Localization of dehydrogenases and glycogen metabolizing enzymes in muscle tissue of the desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria).

R. Hess,A. Pearse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000458108

Enzymologia biologica et clinica

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Expert and Advocacy Group Consensus Findings on the Horizon of Public Health Genetic Testing

Stephen M Modell,Karen Greendale,Toby Citrin,Sharon L R Kardia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare4010014

2016-01-27

Abstract:Description: Among the two leading causes of death in the United States, each responsible for one in every four deaths, heart disease costs Americans $300 billion, while cancer costs Americans $216 billion per year. They also rank among the top three causes of death in Europe and Asia. In 2012 the University of Michigan Center for Public Health and Community Genomics and Genetic Alliance, with the support of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office of Public Health Genomics, hosted a conference in Atlanta, Georgia to consider related action strategies based on public health genomics. The aim of the conference was consensus building on recommendations to implement genetic screening for three major heritable contributors to these mortality and cost figures: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), and Lynch syndrome (LS). Genetic applications for these three conditions are labeled with a "Tier 1" designation by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because they have been fully validated and clinical practice guidelines based on systematic review support them. Methodology: The conference followed a deliberative sequence starting with nationally recognized clinical and public health presenters for each condition, followed by a Patient and Community Perspectives Panel, working group sessions for each of the conditions, and a final plenary session. The 74 conference participants represented disease research and advocacy, public health, medicine and nursing, genetics, governmental health agencies, and industry. Participants drew on a public health framework interconnecting policy, clinical intervention, surveillance, and educational functions for their deliberations. Results: Participants emphasized the importance of collaboration between clinical, public health, and advocacy groups in implementing Tier 1 genetic screening. Advocacy groups could help with individual and institutional buy-in of Tier 1 programs. Groups differed on funding strategies, with alternative options such as large-scale federal funding and smaller scale, incremental funding solutions proposed. Piggybacking on existing federal breast and colorectal cancer control programs was suggested. Public health departments need to assess what information is now being collected by their state cancer registries. The groups advised that information on cascade screening of relatives be included in toolkits for use by states. Participants stressed incorporation of family history into health department breast cancer screening programs, and clinical HBOC data into state surveillance systems. The carrying out of universal LS screening of tumors in those with colorectal cancer was reviewed. Expansion of universal screening to include endometrial tumors was discussed, as was the application of guidelines recommending cholesterol screening of children 9-11 years old. States more advanced in terms of Tier 1 testing could serve as models and partners with other states launching screening and surveillance programs. A multidisciplinary team of screening program champions was suggested as a means of raising awareness among the consumer and health care communities. Participants offered multiple recommendations regarding use of electronic health records, including flagging of at-risk family members and utilization of state-level health information exchanges. The paper contains an update of policy developments and happenings for all three Tier 1 conditions, as well as identified gaps. Conclusions: Implementation of cascade screening of family members for HBOC and FH, and universal screening for LS in CRC tumors has reached a point of readiness within the U.S., with creative solutions at hand. Facilitating factors such as screening coverage through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and state health information exchanges can be tapped. Collaboration is needed between public health departments, health care systems, disease advocacy groups, and industry to fully realize Tier 1 genetic screening. State health department and disease networks currently engaged in Tier 1 screening can serve as models for the launch of new initiatives.
Genetic Screening—Emerging Issues

Martina C. Cornel,Karuna R. M. van der Meij,Carla G. van El,Tessel Rigter,Lidewij Henneman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15050581

IF: 4.141

2024-05-03

Genes

Abstract:In many countries, some form of genetic screening is offered to all or part of the population, either in the form of well-organized screening programs or in a less formalized way. Screening can be offered at different phases of life, such as preconception, prenatal, neonatal and later in life. Screening should only be offered if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Technical innovations in testing and treatment are driving changes in the field of prenatal and neonatal screening, where many jurisdictions have organized population-based screening programs. As a result, a greater number and wider range of conditions are being added to the programs, which can benefit couples' reproductive autonomy (preconception and prenatal screening) and improve early diagnosis to prevent irreversible health damage in children (neonatal screening) and in adults (cancer and cascade screening). While many developments in screening are technology-driven, citizens may also express a demand for innovation in screening, as was the case with non-invasive prenatal testing. Relatively new emerging issues for genetic screening, especially if testing is performed using DNA sequencing, relate to organization, data storage and interpretation, benefit–harm ratio and distributive justice, information provision and follow-up, all connected to acceptability in current healthcare systems.

genetics & heredity
Germline genetic testing in breast cancer: Rationale for the testing of all women diagnosed by the age of 60 years and for risk‐based testing of those older than 60 years

Neelam V. Desai,Siddhartha Yadav,Felipe Batalini,Fergus J. Couch,Nadine M. Tung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33305

IF: 6.9209

2020-11-04

Cancer

Abstract:Approximately 5% to 10% of women diagnosed with breast cancer will have a pathogenic variant (PV) in a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, and this has significant implications for the management of these patients and their relatives. Despite the benefits of genetic testing, many eligible patients with breast cancer never undergo testing because of various barriers, including complicated testing criteria such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). In 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) proposed germline genetic testing for all patients with breast cancer to increase the identification of PV carriers. In 2020, a Mayo Clinic study highlighted the limitations of these 2 genetic testing guidelines (NCCN and ASBrS) and proposed a hybrid approach of testing all women diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 65 years and using NCCN criteria for older patients. This commentary presents an updated analysis of the Mayo Clinic data and discusses the rationale for using the age of 60 years rather than 65 years as the cutoff for this hybrid approach. Using an age at diagnosis of ≤60 or ≤65 years for the universal testing of patients with breast cancer detected more PVs (11.9% [16 of 134] and 15.7% [21 of 134], respectively) in comparison with using the NCCN criteria. Lowering the age for universal testing from 65 to 60 years maintained the sensitivity of detecting a PV at >90% while sparing testing for an additional 10% of women. Compared with the testing of all patients, the hybrid approach would allow 31% of all women with breast cancer to forgo testing and result in fewer variants of uncertain significance identified and, therefore, would decrease the chance of harm from misinterpretation of these variants.

oncology
Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities

Sarah Briggs,Ingrid Slade

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40142-019-00162-x

Abstract:Purpose of review: As the costs of genomic testing have fallen, and our understanding of genetic susceptibility to cancers has grown, there has been increasing interest in incorporating testing for cancer susceptibility genes, and polygenic risk estimates, into population cancer screening. A growing body of evidence suggests that this would be both clinically and cost-effective. In this article, we aim to explore the frameworks used to evaluate screening programmes, evaluate whether population screening for cancer susceptibility can be assessed using these standards, and consider additional issues and outcomes of importance in this context. Recent findings: There are tensions between traditional approaches of genetic testing (utilising tests with high sensitivity and specificity) and the principles of population screening (in which the screening test typically has low specificity), as well as the frameworks used to evaluate the two. Despite the existence of many screening guidelines, including consensus papers, these often do not align fully with broader considerations of genetic test evaluation. Population screening for genetic risk in cancer shifts the focus from diagnostics to prognostication and has wider implications for personal and familial health than existing screening programmes. In addition, understanding of the prevalence and penetrance of cancer susceptibility genes, required by many screening guidelines, may only be obtainable through population-level testing; prospective multi-disciplinary research alongside implementation will be essential. Summary: Appropriate evaluation of genetic screening for cancer risk will require modification of existing screening frameworks to incorporate additional complexity of outcomes and population values. As evidence supporting population screening for cancer susceptibility mounts, development of an appropriate evaluative framework, and expansion of public dialogue will be key to informing policy.
Parents' and patients' perspectives, experiences, and preferences for germline genetic or genomic testing of children with cancer: A systematic review

Jacqueline D Hunter,Kate Hetherington,Eliza Courtney,Yasmin Christensen,Noemi Fuentes-Bolanos,Kanika Bhatia,Michelle Peate

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2024.101197

Abstract:Purpose: Germline testing in pediatric cancer presents opportunities and challenges. Understanding family perspectives, experiences, and preferences will optimize integration into routine care. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched 4 databases for studies exploring perspectives, experiences, and preferences of parents/caregivers and/or patients regarding germline testing of children with cancer. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted, organized, and summarized by research question and themes. Results: We identified 2286 unique articles, of which 24 were included. Interest in and uptake of testing was high. Families were motivated by altruism and a desire for inheritance/causation information. Testing barriers included psychological concerns, timing of the testing approach if offered at diagnosis or in a high-risk cancer setting and privacy/discrimination. Testing experiences highlighted challenges yet also positive impacts, with results providing psychological relief and informing proactive decision making. Timing preferences varied; however, allowing time to adjust to a new diagnosis was a common theme. Most wanted to receive as many germline sequencing-related results as possible. Conclusion: Findings underscore the importance of integrating germline analyses into pediatric cancer care with flexibility and support for families facing challenges. Where possible, consent should be provided at a time that suits each family's situation with access to information aligning with their needs and preferences. Prospero: CRD42023444890.
Primary Care Implementation of Genomic Population Health Screening Using a Large Gene Sequencing Panel

Robert S Wildin,Christine A Giummo,Aaron W Reiter,Thomas C Peterson,Debra G B Leonard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.867334

2022-04-25

Abstract:To realize the promise of genomic medicine, harness the power of genomic technologies, and capitalize on the extraordinary pace of research linking genomic variation to disease risks, healthcare systems must embrace and integrate genomics into routine healthcare. We have implemented an innovative pilot program for genomic population health screening for any-health-status adults within the largest health system in Vermont, United States. This program draws on key research and technological advances to safely extract clinical value for genomics in routine health care. The program offers no-cost, non-research DNA sequencing to patients by their primary care providers as a preventive health tool. We partnered with a commercial clinical testing company for two next generation sequencing gene panels comprising 431 genes related to both high and low-penetrance common health risks and carrier status for recessive disorders. Only pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants are reported. Routine written clinical consultation is provided with a concise, clinical "action plan" that presents core messages for primary care provider and patient use and supports clinical management and health education beyond the testing laboratory's reports. Access to genetic counseling is free in most cases. Predefined care pathways and access to genetics experts facilitates the appropriate use of results. This pilot tests the feasibility of routine, ethical, and scalable use of population genomic screening in healthcare despite generally imperfect genomic competency among both the public and health care providers. This article describes the program design, implementation process, guiding philosophies, and insights from 2 years of experience offering testing and returning results in primary care settings. To aid others planning similar programs, we review our barriers, solutions, and perceived gaps in the context of an implementation research framework.
A Clinical Guide to Hereditary Cancer Panel Testing: Evaluation of Gene-Specific Cancer Associations and Sensitivity of Genetic Testing Criteria in a Cohort of 165,000 High-Risk Patients.

Holly LaDuca,Eric C. Polley,Amal Yussuf,Lily Hoang,Stephanie Gutierrez,Steven N. Hart,Siddhartha Yadav,Chunling Hu,Jie Na,David E. Goldgar,Kelly Fulk,Laura Panos Smith,Carolyn Horton,Jessica Profato,Tina Pesaran,Chia-Ling Gau,Melissa Pronold,Brigette Tippin Davis,Elizabeth C. Chao,Fergus J. Couch,Jill S. Dolinsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0633-8

IF: 8.864

2020-01-01

Genetics in Medicine

Abstract:PURPOSE:Despite the rapid uptake of multigene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer predisposition, there is limited guidance surrounding indications for testing and genes to include.METHODS:To inform the clinical approach to hereditary cancer MGPT, we comprehensively evaluated 32 cancer predisposition genes by assessing phenotype-specific pathogenic variant (PV) frequencies, cancer risk associations, and performance of genetic testing criteria in a cohort of 165,000 patients referred for MGPT.RESULTS:We identified extensive genetic heterogeneity surrounding predisposition to cancer types commonly referred for germline testing (breast, ovarian, colorectal, uterine/endometrial, pancreatic, and melanoma). PV frequencies were highest among patients with ovarian cancer (13.8%) and lowest among patients with melanoma (8.1%). Fewer than half of PVs identified in patients meeting testing criteria for only BRCA1/2 or only Lynch syndrome occurred in the respective genes (33.1% and 46.2%). In addition, 5.8% of patients with PVs in BRCA1/2 and 26.9% of patients with PVs in Lynch syndrome genes did not meet respective testing criteria.CONCLUSION:Opportunities to improve upon identification of patients at risk for hereditary cancer predisposition include revising BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome testing criteria to include additional clinically actionable genes with overlapping phenotypes and relaxing testing criteria for associated cancers.
Economic evaluation of extended panel analysis in cancer patients with historical NHS diagnostic germline genetic testing - A modeling study based on real-world data

Qin Xi,Rahul Patel,Thomas Linton-Willoughby,John Short,Marc Tischkowitz,Katie Snape,Stephen Morris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2024.104969

2024-09-12

Abstract:Background: The South West Thames Centre for Genomics implemented a wider diagnostic Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) gene panel for eligible cancer patients undergoing diagnostic testing whilst restricting data analysis and reporting for BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2/CHEK2 1100delC only as per contemporaneous guidelines. This study investigated the cost-utility of reanalyzing existing diagnostic grade extended panel data for truncating germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in known moderate risk cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) and performing follow-up genetic testing for first-degree relatives if patients have an identified CSG allele. Methods: Reanalysis of existing NGS data was undertaken in 889 samples from cancer patients contemporaneously eligible through the NHS England National Genomic Test Directory (NGTD) codes R207 (ovarian) or R208 (breast) who had tested negative for BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 and CHEK2 1100delC founder variant. We modeled the cost and health outcomes for comparisons between: 1. Extending reanalysis to ATM truncating GPVs (partial extended testing) versus historical genetic testing, and 2. Extending analysis to ATM truncating GPV/BRIP1 truncating GPV/CHEK2 truncating GPV excluding CHEK2 1100delC/RAD51C truncating GPV/RAD51D truncating GPV (full extended testing) versus historical genetic testing. Results: For partial extended testing, the ICER compared with historical genetic testing was UK£49,671/QALY. For full extended testing, the ICER compared with historical genetic testing of historical genetic testing was UK£5716/QALY. The full extended testing remained cost-effective with a 30% increase in genetic testing cost. Conclusion: Where existing NGS data for cancer susceptibility genes is stored to diagnostic standard in UK laboratories, this study suggests it is cost-effective to analyze, report and clinically manage patients and relatives by extended analysis to an 8-gene panel compared to the historical genetic testing.
Some determinants of rigidity in discrimination-reversal learning.

A. Buss

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/H0053537

1952-09-01

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Abstract:
Expanded carrier screening for inherited genetic disease using exome and genome sequencing

N. Belnap,K. Ramsey,A. Abraham,A. Ryan,S. Rangasamy,A. Bonfitto,M. Naymik,M. Huentelman,S. Strom,D. Perry,A. Subramaniam,W. W. Grody,S. Szelinger,V. Narayanan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1964

2024-08-30

Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract:The goal of this study was to assess the feasibility of using exome (ES) and genome sequencing (GS) in guiding preconception genetic screening (PCGS) for couples who are planning to conceive by creating a workflow for identifying risk alleles for autosomal recessive (AR) and X‐linked (XL) disorders without the constraints of a predetermined, targeted gene panel. There were several limitations and challenges related to reporting and the technical aspects of ES and GS, which are listed in the discussion. We selected 150 couples from a cohort of families (trios) enrolled in a research protocol where the goal was to define the genetic etiology of disease in an affected child. Pre‐existing, de‐identified parental sequencing data were analyzed to define variants that would place the couple at risk of having a child affected by an AR or XL disorder. We identified 17 families who would be selected for counseling about risk alleles. We noted that only 3 of these at‐risk couples would be identified if we limited ourselves to the current ACMG‐recommended expanded carrier screening gene panel. ES and GS successfully identified couples who are at risk of having a child with a rare AR or XL disorder that would have been missed by the current recommended guidelines. Current limitations of this approach include ethical concerns, difficulties in reporting results including variant calling due to the rare nature of some of the variants, determining which disorders to report, as well as technical difficulties in detecting certain variants such as repeat expansions.

genetics & heredity,social sciences, biomedical,health policy & services
Young Women's Perspectives on Being Screened for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk During Routine Primary Care

Mady Head,Betty Cohn,Karen J Wernli,Lorella Palazzo,Kelly Ehrlich,Abigail Matson,Sarah Knerr,Karen J. Wernli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2024.01.004

IF: 3.053

2024-03-07

Women s Health Issues

Abstract:Purpose The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening women to identify individuals eligible for genetic counseling based on a priori hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) risk (i.e., risk assessment). However, risk assessment has not been widely integrated into primary care. This qualitative study explored young women's views on implementing routine HBOC risk assessment with a focus on equity and patient-centeredness. Methods We conducted group discussions with young women (aged 21–40 years) receiving care in an integrated health care system. Discussion groups occurred in two phases and used a modified deliberative approach that included a didactic component and prioritized developing consensus. Twenty women participated in one of three initial small group discussions (phase one). All 20 were invited to participate in a subsequent large group discussion (phase two), and 15 of them attended. Findings Key themes and recommendations were as follows. Risk assessment should be accessible, contextualized, and destigmatized to encourage participation and reduce anxiety, particularly for women who do not know their family history. Providers conducting risk assessments must be equipped to address women's informational needs, relieve emotionality, and plan next steps after positive screens. Finally, to minimize differential screening uptake, health care systems must prioritize equity in program design and contribute to external educational and outreach efforts. Conclusion Young women see pragmatic opportunities for health systems to optimize HBOC screening implementation.

public, environmental & occupational health,womens studies
The ethics of risk-stratified cancer screening

Rebecca A Dennison,Juliet A Usher-Smith,Stephen D John

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2023.03.023

Abstract:Cancer screening programmes aim to save lives and reduce cancer burden through prevention or early detection of specific cancers. Risk stratification, where one or more elements of a screening programme are systematically tailored based on multiple individual-level risk factors, could improve the balance of screening benefits and harms and programme efficiency. In this article, we explore the resulting ethical issues and how they impact risk-stratified screening policymaking using Beauchamp and Childress's principles of medical ethics. First, in line with universal screening programme principles, we acknowledge that risk-stratified screening should be introduced only when the expected total benefits outweigh the harms, and where it has a favourable overall impact compared to alternative options. We then discuss how these are difficult to both value and quantify, and that risk models typically perform differently in sub-populations. Second, we consider whether screening is an individual right and whether it is fair to offer more or less intensive screening to some and not others based on personal characteristics. Third, we discuss the need to maintain respect for autonomy, including ensuring informed consent and considering the screening implications for those who cannot or choose not to participate in the risk assessment. In summary, from an ethical perspective, focusing on population-level effectiveness alone is insufficient when planning risk-stratified screening programmes and the range of ethical principles must be considered.
Degradable polyethylenimine-alt-poly(ethylene glycol) copolymers as novel gene carriers.

M. Park,Ki-Ok Han,I. Han,M. Cho,J. Nah,Yun-Jaie Choi,C. Cho

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCONREL.2005.04.008

IF: 11.467

2005-07-20

Journal of Controlled Release

Abstract:
Abstract LB232: Implementation of population-based risk assessment for hereditary cancer in primary care: Results from the Early Detection of Genetic Risk (EDGE) Trial

Elizabeth M. Swisher,Heather M. Harris,Barbara M. Norquist,Jeannine Brant,Brian Shirts,Sarah Knerr,Emerson J. Dusic,Faith Beers,Tesla N. Theoryn,DaLaina Cameron,Howard Cabral,Laurie A. Riemann,Michael Raff,Beth Devine,Deborah J. Bowen,Catharine Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-lb232

IF: 11.2

2024-04-07

Cancer Research

Abstract:The EDGE (Early Detection of GEnetic risk) trial compared two population-based engagement strategies for identifying primary care patients with a family or personal history of cancer and offered eligible individuals genetic testing for cancer susceptibility (GT). A total of twelve clinics from two healthcare systems (6 clinics each) participated in Montana, Wyoming and Washington State. Clinics were cluster-randomized to one of two engagement approaches: 1) point of care screening (POC), conducted by clinic staff when a patient came in for their appointment and 2) direct patient engagement (DPE), where letter and email outreach facilitated online home screening. Patients who completed screening and met pre-specified personal and family history criteria were offered GT via a home-delivered saliva kit at no cost. The two primary outcomes of the trial were the fraction of active clinic patients who 1) completed the risk assessment tool and 2) completed GT. Logistic regression models were used to compare POC and DPE, allowing for overdispersion and including clinic as a design factor. Analyses in the screened population were adjusted for age, sex, personal and/or family history of cancer, and healthcare system. Over a 12-month engagement window, 95,623 patients were seen in the 12 clinics (Table 1). The POC approach resulted in a higher proportion screened for hereditary risk (19.1% vs. 8.7%), but a similar proportion completed testing (1.5% vs. 1.6%). Notably, the rate of testing among eligible patients approached via POC was approximately half the rate observed with DPE (24.7% vs. 44.7%). POC screen completers were less likely to have a personal history of cancer (9.1% vs. 10.7%), a significant family history of cancer (9.5% vs. 12.8%), and, if eligible, order a test kit (33.8% vs. 58.1%). Overall, a POC approach resulted in higher screening rates for familial cancer risk but a similar fraction completing GT, with DPE screeners self-selecting due to greater personal and/or family history of cancer. Analyses are ongoing to examine patient, clinic and system-level factors predicting screening and testing uptake, which can inform best practices for population-based hereditary cancer screening efforts. POC % (N) DPE % (N) Unadjusted OR (POC vs DPE) Adjusted OR * (POC vs DPE) p-value Patient Denominator 51,693 43,930 Completed Screening 19.1% (9892) 8.7% (3813) 2.49 - 0.0074 Completed GT 1.5% (757) 1.6% (717) 0.89 - 0.75 Screened Participants 9892 3813 % screened with any personal cancer history 9.1% (902) 10.7% (406) 0.77 <0.0001 % of screened with significant** family history of cancer 9.5% (935) 12.8% (487) - 0.69 <0.0001 % of screened found eligible for GT 31.0% (3070) 42.0% (1603) - 0.65 <0.0001 Participants eligible for GT 3070 1603 % of eligible who ordered test kit 33.8% (1039) 58.1% (932) - 0.43 <0.0001 % of eligible who completed GT 24.7% (757) 44.7% (717) - 0.49 <0.0001 *Adjusted ORs - Adjusted for age, sex, personal cancer history, family cancer history, healthcare system.**Significant family history: 2 or more first degree relatives with a high-risk cancer Citation Format: Elizabeth M. Swisher, Heather M. Harris, Barbara M. Norquist, Jeannine Brant, Brian Shirts, Sarah Knerr, Emerson J. Dusic, Faith Beers, Tesla N. Theoryn, DaLaina Cameron, Howard Cabral, Laurie A. Riemann, Michael Raff, Beth Devine, Deborah J. Bowen, Catharine Wang. Implementation of population-based risk assessment for hereditary cancer in primary care: Results from the Early Detection of Genetic Risk (EDGE) Trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited s); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(7_Suppl) nr LB232.

oncology
Preferences of parents from diverse backgrounds on genomic screening of apparently healthy newborns

Nina B. Gold,Jacklyn O. Omorodion,Maya C. del Rosario,Greysha Rivera‐Cruz,Celeste Y. Hsu,Sonja I. Ziniel,Ingrid A. Holm

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1994

2024-10-29

Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract:Genomic sequencing has been proposed as a strategy to expand newborn screening. Perspectives on genomic newborn screening from parents of diverse racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds are needed to shape equitable implementation of this modality. We conducted 20 semi‐structured interviews (15 English, 5 Spanish) and seven focus groups (4 English, 3 Spanish) with parents from diverse backgrounds to assess their perspectives regarding which disorders and variants might be screened, data privacy, and barriers to pursuing specialized care. Parents felt that genomic newborn screening would provide them with improved understanding of their children's health and had the potential to yield health and personal benefits. Themes that became evident included: interest in childhood and family health risks, the value of emotional preparation and personal planning, understanding of uncertain and low‐risk results, concerns regarding data privacy, and concerns about support following the receipt of a positive newborn screening result. The expected benefits and concerns expressed by parents of diverse backgrounds regarding genomic newborn screening should guide future policy decisions. Their preferences should be considered prior to the implementation of large‐scale genomic newborn screening programs.

genetics & heredity,social sciences, biomedical,health policy & services
Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Predictive and Presymptomatic Genetic Testing in Adults and Children

Danya F Vears,Alison McLean,Chloe La Spina,Aideen McInerney-Leo,Danya F. Vears

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2024.9

2024-03-21

Twin Research and Human Genetics

Abstract:Abstract This Position Statement provides guidelines for health professionals who work with individuals and families seeking predictive genetic testing and laboratory staff conducting the tests. It presents the major practical, psychosocial and ethical considerations associated with presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing in adults who have the capacity to make a decision, children and young people who lack capacity, and adults living with reduced or fluctuating cognitive capacity. Predictive Testing Recommendations: (1) Predictive testing in adults, young people and children should only be offered with pretest genetic counseling, and the option of post-test genetic counseling. (2) An individual considering whether to have a predictive test should be supported to make an autonomous and informed decision. Regarding Children and Young People: (1) Predictive testing should only be offered to children and young people for conditions where there is likely to be a direct medical benefit to them through surveillance, use of prevention strategies, or other medical interventions in the immediate future. (2) Where symptoms are likely to develop in childhood, in the absence of direct medical benefit from this knowledge, genetic health professionals and parents/guardians should discuss whether undertaking predictive testing is the best course of action for the child and the family as a whole. (3) Where symptoms are likely to develop in adulthood, the default position should be to postpone predictive testing until the young person achieves the capacity to make an autonomous and informed decision. This is applicable regardless of whether there is some action that can be taken in adulthood.

genetics & heredity,obstetrics & gynecology
Germline multigene panel testing in acute and chronic pancreatitis

Mitchell L Ramsey,Brandie Heald,Yevgeniya Gokun,Josie Baker,J Royce Groce,Samuel Han,Phil A Hart,Somashekar G Krishna,Luis F Lara,Peter J Lee,Georgios I Papachristou,Rachel Pearlman,Sarah Poll,Maegan E Roberts,Peter P Stanich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307076

IF: 3.7

2024-08-22

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background/objectives: Germline genetic testing is recommended for younger patients with idiopathic pancreatitis but there has been a lack of consensus in recommendations for those over age 35. We aimed to analyze the results of genetic testing among subjects of varying ages. Methods: Individuals who underwent germline multigene testing for pancreatitis susceptibility genes (CASR, CFTR, CPA1, CTRC, PRSS1, SPINK1) through a large commercial laboratory between 2017 and 2022 were included. Test results and information collected from test requisition forms were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to identify factors associated with a positive pancreatitis panel (pathogenic, likely pathogenic, and/or increased risk variants) in pancreatitis-related genes. Results: Overall, 2,468 subjects with primary indication of acute pancreatitis (AP) (n = 401), chronic pancreatitis (CP) (n = 631), pancreatic cancer (n = 128), or other indications (n = 1,308) completed germline testing. Among patients with AP or CP, the prevalence of any positive result for those <35 versus ≥35 years of age was 32.1% and 24.5% (p = 0.007), and the prevalence of a clinically meaningful result was 10.8% and 5.4%, respectively (p = 0.001). Positive family history of pancreatitis was associated with increased odds ratio (OR) of 8.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.92-25.25) for a clinically significant panel result while each 5-year increase in age at test completion had lower odds (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.95). Conclusions: The highest prevalence of pathogenic variants is seen in younger individuals with a positive family history of pancreatitis. However, clinically meaningful results are identified in older subjects, suggesting that genetic counseling and testing should be considered for all age groups.
The Evolution of Cancer Risk Assessment in the Era of Next Generation Sequencing

Heather Fecteau,Kristen J. Vogel,Kristen Hanson,Shannon Morrill‐Cornelius,Shannon Morrill-Cornelius

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9714-7

2014-04-24

Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract:Cancer genetics professionals face a new opportunity and challenge in adapting to the availability of cancer genetic testing panels, now available as a result of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology. While cancer panels have been available for over a year, we believe that there is not yet enough data to create practice guidelines. Despite this, a year of experience allows us to provide our opinion on points to consider as cancer genetic counselors incorporate this testing technology into genetic counseling practice models. NGS technology offers the ability to potentially diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes more efficiently by testing many genes at once for a fraction of what it would cost to test each gene individually. However, there are limitations and additional risks to consider with these tests. Obtaining informed consent for concurrent testing of multiple genes requires that genetics professionals modify their discussions with patients regarding the potential cancer risks and the associated implications to medical management. We propose dividing the genes on each panel into categories that vary by degree of cancer risk (e.g. penetrance of the syndrome) and availability of management guidelines, with the aim to improve patient understanding of the range of information that can come from this testing. The increased risk for identifying variants of uncertain significance (VUS) when testing many genes at once must be discussed with patients. Pretest genetic counseling must also include the possibility to receive unexpected results as well as the potential to receive a result in the absence of related medical management guidelines. It is also important to consider whether a single gene test remains the best testing option for some patients. As panels expand, it is important that documentation reflects exactly which genes have been analyzed for each patient. While this technology holds the promise of more efficient diagnosis for many of our patients, it also comes with new challenges that we must recognize and address.

genetics & heredity,social sciences, biomedical,health policy & services
Genetic Screening: Marvel or Menace?

Peter T. Rowley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6729472

IF: 56.9

1984-07-13

Science

Abstract:Genetic screening is a systematic search in the population for persons of certain genotypes. The usual purpose is to detect persons who themselves or whose offspring are at risk for genetic diseases or genetically determined susceptibilities to environmental agents. Is genetic screening a marvel about to free us from the scourge of genetic disease or a menace about to invade our privacy and determine who may reproduce? There are three different types of genetic screening. Newborn screening identifies serious genetic disease at birth, permitting prompt treatment to prevent mental and physical retardation. Fetal screening and prenatal diagnosis identify genetic disease in the fetus permitting selective termination of pregnancy and the opportunity to have children free of defects detectable in utero. Carrier screening identifies individuals heterozygous for a gene for a serious recessive disease who may be at risk for affected offspring. The challenge to society is to provide (by way of cost-effective programs) expert services, including genetic counseling and follow-up, to all who may benefit, to ensure confidentiality and freedom of choice, and to avoid misunderstanding and stigmatization. It is recommended that the objective of screening programs should be to maximize the options available to families at risk rather than to reduce the incidence of genetic diseases. Whenever possible, the providers of these services should be the providers of primary health care. Urgently needed are a greater awareness of avoidable genetic diseases on the part of primary care providers and efforts to familiarize the public with the basic concepts of human genetics through the public school system.

multidisciplinary sciences
Paradoxical poor prognosis of myeloma patients who demonstrate complete healing of bone lesions following treatment.

D. W. Wulfeck,T. Williams

Abstract:Multiple myeloma is the most common primary malignant bone neoplasm in adults, primarily over the age of 40. The most common radiographic findings include osteopenia, lytic lesions, and pathologic fractures. Although marked bone repair and healing can occur following therapy, this is often, paradoxically, a poor prognostic indicator.

Localization of dehydrogenases and glycogen metabolizing enzymes in muscle tissue of the desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria).

Expert and Advocacy Group Consensus Findings on the Horizon of Public Health Genetic Testing

Genetic Screening—Emerging Issues

Germline genetic testing in breast cancer: Rationale for the testing of all women diagnosed by the age of 60 years and for risk‐based testing of those older than 60 years

Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities

Parents' and patients' perspectives, experiences, and preferences for germline genetic or genomic testing of children with cancer: A systematic review

Primary Care Implementation of Genomic Population Health Screening Using a Large Gene Sequencing Panel

A Clinical Guide to Hereditary Cancer Panel Testing: Evaluation of Gene-Specific Cancer Associations and Sensitivity of Genetic Testing Criteria in a Cohort of 165,000 High-Risk Patients.

Economic evaluation of extended panel analysis in cancer patients with historical NHS diagnostic germline genetic testing - A modeling study based on real-world data

Some determinants of rigidity in discrimination-reversal learning.

Expanded carrier screening for inherited genetic disease using exome and genome sequencing

Young Women's Perspectives on Being Screened for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk During Routine Primary Care

The ethics of risk-stratified cancer screening

Degradable polyethylenimine-alt-poly(ethylene glycol) copolymers as novel gene carriers.

Abstract LB232: Implementation of population-based risk assessment for hereditary cancer in primary care: Results from the Early Detection of Genetic Risk (EDGE) Trial

Preferences of parents from diverse backgrounds on genomic screening of apparently healthy newborns

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Predictive and Presymptomatic Genetic Testing in Adults and Children

Germline multigene panel testing in acute and chronic pancreatitis

The Evolution of Cancer Risk Assessment in the Era of Next Generation Sequencing

Genetic Screening: Marvel or Menace?

Paradoxical poor prognosis of myeloma patients who demonstrate complete healing of bone lesions following treatment.