were more likely to show interest in genetic counseling and testing, although results did not reach statistical significance. Interest did not vary by gender, level of education, household income, or place of birth of the respondents.

Conclusions

Our pilot study was limited by a small sample size and low response rate, and it is possible that nonresponse bias occurred. While any effects should be interpreted with caution, our study provides preliminary evidence of the public’s intentions to undergo genetic counseling and testing, and points to areas for future investigation. We found that public interest in genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility may be lower than previously indicated from studies of high-risk populations.[5-7,9,16-19] The poor response to our survey itself may further indicate a lack of interest among the general public, which could translate to lower service utilization rates. However, the large proportion of our sample that was interested in both genetic counseling and testing suggests that similar factors, particularly perceptions of personal health, may influence the decision-making process.

Such information will become increasingly relevant as population-wide risk notification programs for general cancer susceptibility become available. Although no single genetic test exists to assess an individual’s cumulative risk of cancer, we believe that obtaining further data on a larger sample of the general population, including high-risk groups, will help to gauge potential demand for genetic counseling and testing services in anticipation of the expansion of these services.

Competing interests
None declared.

 

Table. Patient and clinical characteristics of study subjects according to interest in genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility.

  Study population
N (%)
Interest in genetic counseling
N (%)
Interest in genetic testing
N (%)
All subjects 23 (100.0) 13 (56.5) 12 (52.2)
Age 
40–49 years 
50–59 years
9 (39.1) 
14 (60.9)
3 (23.1) 
10 (76.9)
3 (25.0)
9 (75.0)
Gender 
Male 
Female
7 (30.4) 
16 (69.6)
4 (30.8) 
9 (69.2)
4 (33.3) 
8 (66.7)
Education level 
≤ High school 
> High school
12 (52.2) 
11 (47.8)
6 (46.2) 
7 (53.8)
7 (58.3) 
5 (41.7)
Household income 
< $60 000 
≥ $60 000
14 (66.7) 
7 (33.3)
9 (69.2) 
4 (30.8)
9 (75.0) 
3 (25.0)
Place of birth 
Canada
Other
14 (60.9) 
9 (39.1)
9 (69.2) 
4 (30.8)
8 (66.7) 
4 (33.3)
Cancer history 
No 
Yes
20 (87.0) 
3 (13.0)
11 (84.6) 
2 (15.4)
10 (83.3) 
2 (16.7)
Family history of cancer* 
No
Yes
15 (65.2) 
8 (34.8)
7 (53.8) 
6 (46.2)
6 (50.0) 
6 (50.0)

* Definition based on criteria adopted from BC Cancer Agency’s Hereditary Cancer Program.[13] Family history of cancer defined as breast, ovarian, or colon cancer in two close relatives, or in one close relative before age 50. Close relatives include parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.


References

1. Elwood JM. Public health aspects of breast cancer gene testing in Canada. Part 3: A model of potential need and demand. Chronic Dis Can 1999;20:21-25. PubMed Abstract
2. Applebaum-Shapiro SE, Peters JA, O’Connell JA, et al. Motivations and concerns of patients with access to genetic testing for hereditary pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:1610-1617. PubMed Abstract Full Text

3. Bluman LG, Rimer BK, Berry DA, et al. Attitudes, knowledge, and risk perceptions of women with breast and/or ovarian cancer considering testing for BRAC1 and BRAC2. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1040-1046. PubMed Abstract Full Text
4. Foster C, Evans DGR, Eeles R, et al. Predictive testing for BRAC1/2: Attributes, risk perception and management in a multi-centre clinical cohort. Br J Cancer 2002;86:1209-1216. PubMed Abstract

5. Glanz K, Grove J, Lerman C, et al. Correlates of intentions to obtain genetic counselling and colorectal cancer gene testing among at-risk relatives from three ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:329-336. PubMed Abstract

6. Lehmann LS, Weeks JC, Klar N, et al. A population-based study of Ashkenazi Jewish women’s attitudes toward genetic discrimination and BRAC1/2 testing. Genet Med 2002;4:346-352. PubMed Abstract Full Text
7. Lerman C, Seay J, Balshem A, et al. Interest in genetic testing among first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients. Am J Med Genet 1995;57:385-392. PubMed Abstract
8. Lerman C, Marshall J, Audrain J, et al. Genetic testing for colon cancer susceptibility: Anticipated reactions of patients and challenges to providers. Int J Cancer 1996;69:58-61. PubMed Abstract
9. Phillips K-A, Warner E, Meschino WS, et al. Perceptions of Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer patients on genetic testing for mutations in BRAC1 and BRAC2. Clin Genet 2000;57:376-383. PubMed Abstract Full Text
10. Press NA, Yasui Y, Reynolds S, et al. Women’s interest in genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility may be based on unrealistic expectations. Am J Med Genet 2001;99:99-110. PubMed Abstract Full Text
11. Weinrich S, Royal C, Pettaway CA, et al. Interest in genetic prostate cancer susceptibility testing among African American men. Cancer Nurs 2002;25:28-34. PubMed Abstract Full Text
12. Yumuk P, Gumus M, Ekenel M, et al. Attitude toward genetic testing for cancer risk in Istanbul. Genet Test 2004;8:169-173. PubMed Abstract Full Text
13. British Columbia Cancer Agency. Hereditary cancer program. www.bccancer.bc.ca/HPI/CancerManagementGuidelines/HereditaryCancerProgram/default.htm (accessed 27 February 2005).
14. Durfy SJ, Bowen DJ, McTiernan A, et al. Attitudes and interest in genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility in diverse groups of women in Western Washington. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:369-375. PubMed Abstract
15. Gwyn K, Vernon SW, Conoley PM. Intention to pursue genetic testing for breast cancer among women due for screening mammography. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:96-102. PubMed Abstract
16. Codori A, Petersen GM, Miglioretti DL, et al. Attitudes towards colon cancer gene testing: Factors predicting test uptake. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:345-351. PubMed Abstract
17. Lipkus IM, Iden D, Terrenoire J, et al. Relationships among breast cancer concern, risk perceptions, and interest in genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility among African-American women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:533-539. PubMed Abstract
18. Ramirez AG, Miller AR, Gonzalez-Vela M, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and interest in genetic testing among Hispanic family members of breast cancer patients and survivors. Presented at the AACR Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research, Boston, MA,14-18 October 2002.
19. Fraser L, Bramald S, Chapman C, et al. What motivates interest in attending a familial cancer genetics clinic? Fam Cancer 2003;2:159-168. PubMed Abstract Full Text

 


Amy C. MacArthur, MHSc, Chris D. Bajdik, PhD, John J. Spinelli, PhD, Charmaine Kim-Sing, MD, ChB, FRCPC, Richard P. Gallagher, MA, FACE

Ms MacArthur is an epidemiologist with the Cancer Control Research Program at the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Dr Bajdik is a clinical associate professor in the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology at the University of British Columbia and a senior scientist with the Cancer Control Research Program at the BCCA. Dr Spinelli is a senior scientist with the Cancer Control Research Program at the BCCA, a professor in the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology at UBC, and an adjunct professor in the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science at Simon Fraser University. Dr Kim-Sing is the director of the Hereditary Cancer Program at the BCCA and a clinical associate professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at UBC. Mr Gallagher is the head of the Cancer Control Research Program at the BCCA and a clinical professor in the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology at UBC.

Amy C. MacArthur, MHSc, Chris D. Bajdik, PhD,, John J. Spinelli, PhD,, Charmaine Kim-Sing, MD, ChB, FRCPC, Richard P. Gallagher, MA, FACE,. Predicting interest in genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility: The British Columbia Family Cancer Survey Pilot. BCMJ, Vol. 48, No. 5, June, 2006, Page(s) - Clinical Articles.



Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.

About the ICMJE and citation styles

The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.

An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.

BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:

  • Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
  • There is no period after the journal name.
  • Page numbers are not abbreviated.


For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org

BCMJ Guidelines for Authors

Leave a Reply