Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Feb 18;9(1):14.
doi: 10.3390/jpm9010014.

Autonomy Challenges in Epigenetic Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening: How Can Patient Decision Aids Support Informed Consent?

Affiliations
Review

Autonomy Challenges in Epigenetic Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening: How Can Patient Decision Aids Support Informed Consent?

Maaike Alblas et al. J Pers Med. .

Abstract

Information of an individual's epigenome can be useful in cancer screening to enable personalised decision making on participation, treatment options and further screening strategies. However, adding this information might result in complex risk predictions on multiple diseases, unsolicited findings and information on (past) environmental exposure and behaviour. This complicates informed consent procedures and may impede autonomous decision-making. In this article we investigate and identify the specific features of epigenetic risk-stratified cancer screening that challenge the current informed consent doctrine. Subsequently we describe current and new informed consent models and the principle of respect for autonomy and argue for a specific informed consent model for epigenetic risk-stratified screening programmes. Next, we propose a framework that guides the development of Patient Decision Aids (PDAs) to support informed consent and promote autonomous choices in the specific context of epigenetic cancer screening programmes.

Keywords: cancer screening programmes; epigenetics; informed consent; patient autonomy; patient decision aids; risk prediction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Framework to guide the development of Patient Decision Aids (PDAs) within the tiered layered staged informed consent model. VCM: value clarification methods.

References

    1. Winawer S., Fletcher R., Rex D., Bond J., Burt R., Ferrucci J., Ganiats T., Levin T., Woolf S., Johnson D., et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: Clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:544–560. doi: 10.1053/gast.2003.50044. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goldie S.J., Kim J.J., Wright T.C. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or more. Obs. Gynecol. 2004;103:619–631. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000120143.50098.c7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fulfilling the Potential of Cancer Prevention and Early Detection. National Academies Press (US); Washington, DC, USA: 2003. - PubMed
    1. Goel V. Appraising organised screening programmes for testing for genetic susceptibility to cancer. BMJ. 2001;322:1174–1178. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7295.1174. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pashayan N., Reisel D., Widschwendter M. Integration of genetic and epigenetic markers for risk stratification: Opportunities and challenges. Per Med. 2016;13:93–95. doi: 10.2217/pme.15.53. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources