Literature DB >> 23412608

How can polygenic inheritance be used in population screening for common diseases?

Muin J Khoury1, A Cecile J W Janssens, David F Ransohoff.   

Abstract

Advances in genomics have near-term impact on diagnosis and management of monogenic disorders. For common complex diseases, the use of genomic information from multiple loci (polygenic model) is generally not useful for diagnosis and individual prediction. In principle, the polygenic model could be used along with other risk factors in stratified population screening to target interventions. For example, compared to age-based criterion for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening, adding polygenic risk and family history holds promise for more efficient screening with earlier start and/or increased frequency of screening for segments of the population at higher absolute risk than an established screening threshold; and later start and/or decreased frequency of screening for segments of the population at lower risks. This approach, while promising, faces formidable challenges for building its evidence base and for its implementation in practice. Currently, it is unclear whether or not polygenic risk can contribute enough discrimination to make stratified screening worthwhile. Empirical data are lacking on population-based age-specific absolute risks combining genetic and non-genetic factors, on impact of polygenic risk genes on disease natural history, as well as information on comparative balance of benefits and harms of stratified interventions. Implementation challenges include difficulties in integration of this information in the current health-care system in the United States, the setting of appropriate risk thresholds, and ethical, legal, and social issues. In an era of direct-to-consumer availability of personal genomic information, the public health and health-care systems need to prepare for an evidence-based integration of this information into population screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23412608      PMCID: PMC4692802          DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.182

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  52 in total

1.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: introduction to the special issue.

Authors:  Melanie F Myers; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-03-23       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Personalized medicine: hope or hype.

Authors:  Nicholas J Wald; Joan K Morris
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 3.  Genes, environment and the value of prospective cohort studies.

Authors:  Teri A Manolio; Joan E Bailey-Wilson; Francis S Collins
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Reconsidering the criteria for evaluating proposed screening programs: reflections from 4 current and former members of the U.S. Preventive services task force.

Authors:  Russell Harris; George F Sawaya; Virginia A Moyer; Ned Calonge
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-06-10       Impact factor: 6.222

Review 5.  Genetic architecture of cancer and other complex diseases: lessons learned and future directions.

Authors:  Lucia A Hindorff; Elizabeth M Gillanders; Teri A Manolio
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 4.944

Review 6.  Predictive, personalized, preventive, participatory (P4) cancer medicine.

Authors:  Leroy Hood; Stephen H Friend
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 66.675

7.  Discriminatory accuracy from single-nucleotide polymorphisms in models to predict breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-07-08       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence.

Authors:  Archie Bleyer; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group.

Authors:  Steven M Teutsch; Linda A Bradley; Glenn E Palomaki; James E Haddow; Margaret Piper; Ned Calonge; W David Dotson; Michael P Douglas; Alfred O Berg
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  A methodological perspective on genetic risk prediction studies in type 2 diabetes: recommendations for future research.

Authors:  Sara M Willems; Raluca Mihaescu; Eric J G Sijbrands; Cornelia M van Duijn; A Cecile J W Janssens
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.810

View more
  29 in total

1.  'Someday it will be the norm': physician perspectives on the utility of genome sequencing for patient care in the MedSeq Project.

Authors:  Jason L Vassy; Kurt D Christensen; Melody J Slashinski; Denise M Lautenbach; Sridharan Raghavan; Jill Oliver Robinson; Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby; Lindsay Zausmer Feuerman; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Michael F Murray; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.512

2.  Genetic tests: clinical validity and clinical utility.

Authors:  Wylie Burke
Journal:  Curr Protoc Hum Genet       Date:  2014-04-24

3.  Counselees' Perspectives of Genomic Counseling Following Online Receipt of Multiple Actionable Complex Disease and Pharmacogenomic Results: a Qualitative Research Study.

Authors:  Kevin Sweet; Shelly Hovick; Amy C Sturm; Tara Schmidlen; Erynn Gordon; Barbara Bernhardt; Lisa Wawak; Karen Wernke; Joseph McElroy; Laura Scheinfeldt; Amanda E Toland; J S Roberts; Michael Christman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  Perspectives on pharmacogenomics of antiretroviral medications and HIV-associated comorbidities.

Authors:  David W Haas; Philip E Tarr
Journal:  Curr Opin HIV AIDS       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.283

Review 5.  Genetic architecture of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Ulrike Peters; Stephanie Bien; Niha Zubair
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Testing calibration of risk models at extremes of disease risk.

Authors:  Minsun Song; Peter Kraft; Amit D Joshi; Myrto Barrdahl; Nilanjan Chatterjee
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 5.899

7.  Seeking Genomic Knowledge: The Case for Clinical Restraint.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Susan Brown Trinidad; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  Hastings Law J       Date:  2013-08-01

8.  Personalised medicine, disease prevention, and the inverse care law: more harm than benefit?

Authors:  Jack E James
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-04-12       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Screening for Colorectal Cancer Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History.

Authors:  Dayna R Cenin; Steffie K Naber; Anne C de Weerdt; Mark A Jenkins; David B Preen; Hooi C Ee; Peter C O'Leary; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 10.  Developing and evaluating polygenic risk prediction models for stratified disease prevention.

Authors:  Nilanjan Chatterjee; Jianxin Shi; Montserrat García-Closas
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 53.242

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.