Literature DB >> 11431707

Estimating the efficacy and efficiency of cascade genetic screening.

M Krawczak1, D N Cooper, J Schmidtke.   

Abstract

Screening for genetic variants that predispose individuals or their offspring to disease may be performed at the general population level or may instead be targeted at the relatives of previously identified carriers. The latter strategy has come to be known as "cascade genetic screening." Since the carrier risk of close relatives of known carriers is generally higher than the population risk, cascade screening is more efficient than population screening, in the sense that fewer individuals have to be genotyped per detected carrier. The efficacy of cascade screening, as measured by the overall proportion of carriers detected in a given population, is, however, lower than that of population-wide screening, and the respective inclusion rates vary according to the population frequency and mode of inheritance of the predisposing variants. For dominant mutations, we have developed equations that allow the inclusion rates of cascade screening to be calculated in an iterative fashion, depending upon screening depth and penetrance. For recessive mutations, we derived only equations for the screening of siblings and the children of patients. Owing to their mathematical complexity, it was necessary to study more extended screening strategies by simulation. Cascade screening turned out to result in low inclusion rates (<1%) when aimed at the identification of heterozygous carriers of rare recessive variants. Considerably higher rates are achievable, however, when screening is performed to detect covert homozygotes for frequent recessive mutations with reduced penetrance. This situation is exemplified by hereditary hemochromatosis, for which up to 40% of at-risk individuals may be identifiable through screening of first- to third-degree relatives of overt carriers (i.e., patients); the efficiency of this screening strategy was found to be approximately 50 times higher than that of population-wide screening. For dominant mutations, inclusion rates of cascade screening were estimated to be higher than for recessive variants. Thus, some 80% of all carriers of the factor V Leiden mutation would be detected if screening were to be targeted specifically at first- to third-degree relatives of patients with venous thrombosis. The relative cost efficiency of cascade as compared with population-wide screening (i.e., the overall savings in the extra managerial cost of the condition) is also likely to be higher for dominant than for recessive mutations. This notwithstanding, once screening has become cost-effective at the population level, it can be expected that cascade screening would only transiently represent an economically viable option.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11431707      PMCID: PMC1235308          DOI: 10.1086/321973

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  24 in total

1.  Neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis in Brittany, France: assessment of 10 years' experience and impact on prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  V Scotet; M de Braekeleer; M Roussey; G Rault; P Parent; M Dagorne; H Journel; A Lemoigne; J P Codet; M Catheline; V David; A Chaventré; I Duguépéroux; C Verlingue; I Quéré; B Mercier; M P Audrézet; C Férec
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-09-02       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Views of a general population on mass screening for colorectal cancer: the Burgundy Study.

Authors:  P Arveux; G Durand; C Milan; L Bedenne; D Lévy; B D Doan; J Faivre
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  A novel MHC class I-like gene is mutated in patients with hereditary haemochromatosis.

Authors:  J N Feder; A Gnirke; W Thomas; Z Tsuchihashi; D A Ruddy; A Basava; F Dormishian; R Domingo; M C Ellis; A Fullan; L M Hinton; N L Jones; B E Kimmel; G S Kronmal; P Lauer; V K Lee; D B Loeb; F A Mapa; E McClelland; N C Meyer; G A Mintier; N Moeller; T Moore; E Morikang; C E Prass; L Quintana; S M Starnes; R C Schatzman; K J Brunke; D T Drayna; N J Risch; B R Bacon; R K Wolff
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 38.330

4.  Population screening for haemochromatosis: expectations based on a study of relatives of symptomatic probands.

Authors:  L A Bradley; J E Haddow; G E Palomaki
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Cascade testing for the identification of carriers of cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  S Holloway; D J Brock
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 2.136

6.  The frequency of consanguineous marriage among British Pakistanis.

Authors:  A Darr; B Modell
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 6.318

7.  A simple genetic test identifies 90% of UK patients with haemochromatosis. The UK Haemochromatosis Consortium.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  Active cascade screening for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  T Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-06-04

9.  Screening for cystic fibrosis. Should begin with cascade screening.

Authors:  M Super; M J Schwarz; G Malone; T Roberts; A Haworth; G Dermody
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-10-01

10.  Genetics of iron storage and hemochromatosis.

Authors:  E Beutler; V Felitti; T Gelbart; N Ho
Journal:  Drug Metab Dispos       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.922

View more
  20 in total

1.  Cascade genetic testing for mismatch repair gene mutations.

Authors:  R J Mitchell; R K Ferguson; A Macdonald; M G Dunlop; H Campbell; M E Porteous
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2008-04-04       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 2.  Genetic screening.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Beth Tarini; Nancy A Press; James P Evans
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 6.222

Review 3.  Communication and technology in genetic counseling for familial cancer.

Authors:  H T Lynch; C Snyder; M Stacey; B Olson; S K Peterson; S Buxbaum; T Shaw; P M Lynch
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 4.438

4.  Reverse cascade screening of newborns for hereditary haemochromatosis: a model for other late onset diseases?

Authors:  E Cadet; D Capron; M Gallet; M-L Omanga-Léké; H Boutignon; C Julier; K J H Robson; J Rochette
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 6.318

5.  Attitudes and opinions of pregnant women who are not offered cystic fibrosis carrier screening.

Authors:  Liane Ioannou; John Massie; Sharon Lewis; Veronica Collins; Belinda McClaren; Martin B Delatycki
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 6.  Imaging phenotypes and genotypes in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Jessica A Turner; Padhraic Smyth; Fabio Macciardi; James H Fallon; James L Kennedy; Steven G Potkin
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2006

Review 7.  Screening for hemochromatosis: patients with liver disease, families, and populations.

Authors:  Sumedha P Galhenage; Charlie H Viiala; John K Olynyk
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2004-02

8.  Addressing key issues in the consanguinity-related risk of autosomal recessive disorders in consanguineous communities: lessons from a qualitative study of British Pakistanis.

Authors:  A Darr; N Small; W I U Ahmad; K Atkin; P Corry; B Modell
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2015-09-12

9.  Frequency of Pathogenic Germline Variants in Cancer-Susceptibility Genes in Patients With Osteosarcoma.

Authors:  Lisa Mirabello; Bin Zhu; Roelof Koster; Eric Karlins; Michael Dean; Meredith Yeager; Matthew Gianferante; Logan G Spector; Lindsay M Morton; Danielle Karyadi; Leslie L Robison; Gregory T Armstrong; Smita Bhatia; Lei Song; Nathan Pankratz; Maisa Pinheiro; Julie M Gastier-Foster; Richard Gorlick; Silvia Regina Caminada de Toledo; Antonio S Petrilli; Ana Patino-Garcia; Fernando Lecanda; Miriam Gutierrez-Jimeno; Massimo Serra; Claudia Hattinger; Piero Picci; Katia Scotlandi; Adrienne M Flanagan; Roberto Tirabosco; Maria Fernanda Amary; Nilgün Kurucu; Inci Ergurhan Ilhan; Mandy L Ballinger; David M Thomas; Donald A Barkauskas; Gerardo Mejia-Baltodano; Patricia Valverde; Belynda D Hicks; Bin Zhu; Mingyi Wang; Amy A Hutchinson; Margaret Tucker; Joshua Sampson; Maria T Landi; Neal D Freedman; Susan Gapstur; Brian Carter; Robert N Hoover; Stephen J Chanock; Sharon A Savage
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 31.777

10.  Family-level impact of genetic testing: integrating health economics and ethical, legal, and social implications.

Authors:  Hadley Stevens Smith; Amy L McGuire; Eve Wittenberg; Tara A Lavelle
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 2.512

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.