Diagnostic yield of genetic screening in a diverse, community-ascertained cohort
Rao, N. D.; Kaganovsky, J.; Malouf, E.; Coe, S.; Huey, J.; Tsinajinne, D.; Hassan, S.; King, K.; Fullerton, S. M.; Chen, A. T.; Shirts, B. H.
Show abstract
BackgroundPopulation screening for genetic risk of adult-onset preventable conditions has been proposed as an attractive public health intervention. Screening unselected individuals can identify many individuals who will not be identified through current genetic testing guidelines. MethodsWe sought to evaluate enrollment in and diagnostic yield of population genetic screening in a resource-limited setting among a diverse population. We developed a low-cost, short-read next-generation sequencing panel of 25 genes that had 98.4% sensitivity and 99.98% specificity compared to diagnostic panels. We used email invitations to recruit a diverse cohort of patients in the University of Washington Medical Center system unselected for personal or family history of hereditary disease. Participants were sent a saliva collection kit in the mail with instructions on kit use and return. Results were returned using a secure online portal. Enrollment and diagnostic yield were assessed overall, and across race and ethnicity groups. ResultsOverall, 40,857 people were invited and 2,899 (7.1%) enrolled. Enrollment varied across race and ethnicity groups, with the lowest enrollment among African American individuals (3.3%) and the highest among Multiracial or Other Race individuals (13.0%). Of 2,864 enrollees who received screening results, 106 actionable variants were identified in 103 individuals (3.6%). Of those who screened positive, 30.1% already knew about their results from prior genetic testing. The diagnostic yield was 74 new, actionable genetic findings (2.6%). The addition of more recently identified cancer risk genes increased the diagnostic yield of screening. ConclusionsPopulation screening can identify additional individuals that could benefit from prevention, but challenges in recruitment and sample collection will reduce actual enrollment and yield. These should not be overlooked in intervention planning or in cost and benefit analysis.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetic-Ancestry Analysis on >93,000 Individuals Undergoing Expanded Carrier Screening Reveals Limitations of Ethnicity-Based Medical Guidelines 94%
- Development and evaluation of a novel educational program for providers on the use of polygenic risk scores 93%
- The landscape of reported VUS in multi-gene panel and genomic testing: Time for a change 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Returning Actionable Genomic Results in a Research Biobank: Analytic Validity, Clinical Implementation and Resource Utilization 95%
- Understanding changes in genetic literacy over time and in genetic research participants 92%
- Clinical genetics lacks standard definitions and protocols for the collection and use of diversity measures 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Pooled Electronic Consultation Program to Improve Access to Genetics Specialists 92%
- Evaluation of DNA-poli: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial to assess a digital platform for family cascade genetic testing and predictive genetic counselling 91%
- A clinical algorithm to identify people with the glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase p.Val68Met variant at risk for diabetes undertreatment 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Defining the Critical Educational Components of Informed Consent for Genetic Testing: Views of US-Based Genetic Counselors and Medical Geneticists 93%
- Benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: results of a national physician survey 93%
- A Qualitative Study Exploring the Consumer Experience of Receiving Self-Initiated Polygenic Risk Scores from a Third-Party Website 93%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.