Description and pilot results from a novel method for evaluating return of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 15, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 721-728

  Goddard, Katrina A B ^a   Whitlock, Evelyn P ^a   Berg, Jonathan S ^b   Williams, Marc S ^c   Webber, Elizabeth M ^a   Webster, Jennifer A ^a   Lin, Jennifer S ^a   Schrader, Kasmintan A ^d   Campos Outcalt, Doug ^e   Offit, Kenneth ^d   Feigelson, Heather Spencer ^f   Hollombe, Celine ^a  

^a CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c GEISINGER HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^d MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f Kaiser Permanente Colorado   (United States)

Author keywords

clinical actionability; population screening; secondary findings; whole exome sequencing; whole genome sequencing

Indexed keywords

ALPHA 1 ANTITRYPSIN DEFICIENCY; ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; FACE VALIDITY; FAMILIAL COLON POLYPOSIS; GENE MUTATION; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC SCREENING; HEMOCHROMATOSIS; HOMOZYGOSITY; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; MASS SCREENING; NEWBORN SCREENING; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; PILOT STUDY;

ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS COLI; ALPHA 1-ANTITRYPSIN DEFICIENCY; EXOME; GENETIC TESTING; HEMOCHROMATOSIS; HIGH-THROUGHPUT NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCING; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; PILOT PROJECTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

EID: 84883856709     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.37     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Katsnelson A. Human genomes: genomes by the thousands. Nature 2010; 467:1026-1027.
2. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Policy Statement Points to Consider in the Clinical Application of Genomic Sequencing. http://www.acmg.net/StaticContent/ PPG/Clinical-Application-of-Genomic-Sequencing.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2012.
3. Kohane IS, Masys DR, Altman RB. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 2006;296:212-215. (Pubitemid 44050375)
4. Levy S, Sutton G, Ng PC, et al. The diploid genome sequence of an individual human. PLoS Biol 2007;5:e254.
5. Wheeler DA, Srinivasan M, Egholm M, et al. The complete genome of an individual by massively parallel DNA sequencing. Nature 2008;452: 872-876. (Pubitemid 351550870)
6. Wang J, Wang W, Li R, et al. The diploid genome sequence of an Asian individual. Nature 2008;456:60-65.
7. Bentley DR, Balasubramanian S, Swerdlow HP, et al. Accurate whole human genome sequencing using reversible terminator chemistry. Nature 2008;456:53-59.
8. Ashley EA, Butte AJ, Wheeler MT, et al. Clinical assessment incorporating a personal genome. Lancet 2010;375:1525-1535.
9. McKernan KJ, Peckham HE, Costa GL, et al. Sequence and structural variation in a human genome uncovered by short-read, massively parallel ligation sequencing using two-base encoding. Genome Res 2009;19: 1527-1541.
10. Via M, Gignoux C, Burchard EG. The 1000 Genomes Project: new opportunities for research and social challenges. Genome Med 2010;2:3.
11. Berg JS, Adams M, Nassar N, et al. An informatics approach to analyzing the incidentalome. Genet Med 2013;15:36-44.
12. Green RC, Berg JS, Berry GT, et al. Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genet Med 2012;14: 405-410.
13. Biesecker LG, Burke W, Kohane I, Plon SE, Zimmern R. Next-generation sequencing in the clinic: are we ready? Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:818-824.
14. Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 2011;13:499-504.
15. Fullerton SM, Wolf WA, Brothers KB, et al. Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Genet Med 2012;14:424-431.
16. Schrijver I, Aziz N, Farkas DH, et al. Opportunities and challenges associated with clinical diagnostic genome sequencing: a report of the Association for Molecular Pathology. J Mol Diagn 2012;14:525-540.
17. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, et al.; EGAPP Working Group. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med 2009;11: 3-14.
18. Sawaya GF, Guirguis-Blake J, LeFevre M, Harris R, Petitti D; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:871-875. (Pubitemid 351664424)
19. Institute of Medicine. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. http://www.iom. edu/Reports/2011/Clinical-Practice-Guidelines-We-Can-Trust.aspx. Accessed 21 November 2012.
20. US Preventive Services Task Force. USPSTF procedure manual section 5: methods for arriving at a recommendation. http://www. uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf08/methods/procmanual5.htm. Accessed 14 January 2013.
21. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev 2012;1:10.
22. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Drsy V. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:317-319. (Pubitemid 351521860)
23. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. WHO Chronicle Geneva:World Health Organization 1968;22:473 Public Health Papers, #34.
24. UK National Screening Committee. UK National screening committee criteria. http://www.screening.nhs.uk/criteria. Accessed 23 July 2012.
25. Cogswell ME, McDonnell SM, Khoury MJ, Franks AL, Burke W, Brittenham G. Iron overload, public health, and genetics: evaluating the evidence for hemochromatosis screening. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:971-979. (Pubitemid 28549835)
26. Calonge N, Green NS, Rinaldo P, et al.; Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. Committee report: Method for evaluating conditions nominated for population-based screening of newborns and children. Genet Med 2010;12:153-159.
27. Watson MS. Current status of newborn screening: decision-making about the conditions to include in screening programs. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2006;12:230-235. (Pubitemid 46053448)
28. Padilla CD. Towards universal newborn screening in developing countries: obstacles and the way forward. Ann Acad Med Singap 2008;37(suppl 12): 6-4.
29. Therrell BL Jr. Considerations in choosing screening conditions: one (US) approach. Ann Acad Med Singap 2008;37(suppl 12):22-25.
30. Khoury MJ, McCabe LL, McCabe ER. Population screening in the age of genomic medicine. N Engl J Med 2003;348:50-58. (Pubitemid 36026347)
31. Harris R, Sawaya GF, Moyer VA, Calonge N. Reconsidering the criteria for evaluating proposed screening programs: reflections from 4 current and former members of the U.S. Preventive services task force. Epidemiol Rev 2011;33: 20-35.
32. Burke W, Tarini B, Press NA, Evans JP. Genetic screening. Epidemiol Rev 2011;33:148-164.
33. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37-46.
34. European Association For The Study Of The Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines for HFE hemochromatosis. J Hepatol 2010;53:3-22.
35. Ellervik C, Birgens H, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Nordestgaard BG. Hemochromatosis genotypes and risk of 31 disease endpoints: meta-analyses including 66,000 cases and 226,000 controls. Hepatology 2007;46:1071-1080. (Pubitemid 350144771)
36. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al.; AGREE Next Steps Consortium. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ 2010;182:E839-E842.
37. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1013-1020.
38. Veenstra DL, Piper M, Haddow JE, et al. Improving the efficiency and relevance of evidence-based recommendations in the era of whole-genome sequencing: an EGAPP methods update. Genet Med 2013;15:14-24.
39. Botkin JR, Teutsch SM, Kaye CI, et al.; EGAPP Working Group. Outcomes of interest in evidence-based evaluations of genetic tests. Genet Med 2010;12:228-235.
40. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/. Accessed 21 November 2012.