↓ Skip to main content

Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
44 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study
Published in
Journal of Clinical Oncology, December 2016
DOI 10.1200/jco.2016.67.1503
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stacy W Gray, Sarah E Gollust, Deanna Alexis Carere, Clara A Chen, Angel Cronin, Sarah S Kalia, Huma Q Rana, Mack T Ruffin, Catharine Wang, J Scott Roberts, Robert C Green

Abstract

Purpose Significant concerns exist regarding the potential for unwarranted behavior changes and the overuse of health care resources in response to direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (PGT). However, little is known about customers' behaviors after PGT. Methods Longitudinal surveys were given to new customers of 23andMe (Mountain View, CA) and Pathway Genomics (San Diego, CA). Survey data were linked to individual-level PGT results through a secure data transfer process. Results Of the 1,042 customers who completed baseline and 6-month surveys (response rate, 71.2%), 762 had complete cancer-related data and were analyzed. Most customers reported that learning about their genetic risk of cancers was a motivation for testing (colorectal, 88%; prostate, 95%; breast, 94%). No customers tested positive for pathogenic mutations in highly penetrant cancer susceptibility genes. A minority of individuals received elevated single nucleotide polymorphism-based PGT cancer risk estimates (colorectal, 24%; prostate, 24%; breast, 12%). At 6 months, customers who received elevated PGT cancer risk estimates were not significantly more likely to change their diet, exercise, or advanced planning behaviors or engage in cancer screening, compared with individuals at average or reduced risk. Men who received elevated PGT prostate cancer risk estimates changed their vitamin and supplement use more than those at average or reduced risk (22% v 7.6%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.44 to 8.18). Predictors of 6-month behavior include baseline behavior (exercise, vitamin or supplement use, and screening), worse health status (diet and vitamin or supplement use), and older age (advanced planning, screening). Conclusion Most adults receiving elevated direct-to-consumer PGT single nucleotide polymorphism-based cancer risk estimates did not significantly change their diet, exercise, advanced care planning, or cancer screening behaviors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 122 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Other 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Other 30 24%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 10%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 30 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 147. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#289,049
of 25,928,676 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#530
of 22,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,775
of 422,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#17
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,928,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.