Genetic Testing

By opting for surgery to remove her breasts while they were still healthy, Angelina Jolie joined a growing number of women who have used genetic testing to take control of their health. Here are answers to some common questions about how DNA influences breast cancer risk and what women can do about it. What genes are involved in breast cancer? The two primary ones are known as BRCA1 and BRCA2. Hundreds of variants of these genes have been found that make a woman - or a man - more likely to develop breast cancer.

By opting for surgery to remove her breasts while they were still healthy, Angelina Jolie joined a growing number of women who have used genetic testing to take control of their health. Here are answers to some common questions about how DNA influences breast cancer risk and what women can do about it. What genes are involved in breast cancer? The two primary ones are known as BRCA1 and BRCA2. Hundreds of variants of these genes have been found that make a woman - or a man - more likely to develop breast cancer.

Four days after her April 27 breast reconstruction, the third and final surgery aimed at sparing her an early death from breast cancer, Angelina Jolie was in good spirits at home. Upon paying a house call, her surgeon, Dr. Kristi Funk of the Pink Lotus Breast Center in Beverly Hills, found two walls of the actress' home covered with "freshly assembled story boards" for her next directorial project. "All the while she spoke," the doctor later wrote on her blog, "six drains dangled from her chest, three on each side, fastened to an elastic belt around her waist.

As the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case against Myriad Genetics, scientists who are skeptical of the idea of patenting genes said they were hopeful that the justices would overturn the Utah company's claims. "I was on pins and needles the whole time," said Dr. Wayne Grody, director of the Diagnostic Molecular Pathology Laboratory at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, who was present at the arguments. "But at the end I thought, 'The justices really get it' ... I felt that all of them who spoke weren't comfortable with the idea of patenting a gene.

Genetic testing is making its way to the corner drugstore, and federal regulators aren't too happy about it. Walgreens will begin selling personal genetic testing kits starting Friday, becoming the first major retail chain in the U.S. to offer the home tests. CVS plans to have the same kits in its stores by August. Both drugstore chains are buying the kits from Pathway Genomics, a 2-year-old San Diego start-up that offers genetic health and ancestry reports. The over-the-counter tests, which have been available through a few Internet retailers, haven't reached a mass audience until now. And their pending arrival has scientists and bio-ethicists concerned that consumers will misuse or misunderstand the results.

On Monday, Booster Shots reported on a new study in the journal Pediatrics showing that many parents would choose genetic testing for their kids if such screening might show the risks of heart disease, cancer and other disorders that the kids face. The study noted that many of the parents who said they were interested in testing believed their results would be reassuring. But going through genetic testing can be an emotional roller coaster, even when the news is ultimately good, affecting people beyond the patient getting the test.

Parents are interested in genetic testing for their children to find out kids' risks of common health problems including cancers and heart disease, according to a new study. But as such testing becomes more widely available — already, several companies sell tests like these directly to consumers — it could pose a challenge to pediatricians and other health providers who will have to advise parents on the benefits and risks of learning what lurks in a child's genes, the journal Pediatrics reported Monday.

Genetic testing to check if a woman has the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations can be a useful tool for preventing breast cancer and ovarian cancer in some cases.  But doctors might not be referring patients for such services appropriately, according to a study published Monday in the journal Cancer. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta sent out a survey to 3,200 family and internal medicine practitioners and obstetrician/gynecologists across the U.S.  They found that physicians may not recommend screening often enough in women at high risk for breast and ovarian cancers (who, guidelines stipulate, generally should be offered such services)

Re "Immigrants Put to the Blood Test," June 26 What a novel idea -- actually using modern technology to enforce our immigration laws rather than depending on easily forged documents. Bravo to the public servant who came up with that idea. Now, let's use it on a regular basis to give the American people some hope that our government is taking its responsibility to enforce immigration laws seriously. JUDY MCLAUGHLIN Simi Valley

Genetic tests that can help predict and refine a patient's response to drug therapy may be the first big thing in personalized medicine. But the vast majority of physicians don't know how to use them, a new survey finds. Individual genetic variations can affect how a patient will respond to many antidepressants, pain medications, cardiovascular medicines and certain drugs that treat cancers and gastrointestinal ailments. In all, roughly one in four American patients take medications whose effectiveness could be tweaked or predicted by a pharmacogenetic test.

Certain mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes can increase a woman's chances of developing breast cancer or ovarian cancer dramatically. But that doesn't mean all women should line up for laboratory testing to see if they have those risky versions of the genes, members of a government panel said Monday.  Unless she has a family history that makes it likely she has the harmful mutations, a woman will be unlikely to benefit from genetic counseling and...

MT. GERIZIM, West Bank - When Ben Yehuda Altif got engaged to his first cousin Mazal, there was no problem winning the blessing of their families or the Samaritan high priest, who leads their ancient Israelite sect. Marriage between cousins is common in the religious community. But there was still an obstacle. Like many Samaritan couples today, the pair had to pass a premarital genetic screening to predict the likelihood of having healthy children. Without the green light from doctors, the marriage would be off. "Doctors said OK, and now we have a healthy, handsome boy," said Altif, 33, reaching for his wife's cellphone to show off pictures of their son. Samaritans, who trace their roots back about 2,700 years, are best known for clinging to strict biblical traditions that have largely disappeared, including animal sacrifice, isolation of menstruating women and, until recently, a ban on marrying outsiders.

The war on cancer is poised to enter a new phase that promises more precise treatments, fewer side effects and, most of all, more survivors. And none too soon. Although death rates from many cancers have slowly but steadily declined over the decades, experts agree that current treatments are mostly too blunt, too scattershot and too dangerous for the patients they are intended to save. Today, treating cancer often means an all-out chemical assault on tumors. Doctors bombard patients' bodies with drugs that aim to destroy cancer cells.

Spending on genetic tests has reached $5 billion annually and could top $25 billion within a decade, according to an insurance industry study published Monday. The rise in spending is likely to intensify the debate over genetic testing as policymakers and employers struggle to contain spiraling healthcare costs. The growing availability of genetic and molecular diagnostic tests offers the promise of earlier detection of disease and more personalized treatments that could wring substantial savings from the nation's $2.6 trillion-a-year healthcare tab. But many medical providers and other experts worry that those benefits may be outweighed by indiscriminate use of genetic testing, similar to what has occurred with some spending on popular prescription drugs and expensive imaging tests.

Genetic testing to check if a woman has the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations can be a useful tool for preventing breast cancer and ovarian cancer in some cases.  But doctors might not be referring patients for such services appropriately, according to a study published Monday in the journal Cancer. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta sent out a survey to 3,200 family and internal medicine practitioners and obstetrician/gynecologists across the U.S.  They found that physicians may not recommend screening often enough in women at high risk for breast and ovarian cancers (who, guidelines stipulate, generally should be offered such services)

It is now possible to learn about your predisposition to certain diseases simply by buying a home genetic test kit, swabbing your mouth and sending the saliva sample to a laboratory. But should you be allowed to? That question, raised by a recent article in The Times, is best answered: "Yes, but …" That the question could even be posed is a testament to the breathtaking progress made by genetics. These days, for a fee, you can send a saliva sample to a genealogy firm and discover which of several ancient populations included your ancestors.

When Mike Godfrey's employer put out a call for recruits for a study on genetic testing, he hesitated before volunteering to hand over a swab of his saliva. The communications executive at Scripps Health in La Jolla wasn't completely sure he wanted to know what the test would reveal about diseases he might get down the road. Thinking twice made sense. Ever since the 2007 introduction of direct-to-consumer genome-wide tests — which scan a person's DNA and report on the genetic risk of developing 20 to 40 common diseases — experts have wondered whether telling regular folks they're more likely to develop illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease or cancer would trigger extreme anxiety, or would result in increased use of unnecessary and expensive medical tests.

Sean Delshad, 19, probably could have found more enjoyable things to do on a breezy Sunday afternoon. But instead he was waiting his turn at Sinai Temple -- along with dozens of other members of Los Angeles' large Persian Jewish community -- to undergo genetic testing. The UCLA student deposited a few drops of saliva in a tube handed to him by a doctor and, in four to six weeks, he'll learn whether he carries gene mutations for four disorders that are especially prevalent among Persian Jews.

On Monday, Booster Shots reported on a new study in the journal Pediatrics showing that many parents would choose genetic testing for their kids if such screening might show the risks of heart disease, cancer and other disorders that the kids face. The study noted that many of the parents who said they were interested in testing believed their results would be reassuring. But going through genetic testing can be an emotional roller coaster, even when the news is ultimately good, affecting people beyond the patient getting the test.

Parents are interested in genetic testing for their children to find out kids' risks of common health problems including cancers and heart disease, according to a new study. But as such testing becomes more widely available — already, several companies sell tests like these directly to consumers — it could pose a challenge to pediatricians and other health providers who will have to advise parents on the benefits and risks of learning what lurks in a child's genes, the journal Pediatrics reported Monday.