Because mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in women with breast cancer are associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer, analysis of these genes should be considered for women diagnosed with breast cancer who have a high probability of carrying a mutation according to the statistical model developed with these data.

Purpose Genomic microarrays can detect copy number variants not detectable by conventional cytogenetics. This technology is diffusing rapidly into prenatal settings even though the clinical implications of many copy number variants are currently unknown. We conducted a qualitative pilot study to explore the experiences of women receiving abnormal results from prenatal microarray testing performed in a research setting. Methods Participants were a subset of women participating in a multicenter prospective study “Prenatal Cytogenetic Diagnosis by Array-based Copy Number Analysis”. Telephone interviews were conducted with 23 women receiving abnormal prenatal microarray results. Results We found that five key elements dominated the experiences of women who had received abnormal prenatal microarray results: an offer too good to pass up, blindsided by the results, uncertainty and unquantifiable risks, need for support, and toxic knowledge. Conclusion As prenatal microarray testing is increasingly utilized, uncertain findings will be common resulting in greater need for careful pre and post test counseling, and more education of, and resources for providers so they can adequately support the women who are undergoing testing.

Background/Aims: To predict the potential public health impact of personal genomics, empirical research on public perceptions of these services is needed. In this study, ‘early adopters’ of personal genomics were surveyed to assess their motivations, perceptions and intentions. Methods: Participants were recruited from everyone who registered to attend an enrollment event for the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative, a United States-based (Camden, N.J.) research study of the utility of personalized medicine, between March 31, 2009 and April 1, 2010 (n = 369). Participants completed an Internet-based survey about their motivations, awareness of personalized medicine, perceptions of study risks and benefits, and intentions to share results with health care providers. Results: Respondents were motivated to participate for their own curiosity and to find out their disease risk to improve their health. Fewer than 10% expressed deterministic perspectives about genetic risk, but 32% had misperceptions about the research study or personal genomic testing. Most respondents perceived the study to have health-related benefits. Nearly all (92%) intended to share their results with physicians, primarily to request specific medical recommendations. Conclusion: Early adopters of personal genomics are prospectively enthusiastic about using genomic profiling information to improve their health, in close consultation with their physicians. This suggests that early users (i.e. through direct-to-consumer companies or research) may follow up with the health care system. Further research should address whether intentions to seek care match actual behaviors.