Genomic screening of the general adult population: Key concepts for assessing net benefit with systematic evidence reviews

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 441-443

  Prince, Anya E R ^a   Berg, Jonathan S ^a,b   Evans, James P ^a,b   Jonas, Daniel E ^a,b   Henderson, Gail ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; FAMILY HISTORY; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC SCREENING; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; NOTE; PENETRANCE; PLEIOTROPY; POPULATION; PREVALENCE; PUBLIC HEALTH; ETHICS; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOMICS; HEALTH SURVEY; MASS SCREENING; PROCEDURES;

ADULT; GENETIC TESTING; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOMICS; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PENETRANCE; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREVALENCE;

EID: 84930329858     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.129     Document Type: Note

References (10)

1. Evans JP, Berg JS, Olshan AF, Magnuson T, Rimer BK. We screen newborns, don't we?: realizing the promise of public health genomics. Genet Med 2013;15:332-334.
2. Berg JS, Amendola LM, Eng C, et al.; Members of the CSER Actionability and Return of Results Working Group. Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium. Genet Med 2013;15:860-867.
3. Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS, et al.; eMERGE Act-ROR Committee and CERC Committee; CSER Act-ROR Working Group. Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet 2014;94:818-826.
4. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al.; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013;15:565-574.
5. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). ACMG Updates Recommendation on "Opt Out" for Genome Sequencing Return of Results, 1 April 2014. https://www.acmg.net/docs/Release-ACMGUpdatesRecommendations-final.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2014.
6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Grade Definitions After May 2007, May 2008. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/gradespost.htm. Accessed 10 June 2014.
7. Khoury MJ. Dealing with the evidence dilemma in genomics and personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010;87:635-638.
8. Jonas DE, Wilt TJ, Taylor BC, Wilkins TM, Matchar DB. Chapter 11: challenges in and principles for conducting systematic reviews of genetic tests used as predictive indicators. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27(suppl 1):S83-S93.
9. Kocarnik JM, Fullerton SM. Returning pleiotropic results from genetic testing to patients and research participants. JAMA 2014;311:795-796.
10. Haroun I, Graham T, Poll A, et al. Reasons for risk-reducing mastectomy versus MRI-screening in a cohort of women at high hereditary risk of breast cancer. Breast 2011;20:254-258.