GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    ISSN: 1569-8041
    Keywords: breast cancer ; genetic counselling ; risk assessment
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Medicine
    Notes: Abstract Background:With the identification of genes predisposing tohereditary breast cancer, the accurate and consistent estimation of a woman'srisk of developing breast cancer based on her family history is of paramountimportance if national service guidelines are to be developed. Patients and methods:The residual lifetime risk of developingbreast cancer was estimated for 200 women attending a breast cancer geneticassessment clinic by three different methods currently in use in the UK. Riskswere computed on the basis of the Cancer and Steroid Hormone (CASH) study dataand were classified as ‘low/moderate’ (〈20%) or ‘high’(〉20%). These risk categories are representative of those currentlyused to allocate surveillance and genetic testing. Risks were then comparedto estimates derived by other methods used in current clinical practice,including those of Houlston and Murday. Results:The CASH data-based method ascribed 27% to thehigh risk category, as compared to 53% for the combined Houlston andMurday methods. A method based on the number of affected relatives aloneascribed only 14% to the high risk category. Overall, 108 (54%)women were placed in the same risk category by all three methods. Conclusions:This study demonstrates that there is a significantdegree of variability between methods currently used to estimate breast cancerrisk which has serious implications for individual patient management, serviceprovision and multicentre studies evaluating the benefits of genetic testingfor breast cancer susceptibility.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Oxford University Press
    In:  In: Ocean Acidification. , ed. by Gattuso, J. P. and Hansson, L. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K, pp. 154-175.
    Publication Date: 2019-09-23
    Type: Book chapter , NonPeerReviewed
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Publication Date: 2018-03-23
    Description: Introduction A recent English court decision raises an issue clinicians increasingly face, namely whether, when and how a patient’s genetic information should be communicated to at-risk relatives. In ABC v St. Georges Healthcare NHS Trust, a patient, diagnosed with Huntington’s disease (HD), refused consent to disclose this diagnosis to his daughter. 1 The daughter knew her father was ill but not that its cause was heritable. When she discovered she was pregnant, she told her father’s clinicians. They considered disclosure to her, but since the patient insisted that his diagnosis should not be communicated to her, his refusal was respected. Sometime later the daughter was accidentally informed by her father’s clinician that he suffered from HD, so she herself underwent testing and was found to have inherited the condition. She brought a claim against her father’s clinicians for failure to inform her about his diagnosis when she...
    Print ISSN: 0022-2593
    Electronic ISSN: 1468-6244
    Topics: Medicine
    Published by BMJ Publishing Group
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Publication Date: 2014-10-15
    Description: The rapidly declining costs and increasing speeds of whole-genome analysis mean that genetic testing is undergoing a shift from targeted approaches to broader ones that look at the entire genome. As whole-genome technologies gain widespread use, questions about the management of so-called incidental findings—those unrelated to the question being asked—need urgent consideration. In this review, we bring together current understanding and arguments about (1) appropriate terminology, (2) the determination of clinical utility and when to disclose incidental findings, (3) the differences in management and disclosure in clinical, research and commercial contexts and (4) ethical and practical issues about familial implications and recontacting those tested. We recommend that greater international consensus is developed around the disclosure and management of incidental findings, with particular attention to when, and how, less clear-cut results should be communicated. We suggest that there is no single term that captures all the issues around these kinds of findings and that different terms may, therefore, need to be used in different settings. We also encourage the use of clear consent processes, but suggest that the absence of consent should not always preclude disclosure. Finally, we recommend further research to identify ways to implement the use of a genome output as a resource, accessible over time, to facilitate appropriate disclosure and recontact when the significance of a previously unclear incidental finding is clarified.
    Print ISSN: 0022-2593
    Electronic ISSN: 1468-6244
    Topics: Medicine
    Published by BMJ Publishing Group
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Publication Date: 2017-02-05
    Description: Objectives Clinical genetics guidelines from 2011 conceptualise genetic information as confidential to families, not individuals. The normative consequence of this is that the family's interest is the primary consideration and genetic information is shared unless there are good reasons not to do so. We investigated healthcare professionals' (HCPs') views about, and reasoning around, individual and familial approaches to confidentiality and how such views influenced their practice. Method 16 focus groups with 80 HCPs working in/with clinical genetics services were analysed, drawing on grounded theory. Results Participants raised seven problems with, and arguments against, going beyond the individual approach to confidentiality. These problems fell into two overlapping categories: ‘relationships’ and ‘structures’. Most participants had never considered ways to—or thought it was impossible to—treat familial genetic information and personal information differently. They worried that putting the familial approach into practice could disrupt family dynamics and erode patient trust in the health service. They also thought they had insufficient resources to share information and feared that sharing might change the standard of care and make them more vulnerable to liability. Conclusions A familial approach to confidentiality has not been accepted or adopted as a standard, but wider research suggests that some of the problems HCPs perceived are surmountable and sharing in the interest of the family can be achieved. However, further research is needed to explore how personal and familial genetic information can be separated in practice. Our findings are relevant to HCPs across health services who are starting to use genome tests as part of their routine investigations.
    Keywords: Open access, Ethics, Genetics and genomics
    Electronic ISSN: 2044-6055
    Topics: Medicine
    Published by BMJ Publishing
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...