Variations in predicted risks in personal genome testing for common complex diseases

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 85-91

  Kalf, Rachel R J ^a   Mihaescu, Raluca ^a   Kundu, Suman ^a   De Knijff, Peter ^b   Green, Robert C ^c   Janssens, A Cecile J W ^a,d  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

direct to consumer; genetic testing; genomics; personal genome testing; risk prediction

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CELIAC DISEASE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROHN DISEASE; GENE FREQUENCY; GENETIC ANALYZER; GENETIC RISK; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; HEART ATRIUM FIBRILLATION; HUMAN; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; POPULATION RISK; PROSTATE CANCER; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM;

ALGORITHMS; ATRIAL FIBRILLATION; CELIAC DISEASE; CROHN DISEASE; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC TESTING; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME, HUMAN; GENOTYPE; HUMANS; MACULAR DEGENERATION; MALE; PERSONAL HEALTH SERVICES; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84892186977     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.80     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. 23andMe. https://www.23andme.com/. Accessed 1 January 2012 and 1 December 2012.
2. deCODEme. http://www.decodeme.com/. Accessed 1 January 2012 and 1 December 2012.
3. Navigenics. http://www.navigenics.com/. Accessed 1 January 2012 and 1 December 2012.
4. Helgason A, Stefánsson K. The past, present, and future of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2010;12:61-68.
5. Janssens AC, van Duijn CM. Genome-based prediction of common diseases: advances and prospects. Hum Mol Genet 2008;17(R2):R166-R173.
6. Visscher PM, Brown MA, McCarthy MI, Yang J. Five years of GWAS discovery. Am J Hum Genet 2012;90:7-24.
7. Hecker LA, Edwards AO, Ryu E, et al. Genetic control of the alternative pathway of complement in humans and age-related macular degeneration. Hum Mol Genet 2010;19:209-215.
8. Eleftherohorinou H, Wright V, Hoggart C, et al. Pathway analysis of GWAS provides new insights into genetic susceptibility to 3 inflammatory diseases. PLoS ONE 2009;4:e8068.
9. United States Government Accountability Office. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests: Misleading test results are further complicated by deceptive marketing and other questionable practices. 2010. www.gao.gov/assets/130/125079. pdf. Accessed 1 January 2012.
10. Ng PC, Murray SS, Levy S, Venter JC. An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature 2009;461:724-726.
11. Imai K, Kricka LJ, Fortina P. Concordance study of 3 direct-to-consumer genetictesting services. Clin Chem 2011;57:518-521.
12. Swan M. Multigenic condition risk assessment in direct-to-consumer genomic services. Genet Med 2010;12:279-288.
13. Kuehn BM. Risks and benefits of direct-to-consumer genetic testing remain unclear. JAMA 2008;300:1503-1505.
14. Janssens AC, Aulchenko YS, Elefante S, Borsboom GJ, Steyerberg EW, van Duijn CM. Predictive testing for complex diseases using multiple genes: fact or fiction? Genet Med 2006;8:395-400.
15. Kundu S, Karssen LC, Janssens AC. Analytical and simulation methods for estimating the potential predictive ability of genetic profiling: a comparison of methods and results. Eur J Hum Genet 2012;20:1270-1274.
16. Macpherson M, Naughton B, Hsu A, Mountain J. White paper 23-01: estimating genotype-specific incidence for one or several loci. 2007. https://23andme. https.internapcdn.net/res/pdf/HIC-SXIYiYqXreldAxO5yA-23-01- Estimating-Genotype-Specific-Incidence.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2012.
17. deCODEme. SNP selection and risk calculation. demo.decodeme.com/ healthwatch-information/risk-calculation. Accessed 1 July 2012.
18. Navigenics. The science behind the Navigenics service. www.navigenics.com/static/pdf/Navigenics-TheScience.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2012.
19. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36.
20. Ihaka GR, Gentelman R. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 1996;5:299-314.
21. The Personalized Medicine Coalition. Personal genomics and industry standards: scientific validity. http://www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org/ sites/all/themes/zen-pmc/documents/PMC%20personalgenomicsSci%20 Valid15dec08.pdf. Accessed 1 December 2012.
22. Mihaescu R, van Hoek M, Sijbrands EJ, et al. Evaluation of risk prediction updates from commercial genome-wide scans. Genet Med 2009;11:588-594.
23. So HC, Sham PC. Effect size measures in genetic association studies and ageconditional risk prediction. Hum Hered 2010;70:205-218.
24. Moonesinghe R, Khoury MJ, Liu T, Janssens AC. Discriminative accuracy of genomic profiling comparing multiplicative and additive risk models. Eur J Hum Genet 2011;19:180-185.
25. Cook NR. Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 2007;115:928-935.