Advertisement

EPMA Journal

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 103–112 | Cite as

Implementation of personalized medicine in Central-Eastern Europe: pitfalls and potentials based on citizen’s attitude

  • Peter Balicza
  • Andras Terebessy
  • Zoltan Grosz
  • Noemi Agnes Varga
  • Aniko Gal
  • Balint Andras Fekete
  • Maria Judit Molnar
Research
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Next-generation sequencing is increasingly utilized worldwide as a research and diagnostic tool and is anticipated to be implemented into everyday clinical practice. Since Central-Eastern European attitude toward genetic testing, especially broad genetic testing, is not well known, we performed a survey on this issue among Hungarian participants.

Methods

A self-administered questionnaire was distributed among patients and patient relatives at our neurogenetic outpatient clinic. Members of the general population were also recruited via public media. We used chi-square testing and binary logistic regression to examine factors influencing attitude.

Results

We identified a mixed attitude toward genetic testing. Access to physician consultation positively influenced attitude. A higher self-determined genetic familiarity score associated with higher perceived genetic influence score, which in turn associated with greater willingness to participate in genetic testing. Medical professionals constituted a skeptical group.

Conclusions

We think that given the controversies and complexities of the next-generation sequencing field, the optimal clinical translation of NGS data should be performed in institutions which have the unique capability to provide interprofessional health education, transformative biomedical research, and crucial patient care. With optimization of the clinical translational process, improvement of genetic literacy may increase patient engagement and empowerment.

Relevance of the article for predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine

The paper highlights that in countries with relatively low-genetic literacy, a special strategy is needed to enhance the implementation of personalized medicine.

Keywords

Next-generation sequencing Hungary Survey Counseling Ethic Predictive genetic tests Predictive preventive personalized medicine Direct to consumer genetic tests Genetic literacy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the participating patients, patient’s relatives, students, and colleagues who filled out this survey. We thank Petra Kerekes and Lisa Hubers for language corrections. This study was supported by the project KTIA_13_NAP-A-III/6.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Golubnitschaja O, Baban B, Boniolo G, Wang W, Bubnov R, Kapalla M, et al. Medicine in the early twenty-first century: paradigm and anticipation—EPMA position paper 2016. EPMA J. 2016;7(1):23.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13167-016-0072-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ku CS, Cooper DN, Polychronakos C, Naidoo N, Wu M, Soong R. Exome sequencing: dual role as a discovery and diagnostic tool. Ann Neurol. 2012;71(1):5–14.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.22647.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blackburn HL, Schroeder B, Turner C, Shriver CD, Ellsworth DL, Ellsworth RE. Management of incidental findings in the era of next-generation sequencing. Curr Genomics. 2015;16(3):159–74.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1389202916666150317232930.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sawyer SL, Hartley T, Dyment DA, Beaulieu CL, Schwartzentruber J, Smith A, et al. Utility of whole-exome sequencing for those near the end of the diagnostic odyssey: time to address gaps in care. Clin Genet. 2016;89:275–84.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roche MI, Jonathan Berg BS. Incidental findings with genomic testing: implications for genetic counseling practice. Curr Genet Med Rep. 2015;3(4):166–76.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40142-015-0075-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bertolotti M. Opportunities, risks, and limitations of genetic testing: looking to the future from patients’ point of view. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90(10):1311–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.08.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khan CM, Rini C, Bernhardt BA, Roberts JS, Christensen KD, Evans JP, et al. How can psychological science inform research about genetic counseling for clinical genomic sequencing? J Genet Couns. 2015;24(2):193–204.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9804-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Egalite N, Groisman IJ, Godard B. Genetic counseling practice in next generation sequencing research: implications for the ethical oversight of the informed consent process. J Genet Couns. 2014;23(4):661–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9703-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Facio FM, Lee K, O’Daniel JM. A genetic counselor’s guide to using next-generation sequencing in clinical practice. J Genet Couns. 2014;23:455–62.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9662-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarke AJ. Managing the ethical challenges of nextgeneration sequencing in genomic medicine. Br Med Bull. 2014;111(1):17–30.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldu017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bredenoord AL, de Vries MC, van Delden JJ. Next-generation sequencing: does the next generation still have a right to an open future? Nat Rev Genet. 2013;14(5):306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carere DA, Kraft P, Kaphingst KA, Roberts JS, Green RC. Consumers report lower confidence in their genetics knowledge following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Genet Med. 2016;18:65–72.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fitzgerald-Butt SM, Bodine A, Fry KM, Ash J, Zaidi AN, Garg V, et al. Measuring genetic knowledge: a brief survey instrument for adolescents and adults. Clin Genet. 2016;89:235–43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12618.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haga SB, Barry WT, Mills R, Ginsburg GS, Svetkey L, Sullivan J, et al. Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2013;17(4):327–35.  https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2012.0350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morren M, Rijken M, Baanders AN, Bensing J. Perceived genetic knowledge, attitudes towards genetic testing, and the relationship between these among patients with a chronic disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(2):197–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2006.07.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Su Y, Howard HC, Borry P. Users’ motivations to purchase direct-to-consumer genome-wide testing: an exploratory study of personal stories. J Community Genet. 2011;2(3):135–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-011-0048-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nicholls SG, Wilson BJ, Craigie SM, Etchegary H, Castle D, Carroll JC, et al. Public attitudes towards genomic risk profiling as a component of routine population screening. Genome. 2013;56:626–33.  https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2013-0070.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baptista NM, Christensen KD, Carere DA, Broadley SA, Roberts JS, Green RC. Adopting genetics: motivations and outcomes of personal genomic testing in adult adoptees. Genet Med. 2016;18(9):924–32.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.192.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, Firth HV, Hurles ME, Wright CF, et al. Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;24:21–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shahmirzadi L, Chao EC, Palmaer E, Parra MC, Tang S, Gonzalez KDF. Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genet Med. 2014;16:395–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carere DA, Couper MP, Crawford SD, Kalia SS, Duggan JR, Moreno TA, et al. Design, methods, and participant characteristics of the impact of personal genomics (PGen) study, a prospective cohort study of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing customers. Genome Med. 2014;6:96. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4256737&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bloss CS, Darst BF, Topol EJ, Schork NJ. Direct-to-consumer personalized genomic testing. Hum Mol Genet. 2011;20:R132–41. [cited 2016 Nov 11] Available from: http://www.hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/hmg/ddr349 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henneman L, Vermeulen E, van El CG, Claassen L, Timmermans DR, Cornel MC. Public attitudes towards genetic testing revisited: comparing opinions between 2002 and 2010. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(8):793–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2012.271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farwell KD, Shahmirzadi L, El-Khechen D, Powis Z, Chao EC, Tippin Davis B, et al. Enhanced utility of family-centered diagnostic exome sequencing with inheritance model–based analysis: results from 500 unselected families with undiagnosed genetic conditions. Genet Med. 2015;17:578–86.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chatterjee N, Shi J, García-Closas M. Developing and evaluating polygenic risk prediction models for stratified disease prevention. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17:392–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen R, Snyder M. Promise of personalized omics to precision medicine. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2013;5:73–82.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wsbm.1198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huang S, Chaudhary K, Garmire LX. More is better: recent progress in multi-omics data integration methods. Front Genet. 2017;8:84.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00084.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kolor K, Duquette D, Zlot A, Foland J, Anderson B, Giles R, et al. Public awareness and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests from four state population-based surveys, and implications for clinical and public health practice. Genet Med. 2012;14:860–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bloss CS, Ornowski L, Silver E, Cargill M, Vanier V, Schork NJ, et al. Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genet Med. 2010;12:556–66.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181eb51c6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bowling BV, Acra EE, Wang L, Myers MF, Dean GE, Markle GC, et al. Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates. Genetics. 2008;178:15–22.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.079533.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Furr LA, Kelly SE. The genetic knowledge index: developing a standard measure of genetic knowledge. Genet Test. 1999;3:193–9.  https://doi.org/10.1089/gte.1999.3.193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ostergren JE, Gornick MC, Carere DA, Kalia SS, Uhlmann WR, Ruffin MT, et al. How well do customers of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing services comprehend genetic test results? Findings from the impact of personal genomics study. Public Health Genomics. 2015;18:216–24.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000431250.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Christensen KD, Roberts JS, Uhlmann WR, Green RC. Changes to perceptions of the pros and cons of genetic susceptibility testing after APOE genotyping for Alzheimer disease risk. Genet Med. 2011;13:409–14.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182076bf1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meisel SF, Carere DA, Wardle J, Kalia SS, Moreno TA, Mountain JL, et al. Explaining, not just predicting, drives interest in personal genomics. Genome Med. 2015;7(1):74.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-015-0188-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Almeling R, Gadarian SK. Reacting to genetic risk: a experimental survey of life between health and disease. J Health Soc Behav. 2014;55:482–503.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146514555982.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Harris A, Kelly SE, Wyatt S. Counseling customers: emerging roles for genetic counselors in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market. J Genet Couns. 2013;22(2):277–88.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9548-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yu J-H, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, Bamshad MJ. Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model. Genet Med. 2013;15:684–90.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aaviksoo A, Ballensiefen W, Bauer H, Bußhoff U, Frenzel M, Guglielmi G, et al. Action plan: actionable research and support activities. [cited 2017 Dec 27]; Available from: http://www.icpermed.eu/media/content/ICPerMed_Actionplan_2017_web.pdf

Copyright information

© European Association for Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine (EPMA) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Balicza
    • 1
  • Andras Terebessy
    • 2
  • Zoltan Grosz
    • 1
  • Noemi Agnes Varga
    • 1
  • Aniko Gal
    • 1
  • Balint Andras Fekete
    • 1
  • Maria Judit Molnar
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Genomic Medicine and Rare DisordersSemmelweis UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthSemmelweis UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations