Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Science and Society
  • Published:

Genetics as a tool to improve cancer outcomes: ethics and policy

Nature Reviews Cancer volume 6, pages 476–482 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Genetic research is rapidly increasing the opportunities for the detection of inherited cancer risk. Clinicians and policy makers must ensure the adequate evaluation of the benefits and harms of this new area of practice, address the challenges of family-based detection of individuals at risk and develop practice guidelines and educational strategies that are responsive to rapidly changing knowledge. When the benefits of testing are well established, efforts must also be made to ensure access to genetic services for all who can benefit.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Petrucelli, N., Daly, M. B., Culver, J., Lecy-Lahad, E. & Feldman, G. L. BRCA1 and BRCA2 hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. GeneReviews [online], (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schneider, K. A. & Li, F. Li-Fraumeni syndrome. GeneReviews [online], (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Zhuk, K., Stein, J. L. & Eng, C. PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (PHTS). GeneReviews [online], (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Weisner, G. & Snow-Bailey, K. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. GeneReviews [online], (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Solomon, C. & Burt, R. W. APC-associated polyposis conditions. GeneReviews [online], (2005).

  6. Kohlmann, W. & Gruber, S. B. Hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. GeneReviews [online], (2004).

  7. Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. Principles of Biomedical Ethics 5th edn (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2001).

  8. Pellegrino, E. D. Toward a reconstruction of medical morality. Am. J. Bioeth. 6, 65–71 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Levi, B. H. Four approaches to doing ethics. J. Med. Philos. 21, 7–39 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mackenzie, C. & Stoljar, N. (eds) Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  11. O'Neill, V. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Tauber, A. I. A philosophical approach to rationing. Med. J. Aust. 178, 454–456 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ford, D. et al. Risks of cancer in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Lancet 343, 692–695 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Burke, W. et al. Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. 1. Hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. JAMA 277, 915–919 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Statement of the American Society of Human Genetics on genetic testing for breast/ovarian cancer prevention. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 55, i–iv (1994).

  16. National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research. Statement on use of DNA testing for presymptomatic identification of cancer risk. JAMA 271, 785 (1994)

  17. Antoniou, A. et al. Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 1117–1130 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Narod, S. A. Modifiers of risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 2, 113–122 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Thompson, D. & Easton, D. Variation in cancer risks by mutation position in BRCA2 carriers. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68, 410–419 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Thompson, D., Easton, D. & the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Variation in BRCA1 cancer risks by mutation position. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 11, 329–336 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nelson, H. D. et al. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med. 143, 362–379 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. ACR Practice Guideline for the Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the Breast. American College of Radiology [online], (2004).

  23. Patenaude, A. F. Genetic Testing for Cancer: Psychological Approaches for Helping Patients and Families (American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 2005).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Loman, N. et al. Family history of breast and ovarian cancers and BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based series of early onset breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 93, 1188–1189 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Narod, S. A. et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 1773–1779 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. King, M. -C. et al. Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidence among women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. JAMA 286, 2251–2256 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Freund, C. L., Clayton, E. W. & Wilfond, B. S. Natural settings trials — improving the introduction of clinical genetic tests. J. Law Med. Ethics 32, 106–110 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lapham, E. V., Kozma, C. & Weiss, J. O. Genetic discrimination: perspectives of consumers. Science 274, 621–624 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Billings, P. R. et al. Discrimination as a consequence of genetic testing. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 50, 476–482 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Low, L., King, S. & Wilkie, T. Genetic discrimination in life insurance: empirical evidence from a cross sectional survey of genetic support groups in the United Kingdom. BMJ 317, 1632–1635 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hall, M. A. & Rich, S. S. Laws restricting health insurers' use of genetic information: impact on genetic discrimination. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66, 293–307 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kinney, A. Y., Emery, G., Dudley, W. N. & Croyle, R. T. Screening behaviors among African American women at high risk for breast cancer: do beliefs about god matter? Oncol. Nurs. Forum. 29, 835–843 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Marteau, T. M. & Lerman, C. Genetic risk and behavioural change. BMJ 322, 1056–1059 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Loader, S., Shield, C. G. & Rowley, P. T. Impact of genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. Genet. Test 8, 1–12 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Skinner, M. A. et al. Prophylactic thyroidectomy in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2A. N. Engl. J. Med. 353, 1105–1113 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Garber, J. E. & Offit, K. Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 276–292 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. US Preventive Services Task Force. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 143, 355–361 (2005).

  38. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 2397–2406 (2003).

  39. Pate v. Threlkel 661 So.2d 278 (Florida, 1995).

  40. Safer v. Pack 677 A2d 1188 (New Jersey,1996).

  41. The American Society of Human Genetics Social Issues Subcommittee on Familial Disclosure. American Society of Human Genetics statement: Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 62, 474–483 (1998).

  42. Hakimian, R. Disclosure of Huntington's disease to family members: the dilemma of known but unknowing parties. Genet. Test. 4, 359–364 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Annas, G. J. Genetic prophecy and genetic privacy — can we prevent the dream from becoming a nightmare? Am. J. Public Health 85, 1196–1197 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Genetic counseling. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 27, 240–242 (1975).

  45. Wainberg, S. & Husted, J. Utilization of screening and preventive surgery among unaffected carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 13, 1989–1995 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Press, N. et al. 'That's like chopping off a finger because you're afraid it might get broken': disease and illness in women's views of prophylactic mastectomy. Soc. Sci. Med. 61, 1106–1117 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Brody, H. Transparency: informed consent in primary care. Hastings Cent. Rep. 19, 5–9 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Gwyn, K., Vernon, S. W. & Conoley, P. M. Intention to pursue genetic testing for breast cancer among women due for screening mammography. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 12, 96–102 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Khoury, M. J. et al. Challenges in communication about genetics: a public health approach. Genet. Med. 2, 198–201 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. McCabe, L. L. & McCabe, E. R. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: access and marketing. Genet. Med. 6, 58–59 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) resource. CMS [online], (2005).

  52. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. CDC [online], (2006).

  53. Comments by Dr. Francis S. Collins Regarding the Passage of Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005 (S. 306). National Human Genome Research Institute [online], (2005).

  54. Burke, W. & Zimmern, R. L. Ensuring the appropriate use of genetic tests. Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 955–959 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Field, M. J., Lohr, K. N. & Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Guidelines for Clinical Practice: From Development to Use. (Institute of Medicine, Washington DC, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluation of Genetic Testing. CDC [online], (2006).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Supported in part by grants from the US National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Department of Medical History and Ethics, University of Washington, BOX 357120, 1959 North East Pacific, Room A204, Seattle, 98195-7120, Washington, USA

    Wylie Burke

  2. the Oregon Health & Science University, School of Nursing, 3455 SW, US Veterans Hospital Road, SN-45, Portland, 97239-2941, Oregon, USA

    Nancy Press

Authors
  1. Wylie Burke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nancy Press
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wylie Burke.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

DATABASES

National Cancer Institute

Brain tumour

Breast Cancer

Colorectal Cancer

Leukaemia

Ovarian Cancer

thyroid cancer

OMIM

multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2

familial adenomatous polyposis

FURTHER INFORMATION

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

GeneTests

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burke, W., Press, N. Genetics as a tool to improve cancer outcomes: ethics and policy. Nat Rev Cancer 6, 476–482 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1890

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1890

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing