Marguerite E. Robinson

Incidental Findings in Imaging Research Evaluating Incidence, Benefit, and Burden

BACKGROUNDnLittle information exists concerning the frequency and medical significance of incidental findings (IFs) in imaging research.nnnMETHODSnMedical records of research participants undergoing a research imaging examination interpreted by a radiologist during January through March 2004 were reviewed, with 3-year clinical follow-up. An expert panel reviewed all IFs generating clinical action to determine medical benefit/burden on the basis of predefined criteria. The frequency of IFs that generated further clinical action was estimated by modality, body part, age, and sex, along with net medical benefit or burden.nnnRESULTSnOf 1426 research imaging examinations, 567 (39.8%) had at least 1 IF (1055 total). Risk of an IF increased significantly by age (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-1.7 per decade increase). Abdominopelvic computed tomography generated more IFs than other examinations (OR, 18.9 vs ultrasonography; 9.2% with subsequent clinical action), with computed tomography of the thorax and magnetic resonance imaging of the head next (OR, 11.9 and 5.9; 2.8% and 2.2% with action, respectively). Of the 567 examinations with an IF, 35 (6.2%) generated clinical action, resulting in clear medical benefit in 1.1% (6 of 567) and clear medical burden in 0.5% (3 of 567). Medical benefit/burden was usually unclear (26 of 567 [4.6%]).nnnCONCLUSIONSnFrequency of IFs in imaging research examinations varies significantly by imaging modality, body region, and age. Research imaging studies at high risk for generating IFs can be identified. Routine evaluation of research images by radiologists may result in identification of IFs in a high number of cases and subsequent clinical action to address them in a small but significant minority. Such clinical action can result in medical benefit to a small number of patients.

Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic.

OBJECTIVEnTo assess the impact of direct-to-consumer (DTC) predictive genomic risk information on perceived risk and worry in the context of routine clinical care.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnPatients attending a preventive medicine clinic between June 1 and December 18, 2009, were randomly assigned to receive either genomic risk information from a DTC product plus usual care (n=74) or usual care alone (n=76). At intervals of 1 week and 1 year after their clinic visit, participants completed surveys containing validated measures of risk perception and levels of worry associated with the 12 conditions assessed by the DTC product.nnnRESULTSnOf 345 patients approached, 150 (43%) agreed to participate, 64 (19%) refused, and 131 (38%) did not respond. Compared with those receiving usual care, participants who received genomic risk information initially rated their risk as higher for 4 conditions (abdominal aneurysm [P=.001], Graves disease [P=.04], obesity [P=.01], and osteoarthritis [P=.04]) and lower for one (prostate cancer [P=.02]). Although differences were not significant, they also reported higher levels of worry for 7 conditions and lower levels for 5 others. At 1 year, there were no significant differences between groups.nnnCONCLUSIONnPredictive genomic risk information modestly influences risk perception and worry. The extent and direction of this influence may depend on the condition being tested and its baseline prominence in preventive health care and may attenuate with time.

Preferences Regarding Return of Genomic Results to Relatives of Research Participants, Including after Participant Death: Empirical Results from a Cancer Biobank

Data are lacking with regard to participants perspectives on return of genetic research results to relatives, including after the participants death. This paper reports descriptive results from 3,630 survey respondents: 464 participants in a pancreatic cancer biobank, 1,439 family registry participants, and 1,727 healthy individuals. Our findings indicate that most participants would feel obligated to share their results with blood relatives while alive and would want results to be shared with relatives after their death.

Listening in on difficult conversations: an observational, multi-center investigation of real-time conversations in medical oncology

BackgroundThe quality of communication in medical care has been shown to influence health outcomes. Cancer patients, a highly diverse population, communicate with their clinical care team in diverse ways over the course of their care trajectory. Whether that communication happens and how effective it is may relate to a variety of factors including the type of cancer and the patient’s position on the cancer care continuum. Yet, many of the routine needs of cancer patients after initial cancer treatment are often not addressed adequately. Our goal is to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement in cancer communication by investigating real-time cancer consultations in a cross section of patient-clinician interactions at diverse study sites.Methods/designIn this paper we describe the rationale and approach for an ongoing observational study involving three institutions that will utilize quantitative and qualitative methods and employ a short-term longitudinal, prospective follow-up component to investigate decision-making, key topics, and clinician-patient-companion communication dynamics in clinical oncology.DiscussionThrough a comprehensive, real-time approach, we hope to provide the fundamental groundwork from which to promote improved patient-centered communication in cancer care.

Integrating Genetic Studies of Nicotine Addiction into Public Health Practice: Stakeholder Views on Challenges, Barriers and Opportunities

Objective: Will emerging genetic research strengthen tobacco control programs? In this empirical study, we interview stakeholders in tobacco control to illuminate debates about the role of genomics in public health. Methods: The authors performed open-ended interviews with 86 stakeholders from 5 areas of tobacco control: basic scientists, clinicians, tobacco prevention specialists, health payers, and pharmaceutical industry employees. Interviews were qualitatively analyzed using standard techniques. Results: The central tension is between the hope that an expanding genomic knowledge base will improve prevention and smoking cessation therapies and the fear that genetic research might siphon resources away from traditional and proven public health programs. While showing strong support for traditional public health approaches to tobacco control, stakeholders recognize weaknesses, specifically the difficulty of countering the powerful voice of the tobacco industry when mounting public campaigns and the problem of individuals who are resistant to treatment and continue smoking. Conclusions: In order for genetic research to be effectively translated into efforts to minimize the harm of smoking-related disease, the views of key stakeholders must be voiced and disagreements reconciled. Effective translation requires honest evaluation of both the strengths and limitations of genetic approaches.

Attitudes Toward Return of Genetic Research Results to Relatives, Including After Death: Comparison of Cancer Probands, Blood Relatives, and Spouse/Partners.

Genetic research generates results with implications for relatives. Recommendations addressing relatives’ access to a participant’s genetic research findings include eliciting participant preferences about access and choosing a representative to make decisions about access upon participant incapacity/death. Representatives are likely to be blood relatives or spouse/partners (who may share genetically related children). This raises the question of whether relatives hold similar attitudes about access or divergent attitudes that may yield conflict. We surveyed pancreatic cancer biobank participants (probands) and relatives in a family registry (blood relatives and spouse/partners of probands); 1,903 (>55%) surveys were returned. Results revealed few attitudinal differences between the groups. A slightly higher proportion of blood relatives agreed with statements reflecting proband privacy. In conclusion, probands’ decisions on access are likely to be accepted by relatives; in choosing a representative, probands may not face major differences in attitudes about privacy/sharing between a blood relative and a spouse/partner.