Chloe Mighton, Rita Kodida, Salma Shickh, Marc Clausen, Emma Reble, Jordan Sam, Sonya Grewal, Daena Hirjikaka, Seema Panchal, Carolyn Piccinin, Melyssa Aronson, Thomas Ward, Susan Randall Armel, Renee Hofstedter, Tracy Graham, Talia Mancuso, Nicole Forster, José-Mario Capo-Chichi, Elena Greenfeld, Abdul Noor, Iris Cohn, Chantal F Morel, Christine Elser, Andrea Eisen, June C Carroll, Emily Glogowksi, Kasmintan A Schrader, Kelvin K W Chan, Kevin E Thorpe, Jordan Lerner-Ellis, Raymond H Kim, Yvonne Bombard
{"title":"机会性基因组筛查具有临床实用性:一项干预性队列研究。","authors":"Chloe Mighton, Rita Kodida, Salma Shickh, Marc Clausen, Emma Reble, Jordan Sam, Sonya Grewal, Daena Hirjikaka, Seema Panchal, Carolyn Piccinin, Melyssa Aronson, Thomas Ward, Susan Randall Armel, Renee Hofstedter, Tracy Graham, Talia Mancuso, Nicole Forster, José-Mario Capo-Chichi, Elena Greenfeld, Abdul Noor, Iris Cohn, Chantal F Morel, Christine Elser, Andrea Eisen, June C Carroll, Emily Glogowksi, Kasmintan A Schrader, Kelvin K W Chan, Kevin E Thorpe, Jordan Lerner-Ellis, Raymond H Kim, Yvonne Bombard","doi":"10.1016/j.gim.2024.101323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Practice is shifting toward genome-first approaches, such as opportunistic screening for secondary findings (SFs). Analysis of SFs could be extended beyond medically actionable results to include non-medically actionable monogenic disease risks, carrier status, pharmacogenomic variants, and risk variants for common complex disease. However, evidence on the clinical utility of returning these results is lacking. We assessed the outcomes of opportunistic screening for a broad spectrum of SFs by evaluating the yield, impact on clinical management, and consistency between SFs and participants' clinical features and family history.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult cancer patients had GS with the option to learn multiple categories of SFs. Outcomes data were collected through chart review and participant-reported measures up to one year after return of results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participants (n=139, 85.6% female, average 54.6 years old) who elected to learn SFs had ≥1 variant reported (100% [139/139]). The yield of reportable findings was highest for pharmacogenomic variants (97.8% [135/138] of participants), followed by common disease risk variants (89.4% [118/132]), carrier status (89.3% [117/131]), and variants related to Mendelian (27.2% [34/125]), medically actionable (15.2% [21/138]), and early-onset neurodegenerative (2.6% [3/117]) disease risks. SFs from the ACMG list (v3.2, non-cancer genes) were reported in 1.4% (2/138) of participants. SFs across all categories demonstrated clinical utility by prompting management changes in 28.1% (39/139) of participants. Moreover, a considerable proportion of participants had suggestive clinical features (49.0% (24/49)]) or family history (21.8% (27/124)) potentially related to their SFs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate there are potential benefits from opportunistic screening for a broad range of SFs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12717,"journal":{"name":"Genetics in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"101323"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Opportunistic genomic screening has clinical utility: An interventional cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Chloe Mighton, Rita Kodida, Salma Shickh, Marc Clausen, Emma Reble, Jordan Sam, Sonya Grewal, Daena Hirjikaka, Seema Panchal, Carolyn Piccinin, Melyssa Aronson, Thomas Ward, Susan Randall Armel, Renee Hofstedter, Tracy Graham, Talia Mancuso, Nicole Forster, José-Mario Capo-Chichi, Elena Greenfeld, Abdul Noor, Iris Cohn, Chantal F Morel, Christine Elser, Andrea Eisen, June C Carroll, Emily Glogowksi, Kasmintan A Schrader, Kelvin K W Chan, Kevin E Thorpe, Jordan Lerner-Ellis, Raymond H Kim, Yvonne Bombard\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gim.2024.101323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Practice is shifting toward genome-first approaches, such as opportunistic screening for secondary findings (SFs). Analysis of SFs could be extended beyond medically actionable results to include non-medically actionable monogenic disease risks, carrier status, pharmacogenomic variants, and risk variants for common complex disease. However, evidence on the clinical utility of returning these results is lacking. We assessed the outcomes of opportunistic screening for a broad spectrum of SFs by evaluating the yield, impact on clinical management, and consistency between SFs and participants' clinical features and family history.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult cancer patients had GS with the option to learn multiple categories of SFs. Outcomes data were collected through chart review and participant-reported measures up to one year after return of results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participants (n=139, 85.6% female, average 54.6 years old) who elected to learn SFs had ≥1 variant reported (100% [139/139]). The yield of reportable findings was highest for pharmacogenomic variants (97.8% [135/138] of participants), followed by common disease risk variants (89.4% [118/132]), carrier status (89.3% [117/131]), and variants related to Mendelian (27.2% [34/125]), medically actionable (15.2% [21/138]), and early-onset neurodegenerative (2.6% [3/117]) disease risks. SFs from the ACMG list (v3.2, non-cancer genes) were reported in 1.4% (2/138) of participants. SFs across all categories demonstrated clinical utility by prompting management changes in 28.1% (39/139) of participants. Moreover, a considerable proportion of participants had suggestive clinical features (49.0% (24/49)]) or family history (21.8% (27/124)) potentially related to their SFs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate there are potential benefits from opportunistic screening for a broad range of SFs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genetics in Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"101323\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Genetics in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2024.101323\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2024.101323","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Opportunistic genomic screening has clinical utility: An interventional cohort study.
Background: Practice is shifting toward genome-first approaches, such as opportunistic screening for secondary findings (SFs). Analysis of SFs could be extended beyond medically actionable results to include non-medically actionable monogenic disease risks, carrier status, pharmacogenomic variants, and risk variants for common complex disease. However, evidence on the clinical utility of returning these results is lacking. We assessed the outcomes of opportunistic screening for a broad spectrum of SFs by evaluating the yield, impact on clinical management, and consistency between SFs and participants' clinical features and family history.
Methods: Adult cancer patients had GS with the option to learn multiple categories of SFs. Outcomes data were collected through chart review and participant-reported measures up to one year after return of results.
Results: All participants (n=139, 85.6% female, average 54.6 years old) who elected to learn SFs had ≥1 variant reported (100% [139/139]). The yield of reportable findings was highest for pharmacogenomic variants (97.8% [135/138] of participants), followed by common disease risk variants (89.4% [118/132]), carrier status (89.3% [117/131]), and variants related to Mendelian (27.2% [34/125]), medically actionable (15.2% [21/138]), and early-onset neurodegenerative (2.6% [3/117]) disease risks. SFs from the ACMG list (v3.2, non-cancer genes) were reported in 1.4% (2/138) of participants. SFs across all categories demonstrated clinical utility by prompting management changes in 28.1% (39/139) of participants. Moreover, a considerable proportion of participants had suggestive clinical features (49.0% (24/49)]) or family history (21.8% (27/124)) potentially related to their SFs.
Conclusions: Our findings indicate there are potential benefits from opportunistic screening for a broad range of SFs.
期刊介绍:
Genetics in Medicine (GIM) is the official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. The journal''s mission is to enhance the knowledge, understanding, and practice of medical genetics and genomics through publications in clinical and laboratory genetics and genomics, including ethical, legal, and social issues as well as public health.
GIM encourages research that combats racism, includes diverse populations and is written by authors from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds.