Was it worth it? Patients’ perspectives on the perceived value of genomic-based individualized medicine
The value of genomic sequencing is often understood in terms of its ability to affect diagnosis or treatment. In these terms, successes occur only in a minority of cases. This paper presents views from patients who had exome sequencing done clinically to explore how they perceive the utility of genomic medicine. The authors used semi-structured, qualitative interviews in order to study patients’ attitudes toward genomic sequencing in oncology and rare-disease settings. Participants from 37 cases were interviewed. In terms of the testing’s key values—regardless of having received what clinicians described as meaningful results—participants expressed four qualities that are separate from traditional views of clinical utility: Participants felt they had been empowered over their own health. They felt they had contributed altruistically to the progress of genomic technology in medicine. They felt their suffering had been legitimated. They also felt a sense of closure, having done everything they could. Patients expressed overwhelmingly positive attitudes toward sequencing. Their rationale was not solely based on the results’ clinical utility. It is important for clinicians to understand this non-medical reasoning as it pertains to patient decision-making and informed consent.
KeywordsGenomic sequencing Precision medicine Patient views Clinical utility
We thank the study participants for their time and contribution. The authors also thank Kiley J Johnson, Kimberly Guthrie, and Kimberly Schahl for facilitating access to patients. This study was supported by the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine. JBMc’s effort was funded in part by CTSA Grant Number TL1TR000137 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS)/National Institutes of Health (NIH). CME Halverson was funded by a generous grant from the Wenner-Gren Foundation and by the Hanna Holborn Gray Mellon Fellowship.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Human and animal rights and informed consent
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). All participants provided informed consent for being included in the study.
- Bennette CS, Trinidad SB, Fullerton S, Patrick D, Amendola L, Burke W, Hisama F, Jarvik G, Regier D, Veenstra D (2013) Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value—development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT). Genet Med 15:873–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beskow Laura M, Wylie B (2010) “Offering individual genetic research results: context matters.”. Sci Transl Med 2(38):38c20Google Scholar
- Botkin Jeffrey R, Steven Teutsch M, Celia Kaye I, Maxine H, James Haddow E, Linda Bradley A, Kathleen Szegda W, David D, EGAPP Working Group (2010) Outcomes of interest in evidence-based evaluations of genetic tests. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med Genet 12(4):228–35. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181cdde04 Google Scholar
- Bunnik, Eline M., A. Cecile J. W. Janssens, and Maartje H. N. Schermer. 2014. “Personal utility in genomic testing: is there such a thing?” Journal of Medical Ethics, May, medethics – 2013–101887. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101887Google Scholar
- Clift, Kristin E., Colin M. E. Halverson, Alexander S. Fiksdal, Ashok Kumbamu, Richard R. Sharp, and Jennifer B. McCormick. 2015. “Patients’ views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing.” Applied & Translational Genomics 4 (March): 38–43. doi:10.1016/j.atg.2015.02.005Google Scholar
- Conti R, Veenstra DL, Armstrong K, Lesko LJ, Grosse SD (2010) Personalized medicine and genomics: challenges and opportunities in assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and future research priorities. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak 30(3):328–40. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09347014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Corbin J, Strauss A (2007) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Inc., Los Angeles, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- Davies CA (2007) Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- De Ligt, Joep, Marjolein H. Willemsen, Bregje W.M. van Bon, Tjitske Kleefstra, Helger G. Yntema, Thessa Kroes, Anneke T. Vulto-van Silfhout, et al. 2012. “Diagnostic exome sequencing in persons with severe intellectual disability.” New England Journal of Medicine 367 (20): 1921–29. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1206524Google Scholar
- Graves KD, Sinicrope PS, McCormick JB, Zhou Y, Vadaparampil ST, Lindor NM (2015) Public perceptions of disease severity but not actionability correlate with interest in receiving genomic results: nonalignment with current trends in practice. Public Health Genomics 18(3):173–83. doi: 10.1159/000375479 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grosse, Scott D., and Muin J. Khoury. 2006. “What is the clinical utility of genetic testing?” Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 8 (7): 448–50. doi:10.109701.gim.0000227935.26763.c6Google Scholar
- Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS, Brothers K, Clayton EW, Chung W, Barbara Evans J et al (2014) Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet 94(6):818–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.04.009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Kleinman A (1988) The illness narratives: suffering, healing & the human condition. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Middleton, Anna, Caroline F. Wright, Katherine I. Morley, Eugene Bragin, Helen V. Firth, Matthew E. Hurles, and Michael Parker. 2015. “Potential research participants support the return of raw sequence data.” Journal of Medical Genetics, May, jmedgenet – 2015–103119. doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103119Google Scholar
- Sanderson SC, Diefenbach MA, Zinberg R, Horowitz CR, Smirnoff M, Zweig M, Streicher S, Jabs EW, Richardson LD (2013) Willingness to participate in genomics research and desire for personal results among underrepresented minority patients: a structured interview study. Journal of Community Genetics 4(4):469–82. doi: 10.1007/s12687-013-0154-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Sanderson S, Zimmern R, Kroese M, Higgins J, Patch C, Emery J (2005) How can the evaluation of genetic tests be enhanced? Lessons learned from the ACCE framework and evaluating genetic tests in the United Kingdom. Genet Med 7(7):495–500. doi: 10.1097/01.gim.0000179941.44494.73 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Taylor, Jenny C., Hilary C. Martin, Stefano Lise, John Broxholme, Jean-Baptiste Cazier, Andy Rimmer, Alexander Kanapin, et al. 2015. “Factors influencing success of clinical genome sequencing across a broad spectrum of disorders.” Nature Genetics advance online publication (May). doi:10.1038/ng.3304Google Scholar
- Veenstra DL, Piper M, Haddow JE, Pauker SG, Klein R, Richards CS, Sean Tunis R et al (2013) Improving the efficiency and relevance of evidence-based recommendations in the era of whole-genome sequencing: an EGAPP methods update. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med Genet 15(1):14–24. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.106 Google Scholar