Bayesian risk assessment in genetic testing for autosomal dominant disorders with age-dependent penetrance

Journal of Genetic Counseling

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 29-39

  Ogino, Shuji ^a,b   Wilson, Robert B ^c   Gold, Bert ^d   Flodman, Pamela ^e  

^a DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Autosomal dominant; Bayes; Bayesian; Genetic counseling; Genetic risk; Hereditary cancer; Penetrance; Risk assessment; Sensitivity

Indexed keywords

AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; AUTOSOMAL DOMINANT DISORDER; BAYES THEOREM; CANCER RISK; DECISION MAKING; FAMILIAL CANCER; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMAN; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

AGE OF ONSET; BAYES THEOREM; FEMALE; GENES, DOMINANT; GENETIC DISEASES, INBORN; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMANS; MALE; MUTATION; PEDIGREE; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 33847654632     PISSN: 10597700     EISSN: 15733599     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10897-006-9040-9     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Biesecker, L. (2005). Accuracy and precision in Bayesian analysis. Am J Med Genet A, 134, 111.
2. Bonke, B., Tibben, A., Lindhout, D., Clarke, A. J., & Stijnen, T. (2005). Genetic risk estimation by healthcare professionals. Med J Aust, 182, 116-118.
3. Bonke, B., Tibben, A., Lindhout, D., & Stijnen, T. (2002). Favourable mutation test outcomes for individuals at risk for Huntington disease change the perspectives of first-degree relatives. Hum Genet, 111, 297-298.
4. Bonke, B., Tibben, A., Lindhout, D., & Stijnen, T. (2006). Calculating risk changes after negative mutation test outcomes for autosomal dominant hereditary late-onset disorders. Heredity, 96, 259-261.
5. Bridge, P. J. (1997). The Calculation of Genetic Risks: Worked Examples in DNA Diagnostics. Second Edition edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
6. Flodman, P., & Hodge, S. E. (2001). A genetic risk calculation surprise. Am J Med Genet, 100, 169-171.
7. Hodge, S. E. (1998). A simple, unified approach to Bayesian risk calculations. J Genet Couns, 7, 235-261.
8. Hodge, S. E., & Flodman, P. L. (2004). Risk calculations: still essential in the molecular age. Am J Med Genet, 129A, 215-217.
9. Ogino, S., Flodman, P., Wilson, R. B., Gold, B., & Grody, W. W. (2005). Risk calculations for cystic fibrosis in neonatal screening by immunoreactive trypsinogen and CFTR mutation tests. Genet Med, 7, 317-327.
10. Ogino, S., Leonard, D. G., Rennert, H., Ewens, W. J., & Wilson, R. B. (2002). Genetic risk assessment in carrier testing for spinal muscular atrophy. Am J Med Genet, 110, 301-307.
11. Ogino, S., & Wilson, R. B. (2002). Genetic testing and risk assessment for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Hum Genet, 111, 477-500.
12. Ogino, S., & Wilson, R. B. (2004). Bayesian Analysis and Risk Assessment in Genetic Counseling and Testing. J Mol Diagn, 6, 1-9.
13. Ogino, S., Wilson, R. B., Gold, B., Hawley, P., & Grody, W. W. (2004a). Bayesian analysis for cystic fibrosis risks in prenatal and carrier screening. Genet Med, 6, 439-449.
14. Ogino, S., Wilson, R. B., & Grody, W. W. (2004b). Bayesian risk assessment for autosomal recessive diseases: fetal echogenic bowel with one or no detectable CFTR mutation. J Med Genet, 41, e70.
15. Otto, P. A., & Maestrelli, S. R. (2000). Heterozygosity probabilities for normal relatives of isolated cases affected by incompletely penetrant conditions and the calculation of recurrence risks for their offspring. I. Autosomal dominant genes. Am J Med Genet, 95, 43-48.
16. Young, I. D. (1999). Introduction to risk calculation in genetic counseling. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.