Capturing the clinical utility of genomic testing: Medical recommendations following pediatric microarray

European Journal of Human Genetics

Volumn 23, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 1135-1141

  Hayeems, Robin Z ^a,b   Hoang, Ny ^a,c   Chenier, Sebastien ^d   Stavropoulos, Dimitri J ^c   Pu, Shuye ^e   Weksberg, Rosanna ^a,c,e   Shuman, Cheryl ^a,c,e  

^a HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^d CENTRE HOSPITALIER UNIVERSITAIRE DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; CONSULTATION; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; FEMALE; GENOME ANALYSIS; HUMAN; INFANT; INTELLECTUAL IMPAIRMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; PEDIATRIC CHROMOSOME MICROARRAY; PEDIATRIC HOSPITAL; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCHOOL CHILD; TERTIARY HEALTH CARE; ADOLESCENT; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DNA MICROARRAY; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; PATIENT REFERRAL; PEDIATRICS; PEDIGREE; PROCEDURES;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; FEMALE; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; MALE; OLIGONUCLEOTIDE ARRAY SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; PEDIATRICS; PEDIGREE; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION;

EID: 84939259144     PISSN: 10184813     EISSN: 14765438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.260     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Manolio TA, Chisholm RL, Ozenberger B et al: Implementing genomic medicine in the clinic: the future is here. Genet Med 2013; 15: 258-267.
2. Johansen Taber KA, Dickinson BD, Wilson M: The promise and challenges of nextgeneration genome sequencing for clinical care. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 275-280.
3. Regier DA, Friedman JM, Marra CA: Value for money? Array genomic hybridization for diagnostic testing for genetic causes of intellectual disability. Am J Hum Genet 2010; 86: 765-772.
4. Trakadis Y, Shevell M: Microarray as a first genetic test in global developmental delay: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol 2011; 53: 994-999.
5. Miller DT, Adam MP, Aradhya S et al: Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet 2010; 86: 749-764.
6. Baldwin EL, Lee JY, Blake DM et al: Enhanced detection of clinically relevant genomic imbalances using a targeted plus whole genome oligonucleotide microarray. Genet Med 2008; 10: 415-429.
7. Manning M, Hudgins LProfessional Practice and Guidelines Committee: Array-based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities. Genet Med 2010; 12: 742-745.
8. Duncan A, Langlois SSOGC Genetics Committee, CCMG Prenatal Diagnosis Committee: Use of array genomic hybridization technology in prenatal diagnosis in canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011; 33: 1256-1259.
9. Ormond KE, Wheeler MT, Hudgins L et al: Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet 2010; 375: 1749-1751.
10. Yngvadottir B, Macarthur DG, Jin H, Tyler-Smith C: The promise and reality of personal genomics. Genome Biol 2009; 10: 237.
11. Tsuchiya KD, Shaffer LG, Aradhya S et al: Variability in interpreting and reporting copy number changes detected by array-based technology in clinical laboratories. Genet Med 2009; 11: 866-873.
12. Ali-Khan SE, Daar AS, Shuman C, Ray PN, Scherer SW: Whole genome scanning: resolving clinical diagnosis and management amidst complex data. Pediatr Res 2009; 66: 357-363.
13. Glauser W: Standardization of genetic tests needed. CMAJ 2010; 182: E705-E706.
14. Cancer Care Ontario: Ensuring access to high quality molecular oncology laboratory testing and clinical cancer genetic services in ontario. Rep Mol Oncol Task Force 2008.
15. Micheel CM, Nass SJ, Omenn GS (eds): Evolution of translational omics: lessons learned and the path forward. Committee on the Review of Omics-Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical Trials; Board on Health Care Services; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Institute of Medicine, 2012. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/ Reports/2012/Evolution-of-Translational-Omics.aspx.
16. Veenstra DL, Roth JA, Garrison Jr. LP, Ramsey SD, Burke W: A formal risk-benefit framework for genomic tests: facilitating the appropriate translation of genomics into clinical practice. Genet Med 2010; 12: 686-693.
17. Miller I, Ashton-Chess J, Spolders H et al: Market access challenges in the EU for high medical value diagnostic tests. Future Med 2011; 8: 137-148.
18. Wideroff L, Phillips KA, Randhawa G et al: A health services research agenda for cellular, molecular and genomic technologies in cancer care. Public Health Genomics 2009; 12: 233-244.
19. Rogowski WH, Grosse SD, Khoury MJ: Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet 2009; 10: 489-495.
20. Riggs E, Wain K, Riethmaier D et al: Chromosomal microarray impacts clinical management. Clin Genet 2013; 85: 147-153.
21. Becker F, van El CG, Ibarreta D et al: Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. background document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing and common disorders. Eur J Hum Genet 2011; 19(Suppl 1): S6-44.
22. Grosse SD, Khoury MJ: What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet Med 2006; 8: 448-450.
23. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE et al: The evaluation of genomic applications in practice and prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med 2009; 11: 3-14.
24. Burke W, Burton H, Hall AE et al: Extending the reach of public health genomics: what should be the agenda for public health in an era of genome-based and "personalized" medicine? Genet Med 2010; 12: 785-791.
25. Saam J, Gudgeon J, Aston E, Brothman AR: How physicians use array comparative genomic hybridization results to guide patient management in children with developmental delay. Genet Med 2008; 10: 181-186.
26. Coulter ME, Miller DT, Harris DJ et al: Chromosomal microarray testing influences medical management. Genet Med 2011; 13: 770-776.
27. Ellison JW, Ravnan JB, Rosenfeld JA et al: Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis. Pediatrics 2012; 130: e1085-e1095.
28. Henderson LB, Applegate CD, Wohler E, Sheridan MB, Hoover-Fong J, Batista DA: The impact of chromosomal microarray on clinical management: a retrospective analysis. Genet Med 2014; 16: 657-664.
29. Liu J, Bernier F, Lauzon J, Lowry RB, Chernos J: Application of microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization in prenatal and postnatal settings: three case reports. Genet Res Int 2011; 2011: 976398.
30. Ontario Genetics Secretariat. Genetic testing, services and research: contributing to the future healthcare of ontarians. 26 February 2009.
31. Tarini BA, Clark SJ, Pilli S et al: False-positive newborn screening result and future health care use in a state medicaid cohort. Pediatrics 2011; 128: 715-722.
32. Tu WJ, He J, Chen H, Shi XD, Li Y: Psychological effects of false-positive results in expanded newborn screening in china. PLoS One 2012; 7: e36235.
33. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG: Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42: 377-381.
34. United Nations Statistics Division. Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions and geographical sub-regions. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/ m49regin.htm. Accessed 19 October 2012.
35. Robinson PN, Mundlos S: The human phenotype ontology. Clin Genet 2010; 77: 525-534.
36. Kearney HM, Thorland EC, Brown KK, Quintero-Rivera F, South STWorking Group of the American College of Medical Genetics Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee: American College of Medical Genetics Standards and Guidelines for Interpretation and Reporting of Postnatal Constitutional Copy Number Variants. Genet Med 2011; 13: 680-685.
37. Wheeler RE The R project for statistical computing. http:// www.r-project.org Updated 2009. Accessed 18 March 2004.
38. R Development Core Team: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computin, 2009. http://www.R-project.org.
39. Michelson DJ, Shevell MI, Sherr EH et al: So what? does the test lead to improved health outcomes? Neurology 2012; 78: 440-441.
40. Wimalasundera RC, Gardiner HM: Congenital heart disease and aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2004; 24: 1116-1122.
41. Barakat AY, Butler MG: Renal and urinary tract abnormalities associated with chromosome aberrations. Int J Pediatr Nephrol 1987; 8: 215-226.
42. McGrew SG, Peters BR, Crittendon JA, Veenstra-Vanderweele J. Diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray analysis in an autism primary care practice: which guidelines to implement? J Autism Dev Disord 2012; 42: 1582-1591.
43. Caulfield T, Evans J, McGuire A et al: Reflections on the cost of "low-cost" whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate. PLoS Biol 2013; 11: e1001699.
44. Girirajan S, Rosenfeld JA, Coe BP et al: Phenotypic heterogeneity of genomic disorders and rare copy-number variants. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1321-1331.
45. Boone PM, Wiszniewski W, Lupski JR: Genomic medicine and neurological disease. Hum Genet 2011; 130: 103-121.