Predictors for participation in DNA self-sampling of childhood cancer survivors in Switzerland

Nicolas Waespe, Sven Strebel, Denis Marino, Veneranda Mattiello, Fanny Muet, Tiago Nava, Christina Schindera, Fabien N Belle, Luzius Mader, Adrian Spoerri, Claudia E Kuehni, Marc Ansari, Nicolas Waespe, Sven Strebel, Denis Marino, Veneranda Mattiello, Fanny Muet, Tiago Nava, Christina Schindera, Fabien N Belle, Luzius Mader, Adrian Spoerri, Claudia E Kuehni, Marc Ansari

Abstract

Background: Research on germline genetic variants relies on enough eligible participants which is difficult to achieve for rare diseases such as childhood cancer. With self-collection kits, participants can contribute genetic samples conveniently from their home. Demographic and clinical factors were identified previously that influenced participation in mailed self-collection. People with pre-existing heritable diagnoses might participate differently in germline DNA collection which might render sampling biased in this group. In this nationwide cross-sectional study, we analysed predictive factors of participation in DNA self-collection including heritable diagnoses.

Methods: We identified childhood cancer survivors from the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry for invitation to germline DNA self-sampling in September 2019. Participants received saliva sampling kits by postal mail at their home, were asked to fill them, sign an informed consent, and send them back by mail. Two reminders were sent to non-participants by mail. We compared demographic, clinical, and treatment information of participants with non-participants using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

Results: We invited 928 childhood cancer survivors in Switzerland with a median age of 26.5 years (interquartile range 19-37), of which 463 (50%) participated. After the initial send out of the sampling kit, 291 (63%) had participated, while reminder letters led to 172 additional participants (37%). Foreign nationality (odds ratio [OR] 0.5; 95%-confidence interval [CI] 0.4-0.7), survivors aged 30-39 years at study versus other age groups (OR 0.5; CI 0.4-0.8), and survivors with a known cancer predisposition syndrome (OR 0.5; CI 0.3-1.0) were less likely to participate in germline DNA collection. Survivors with a second primary neoplasm (OR 1.9; CI 1.0-3.8) or those living in a French or Italian speaking region (OR 1.3; CI 1.0-1.8) tended to participate more.

Conclusions: We showed that half of childhood cancer survivors participated in germline DNA self-sampling relying completely on mailing of sample kits. Written reminders increased the response by about one third. More targeted recruitment strategies may be advocated for people of foreign nationality, aged 30-39 years, and those with cancer predisposition syndromes. Perceptions of genetic research and potential barriers to participation of survivors need to be better understood.

Trial registration: Biobank: https://directory.bbmri-eric.eu/#/collection/bbmri-eric:ID:CH_HopitauxUniversitairesGeneve:collection:CH_BaHOP Research project : Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04702321 .

Keywords: Cancer survivors; Childhood cancer; Cohort study; DNA; Drug side effects; Genetic polymorphism; Genetic predisposition; Genetic testing; Registry; Second primary neoplasm.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the response to invitation to the BISKIDS home collection of germline DNA in 928 cancer survivors. Legend: ICCC-3, international classification of childhood cancer, edition 3; n, number
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Recruitment over time of Swiss childhood cancer survivors invited for home germline DNA collection. Legend: n, number; W, week

References

    1. Bhatia S, Armenian SH, Armstrong GT, van Dulmen-den Broeder E, Hawkins MM, Kremer LCM, et al. Collaborative research in childhood Cancer survivorship: the current landscape. JCO. 2015;33:3055–3064. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.59.8052.
    1. Hudson MM, Ness KK, Gurney JG, Mulrooney DA, Chemaitilly W, Krull KR, et al. Clinical ascertainment of health outcomes among adults treated for childhood Cancer. JAMA. 2013;309:2371–2381. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.6296.
    1. Bhakta N, Liu Q, Ness KK, Baassiri M, Eissa H, Yeo F, et al. The cumulative burden of surviving childhood cancer: an initial report from the St Jude lifetime cohort study (SJLIFE) Lancet. 2017;390:2569–2582. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31610-0.
    1. Schindler M, Spycher BD, Ammann RA, Ansari M, Michel G, Kuehni CE, et al. Cause-specific long-term mortality in survivors of childhood cancer in Switzerland: a population-based study. Int J Cancer. 2016;139:322–333. doi: 10.1002/ijc.30080.
    1. Ness KK, Li C, Mitby PA, Radloff GA, Mertens AC, Davies SM, et al. Characteristics of responders to a request for a buccal cell specimen among survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2010;55:165–170.
    1. Byrne J, Grabow D, Campbell H, O’Brien K, Bielack S, Am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen A, et al. PanCareLIFE: the scientific basis for a European project to improve long-term care regarding fertility, ototoxicity and health-related quality of life after cancer occurring among children and adolescents. Eur J Cancer. 2018;103:227–237. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.007.
    1. Wang Z, Wilson CL, Easton J, Thrasher A, Mulder H, Liu Q, et al. Genetic Risk for Subsequent Neoplasms Among Long-Term Survivors of Childhood Cancer. JCO. 2018;36:2078–87.
    1. Rogers NL, Cole SA, Lan H-C, Crossa A, Demerath EW. New saliva DNA collection method compared to buccal cell collection techniques for epidemiological studies. Am J Hum Biol. 2007;19:319–326. doi: 10.1002/ajhb.20586.
    1. Johnson RL, Saha S, Arbelaez JJ, Beach MC, Cooper LA. Racial and ethnic differences in patient perceptions of bias and cultural competence in health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:101–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30262.x.
    1. Brall C, Berlin C, Zwahlen M, Ormond KE, Egger M, Vayena E. Public willingness to participate in personalized health research and biobanking: a large-scale Swiss survey. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0249141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249141.
    1. Steliarova-Foucher E, Stiller C, Lacour B, Kaatsch P. International classification of childhood Cancer, third edition. Cancer. 2005;103:1457–1467. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20910.
    1. Waespe N, Belle FN, Redmond S, Schindera C, Spycher BD, Rössler J, et al. Cancer predisposition syndromes as a risk factor for early second primary neoplasms after childhood cancer – a national cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2021;145:71–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.11.042.
    1. Dykema J, DiLoreto K, Croes KD, Garbarski D, Beach J. Factors associated with participation in the collection of saliva samples by mail in a survey of older adults. Public Opin Q. 2017;81:57–85.
    1. Nishita DM, Jack LM, McElroy M, McClure JB, Richards J, Swan GE, et al. Clinical trial participant characteristics and saliva and DNA metrics. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:71. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-71.
    1. Keag OE, Murphy L, Bradley A, Deakin N, Whyte S, Norman JE, et al. Postal recruitment for genetic studies of preterm birth: a feasibility study. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5:26. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15207.1.
    1. McElfish PA, Narcisse M-R, Long CR, Ayers BL, Hawley NL, Aitaoto N, et al. Leveraging community-based participatory research capacity to recruit Pacific islanders into a genetics study. J Community Genet. 2017;8:283–291. doi: 10.1007/s12687-017-0313-9.
    1. Rueegg CS, Gianinazzi ME, Michel G, Zwahlen M, von der Weid NX, Kuehni CE. No evidence of response bias in a population-based childhood cancer survivor questionnaire survey — results from the Swiss childhood Cancer survivor study. PLoS One. 2017;12. 10.1371/journal.pone.0176442.
    1. Abraham JE, Maranian MJ, Spiteri I, Russell R, Ingle S, Luccarini C, et al. Saliva samples are a viable alternative to blood samples as a source of DNA for high throughput genotyping. BMC Med Genet. 2012;5:19.
    1. Jelsig AM, Qvist N, Brusgaard K, Ousager LB. Research participants in NGS studies want to know about incidental findings. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:1423–1426. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.298.
    1. Bak MAR, Ploem MC, Ateşyürek H, Blom MT, Tan HL, Willems DL. Stakeholders’ perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28:403–416. doi: 10.1038/s41431-019-0503-5.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa