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

Taking the risk. A systematic review of ethical reasons and moral arguments in the clinical use of polygenic risk scores

Debates about the prospective clinical use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) have grown considerably in the last years. The potential benefits of PRS to improve patient care at individual and population levels have been extensively underlined. Nonetheless, the use of PRS in clinical contexts presents a number of unresolved ethical challenges and consequent normative gaps that hinder their optimal implementation. Here, we conducted a systematic review of reasons of the normative literature discussing ethical issues and moral arguments related to the use of PRS for the prevention and treatment of common complex diseases. In total, we have included and analyzed 34 records, spanning from 2013 to 2023. The findings have been organized in three major themes: in the first theme, we consider the potential harms of PRS to individuals and their kin. In the theme "Threats to health equity," we consider ethical concerns of social relevance, with a focus on justice issues. Finally, the theme "Towards best practices" collects a series of research priorities and provisional recommendations to be considered for an optimal clinical translation of PRS. We conclude that the use of PRS in clinical care reinvigorates old debates in matters of health justice; however, open questions, regarding best practices in clinical counseling, suggest that the ethical considerations applicable in monogenic settings will not be sufficient to face PRS emerging challenges.

Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Polygenetic Conditions: A Legal, Ethical, and Scientific Challenge

The recent commercialization of the Embryo Health Score (EHS), determined through preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic conditions, offers the potential to select embryos with lower disease risk, thus potentially enhancing offspring longevity and health. Lately, Orchid Health company increased testing from less than 20 diseases to more than 900+ conditions for birth defects. However, the "geneticization" of phenotype estimates to a health state erases the environmental part, including the in vitro fertilization potential risks, questioning its scientific usefulness. EHS is utilized in countries with minimal regulatory oversight and will likely expand, while it remains illegal in other countries due to ethical and legal dilemmas it raises about reproductive autonomy, discrimination, impacts on family dynamics, and genetic diversity. The shift toward commercialized polygenic embryo screening (PES) redefines healthcare relationships, turning prospective parents into consumers and altering the physician's role. Moreover, PES could increase social inequalities, stigmatize those not born following PES, and encourage "desirable" phenotypic or behavioral traits selection, leading to ethical drift. Addressing these issues is essential before further implementation and requires a collaborative approach involving political, governmental, and public health, alongside geneticists, ethicists, and fertility specialists, focusing on the societal implications and acceptability of testing for polygenic traits for embryo selection.

The GenoVA study: Equitable implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial of polygenic-risk scoring in primary care

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) hold promise for disease risk assessment and prevention. The Genomic Medicine at Veterans Affairs (GenoVA) Study is addressing three main challenges to the clinical implementation of PRSs in preventive care: defining and determining their clinical utility, implementing them in time-constrained primary care settings, and countering their potential to exacerbate healthcare disparities. The study processes used to test patients, report their PRS results to them and their primary care providers (PCPs), and promote the use of those results in clinical decision-making are modeled on common practices in primary care. The following diseases were chosen for their prevalence and familiarity to PCPs: coronary artery disease; type 2 diabetes; atrial fibrillation; and breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. A randomized clinical trial (RCT) design and primary outcome of time-to-new-diagnosis of a target disease bring methodological rigor to the question of the clinical utility of PRS implementation. The study's pragmatic RCT design enhances its relevance to how PRS might reasonably be implemented in primary care. Steps the study has taken to promote health equity include the thoughtful handling of genetic ancestry in PRS construction and reporting and enhanced recruitment strategies to address underrepresentation in research participation. To date, enhanced recruitment efforts have been both necessary and successful: participants of underrepresented race and ethnicity groups have been less likely to enroll in the study than expected but ultimately achieved proportional representation through targeted efforts. The GenoVA Study experience to date offers insights for evaluating the clinical utility of equitable PRS implementation in adult primary care.

Polygenic risk score for embryo selection-not ready for prime time

Numerous chronic diseases have a substantial hereditary component. Recent advances in human genetics have allowed the extent of this to be quantified via genome-wide association studies, producing polygenic risk scores (PRS), which can then be applied to individuals to estimate their risk of developing a disease in question. This technology has recently been applied to embryo selection in the setting of IVF and preimplantation genetic testing, with limited data to support its utility. Furthermore, there are concerns that the inherent limitations of PRS makes it ill-suited for use as a screening test in this setting. There are also serious ethical and moral questions associated with this technology that are yet to be addressed. We conclude that further research and ethical reflection are required before embryo selection based on PRS is offered to patients outside of the research setting.

Risk-Adjusted Cancer Screening and Prevention (RiskAP): Complementing Screening for Early Disease Detection by a Learning Screening Based on Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Risk-adjusted cancer screening and prevention is a promising and continuously emerging option for improving cancer prevention. It is driven by increasing knowledge of risk factors and the ability to determine them for individual risk prediction. However, there is a knowledge gap between evidence of increased risk and evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical preventive interventions based on increased risk. This gap is, in particular, aggravated by the extensive availability of genetic risk factor diagnostics, since the question of appropriate preventive measures immediately arises when an increased risk is identified. However, collecting proof of effective preventive measures, ideally by prospective randomized preventive studies, typically requires very long periods of time, while the knowledge about an increased risk immediately creates a high demand for action.

SUMMARY

Therefore, we propose a risk-adjusted prevention concept that is based on the best current evidence making needed and appropriate preventive measures available, and which is constantly evaluated through outcome evaluation, and continuously improved based on these results. We further discuss the structural and procedural requirements as well as legal and socioeconomical aspects relevant for the implementation of this concept.

ASSESSING SELECTION BIAS IN REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS ESTIMATED FROM NONPROBABILITY SAMPLES WITH APPLICATIONS TO GENETICS AND DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEYS

Selection bias is a serious potential problem for inference about relationships of scientific interest based on samples without well-defined probability sampling mechanisms. Motivated by the potential for selection bias in: (a) estimated relationships of polygenic scores (PGSs) with phenotypes in genetic studies of volunteers and (b) estimated differences in subgroup means in surveys of smartphone users, we derive novel measures of selection bias for estimates of the coefficients in linear and probit regression models fitted to nonprobability samples, when aggregate-level auxiliary data are available for the selected sample and the target population. The measures arise from normal pattern-mixture models that allow analysts to examine the sensitivity of their inferences to assumptions about nonignorable selection in these samples. We examine the effectiveness of the proposed measures in a simulation study and then use them to quantify the selection bias in: (a) estimated PGS-phenotype relationships in a large study of volunteers recruited via Facebook and (b) estimated subgroup differences in mean past-year employment duration in a nonprobability sample of low-educated smartphone users. We evaluate the performance of the measures in these applications using benchmark estimates from large probability samples.

Risk-stratified strategies in population screening for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been demonstrated to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. However, besides such benefits, CRC screening is also associated with potential harmful effects. In an ideal world, screening would only be directed to the small proportion of the population that might potentially benefit. Risk‐based screening can be seen as a first step towards this ideal world, by redistributing screening resources from low‐risk to high‐risk individuals. In theory, this should result in scarce resources being used in individuals who benefit most, while intensity of screening is reduced in individuals who benefit less, hence improving the benefit‐harm ratio among all invitees. Available strategies that have been proposed for risk‐based CRC screening include using information on age, sex, prior screening history, lifestyle and/or genetic information. Implementation of risk‐based screening requires careful consideration of reliable risk prediction models, participation with screening and informed decision‐making. While it is important to recognise the limitations of current approaches, available evidence suggests that it might be feasible to start planning the introduction of tailored strategies within screening programmes. Implementing risk‐based screening based on age, sex and prior screening history alone would already represent a substantial improvement over current uniform screening approaches. We propose that it is time that screening programmes start there and continue striving towards more comprehensive approaches embedding primary prevention as an effective approach to lower risk for everyone.

May direct-to-consumer genetic testing have an impact on general practitioners' daily practice? a cross-sectional study of patients' intentions towards this approach

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) offers individuals access to information on their probable risks of suffering from a wide range of chronic diseases. General practitioners (GPs) will probably play a major role in supporting its use, but patients' perception of DTCGT remain unclear. This study aimed to describe those attitudes and expectations and how they might affect GPs' daily practices.

METHODS

In 2018-2019, a study related to the use of DTCGT for preventive care in general medicine was conducted among patients in Switzerland's French-speaking areas. Data were collected in the waiting room using a self-administrated questionnaire about patients' interest in DTCGT and what their attitudes might be if testing revealed an elevated risk of diabetes, colorectal cancer, or Alzheimer's disease.

RESULTS

About 40% of the 929 participating (participation rate about 80%) patients had heard about DTCGT and, once the test had been explained, 43% reported that they would be interested in being tested. If that testing suggested an elevated risk of disease, the majority of patients reported that they would change their lifestyle (65%-81%, depending on the disease), request more examinations (63%-77%), and expect changes in their GP's follow-up (48%-59%). Personal characteristics such as sex, age, urbanity, marital status, and perceived health were factors predictive of patients' attitudes.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicated that the generalization of DTCGT might affect GPs' daily practices in terms of workload and knowledge about this approach. However, this result must be qualified by the fact that it is based on hypothetical situations.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in prostate cancer: its implications in diagnostics and therapeutics

Prostate cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed malignancies in developed countries and approximately 248,530 new cases of prostate cancer are likely to be diagnosed in the United States in 2021. During the late 1990s and 2000s, the prostate cancer-related death rate has decreased by 4% per year on average because of advancements in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. However, the non-specificity of PSA to distinguish between benign and malignant forms of cancer is a major concern in the management of prostate cancer. Despite other risk factors in the pathogenesis of prostate cancer, recent advancement in molecular genetics suggests that genetic heredity plays a crucial role in prostate carcinogenesis. Approximately, 60% of heritability and more than 100 well-recognized single-nucleotide-polymorphisms (SNPs) have been found to be associated with prostate cancer and constitute a major risk factor in the development of prostate cancer. Recent findings revealed that a low to moderate effect on the progression of prostate cancer of individual SNPs was observed compared to a strong progressive effect when SNPs were in combination. Here, in this review, we made an attempt to critically analyze the role of SNPs and associated genes in the development of prostate cancer and their implications in diagnostics and therapeutics. A better understanding of the role of SNPs in prostate cancer susceptibility may improve risk prediction, enhance fine-mapping, and furnish new insights into the underlying pathophysiology of prostate cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence for personalizing colorectal cancer screening based on risk factors. We compared the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer screening based on polygenic risk and family history to uniform screening.

METHODS

Using the MISCAN-Colon model, we simulated a cohort of 100 million 40-year-olds, offering them uniform or personalized screening. Individuals were categorized based on polygenic risk and family history of colorectal cancer. We varied screening strategies by start age, interval and test and estimated costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). In our analysis, we (i) assessed the cost-effectiveness of uniform screening; (ii) developed personalized screening scenarios based on optimal screening strategies by risk group; and (iii) compared the cost-effectiveness of both.

RESULTS

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, the optimal uniform screening scenario was annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) from ages 50 to 74 years, whereas for personalized screening the optimal screening scenario consisted of annual and biennial FIT screening except for those at highest risk who were offered 5-yearly colonoscopy from age 50 years. Although these scenarios gained the same number of QALYs (17,887), personalized screening was not cost-effective, costing an additional $428,953 due to costs associated with determining risk (assumed to be $240 per person). Personalized screening was cost-effective when these costs were less than ∼$48.

CONCLUSIONS

Uniform colorectal cancer screening currently appears more cost-effective than personalized screening based on polygenic risk and family history. However, cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on the cost of determining risk.

IMPACT

Personalized screening could become increasingly viable as costs for determining risk decrease.

Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Stratified Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Polygenic Risk: Current Status and Future Potential

Background

Although uniform colonoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, risk-based screening may be more efficient. We investigated whether CRC screening based on polygenic risk is a cost-effective alternative to current uniform screening, and if not, under what conditions it would be.

Methods

The MISCAN-Colon model was used to simulate a hypothetical cohort of US 40-year-olds. Uniform screening was modeled as colonoscopy screening at ages 50, 60, and 70 years. For risk-stratified screening, individuals underwent polygenic testing with current and potential future discriminatory performance (area under the receiver-operating curve [AUC] of 0.60 and 0.65–0.80, respectively). Polygenic testing results were used to create risk groups, for which colonoscopy screening was optimized by varying the start age (40–60 years), end age (70–85 years), and interval (1–20 years).

Results

With current discriminatory performance, optimal screening ranged from once-only colonoscopy at age 60 years for the lowest-risk group to six colonoscopies at ages 40–80 years for the highest-risk group. While maintaining the same health benefits, risk-stratified screening increased costs by $59 per person. Risk-stratified screening could become cost-effective if the AUC value would increase beyond 0.65, the price per polygenic test would drop to less than $141, or risk-stratified screening would lead to a 5% increase in screening participation.

Conclusions

Currently, CRC screening based on polygenic risk is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with uniform screening. This is expected to change with a greater than 0.05 increase in AUC value, a greater than 30% reduction in polygenic testing costs, or a greater than 5% increase in adherence with screening.

Polygenic risk-stratified screening for cancer: Responsibilization in public health genomics

In this article, we examine professional discourse around the development of polygenic risk-stratified screening (PRSS) for cancer. Analyzing a range of contemporary professional literatures from Europe, North America and Australia, we explore how the drive to screen for molecular markers of cancer risk makes professionals, screening recipients and publics responsible, in different ways, for acquiring, curating and analyzing molecular data. Investigating how these responsibilities are invoked in discussions of new data practices, technologies, organizational arrangements, engagement, education and protocols for participation, we argue that agendas for PRSS for cancer are both expanding and stratifying responsibilities. Data collection is to be achieved by intensified responsibilities for including, reassuring and recruiting populations, as well as by opening and enriching the datasets on which models and preventative screening arrangements are based. Enhanced responsibilities for screening recipients and publics are also invoked, not just in relation to personal health but for population health more generally, via research participation and consenting to data re-use in the public interest. Professionals, screening recipients and publics are also to become responsible for moderating expectations of screening according to genomic designations. Together these discourses go beyond individual risk management to extend and diversify the responsibilities of practitioners, screening recipients and publics as public health genomics develops.

The moral argument for heritable genome editing requires an inappropriately deterministic view of genetics

Gyngell and colleagues consider that the recent Nuffield Council report does not go far enough: heritable genome editing (HGE) is not just justifiable in a few rare cases; instead, there is a moral imperative to undertake it. We agree that there is a moral argument for this, but in the real world it is mitigated by the fact that it is not usually possible to ensure a better life. We suggest that a moral imperative for HGE can currently only be concluded if one first buys into an overly deterministic view of a genome sequence, and the role of variation within in it, in the aetiology of the disease: most diseases cannot simply be attributed to specific genetic variants that we could edit away. Multiple, poorly understood genetic and environmental factors interact to influence the expression of diseases with a genetic component, even well understood 'monogenic' disorders. Population-level genome analyses are now demonstrating that many genetic 'mutations' are much less predictive than previously thought ¹ Furthermore, HGE might introduce new risks just as it reduces old ones; or remove protections not yet clearly delineated.

The illusion of polygenic disease risk prediction

A problem at the interface of genomic medicine and medical screening is that genetic associations of etiological significance are often interpreted as having predictive significance. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many thousands of associations between common DNA variants and hundreds of diseases and benign traits. This knowledge has generated many publications with the understandable expectation that it can be used to derive polygenic risk scores for predicting disease to identify those at sufficiently high risk to benefit from preventive intervention. However, the expectation rests on the incorrect assumption that odds ratios derived from polygenic risk scores that are important etiologically are also directly useful in risk prediction and population screening.

Genetic profiling of decreased bone mineral density in an independent sample of Caucasian women

Genetic risk of low bone mineral density in women remains unclear. This study found that a large percentage of Caucasian women have a high genetic risk of osteoporosis, and genetic risk scores are significantly associated with BMD variation in a bone healthy sample of Caucasian women.

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to examine the distribution of risk alleles in an independent sample and to determine if such genetic components are associated with bone mineral density (BMD) variation in the sample.

METHODS

Existing genotype data of 1205 women in the cross-sectional Genomic Wide Scans for Female Osteoporosis Gene Study (GWSFO) were analyzed. Multi-loci genetic risk scores (GRSs) based on 62 BMD-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were calculated. Regression analysis was employed to assess the association between GRSs and BMD. To examine the effect of SNPs clustered within key pathways associated with the development of osteoporosis, subtype weighted GRS specific to WNT signaling (6 SNPs), RANK-RANKL-OPG (3 SNPs), and mesenchymal stem differentiation (3 SNPs) were generated for analysis.

RESULTS

The unweighted GRS ranged from 48 to 80. One third of the women carried 66% risk alleles. After adjusting for age, height, and body weight, each unit increase of weighted GRS was associated with a decrease in BMD of 0.097 at femur (p < 0.0001) and 0.110 (p < 0.0001) at lumbar spine. The weighted GRS accounted for only 3.17-4.52% of BMD variance. The WNT signaling pathway GRS (6 SNPs) and the RANK-RANKL-OPG signaling pathway GRS (3 SNPs) both were significantly associated with decreased BMD at femur neck (p = 0.0004 and p = 0.0063, respectively) and lumbar spine (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0001, respectively), while the mesenchymal stem cell differentiation pathway (3 SNPs) GRSs were associated only with the lumbar spine BMD (p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantially large percentage of healthy Caucasian women have a high genetic risk of osteoporosis. Weighted GRS was significantly associated with decreased BMD. The contribution of subtype GRS to the BMD variation differs by specific biological pathway and skeletal regions.

A collaborative translational research framework for evaluating and implementing the appropriate use of human genome sequencing to improve health

In a Policy Forum, Muin Khoury and colleagues discuss research on the clinical application of genome sequencing data.

Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) can play a critical role in helping patients receive the preventive health benefits of cancer genetic risk information. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to identify studies of US PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, and communication-related behaviors regarding genetic tests that could inform risk-stratification approaches for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in order to describe current findings and research gaps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of six electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed empirical articles relating to US PCPs and genetic testing for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer published in English from 2008 to 2016. We reviewed these data and used narrative synthesis methods to integrate findings into a descriptive summary and identify research needs.

RESULTS

We identified 27 relevant articles. Most focused on genetic testing for breast cancer (23/27) and colorectal cancer risk (12/27); only one study examined testing for prostate cancer risk. Most articles addressed descriptive research questions (24/27). Many studies (24/27) documented PCPs' knowledge, often concluding that providers' knowledge was incomplete. Studies commonly (11/27) examined PCPs' attitudes. Across studies, PCPs expressed some concerns about ethical, legal, and social implications of testing. Attitudes about the utility of clinical genetic testing, including for targeted cancer screening, were generally favorable; PCPs were more skeptical of direct-to-consumer testing. Relatively fewer studies (9/27) examined PCPs' communication practices regarding cancer genetic testing.

DISCUSSION

This review indicates a need for investigators to move beyond descriptive research questions related to PCPs' knowledge and attitudes about cancer genetic testing. Research is needed to address important gaps regarding the development, testing, and implementation of innovative interventions and educational programs that can improve PCPs' genetic testing knowledge, assuage concerns about the appropriateness of cancer genetic testing, and promote open and effective patient-provider communication about genetic risk and genetic testing.

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

Genomic applications raise multiple challenges including the optimization of genomic counseling (GC) services as part of the results delivery process. More information on patients' motivations, preferences, and informational needs are essential to guide the development of new, more efficient practice delivery models that capitalize on the existing strengths of a limited genetic counseling workforce. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a subset of counselees from the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative following online receipt of multiple personalized genomic test reports. Participants previously had either in-person GC (chronic disease cohort, n = 20; mean age 60 years) or telephone GC (community cohort, n = 31; mean age 46.8 years). Transcripts were analyzed using a Grounded Theory framework. Major themes that emerged from the interviews include 1) primary reasons for seeking GC were to clarify results, put results into perspective relative to other health-related concerns, and to receive personalized recommendations; 2) there is need for a more participant driven approach in terms of mode of GC communication (in-person, phone, video), and refining the counseling agenda pre-session; and 3) there was strong interest in the option of follow up GC. By clarifying counselees' expectations, views and desired outcomes, we have uncovered a need for a more participant-driven GC model when potentially actionable genomic results are received online.

Developing and evaluating polygenic risk prediction models for stratified disease prevention

Knowledge of genetics and its implications for human health is rapidly evolving in accordance with recent events, such as discoveries of large numbers of disease susceptibility loci from genome-wide association studies, the US Supreme Court ruling of the non-patentability of human genes, and the development of a regulatory framework for commercial genetic tests. In anticipation of the increasing relevance of genetic testing for the assessment of disease risks, this Review provides a summary of the methodologies used for building, evaluating and applying risk prediction models that include information from genetic testing and environmental risk factors. Potential applications of models for primary and secondary disease prevention are illustrated through several case studies, and future challenges and opportunities are discussed.

Targeted Cancer Screening in Average-Risk Individuals

Targeted cancer screening refers to use of disease risk information to identify those most likely to benefit from screening. Researchers have begun to explore the possibility of refining screening regimens for average-risk individuals using genetic and non-genetic risk factors and previous screening experience. Average-risk individuals are those not known to be at substantially elevated risk, including those without known inherited predisposition, without comorbidities known to increase cancer risk, and without previous diagnosis of cancer or pre-cancer. In this paper, we describe the goals of targeted cancer screening in average-risk individuals, present factors on which cancer screening has been targeted, discuss inclusion of targeting in screening guidelines issued by major U.S. professional organizations, and present evidence to support or question such inclusion. Screening guidelines for average-risk individuals currently target age; smoking (lung cancer only); and, in some instances, race; family history of cancer; and previous negative screening history (cervical cancer only). No guidelines include common genomic polymorphisms. RCTs suggest that targeting certain ages and smoking histories reduces disease-specific cancer mortality, although some guidelines extend ages and smoking histories based on statistical modeling. Guidelines that are based on modestly elevated disease risk typically have either no or little evidence of an ability to affect a mortality benefit. In time, targeted cancer screening is likely to include genetic factors and past screening experience as well as non-genetic factors other than age, smoking, and race, but it is of utmost importance that clinical implementation be evidence-based.

Genetic architecture of colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a complex disease that develops as a consequence of both genetic and environmental risk factors. A small proportion (3-5%) of cases arise from hereditary syndromes predisposing to early onset CRC as a result of mutations in over a dozen well defined genes. In contrast, CRC is predominantly a late onset 'sporadic' disease, developing in individuals with no obvious hereditary syndrome. In recent years, genome wide association studies have discovered that over 40 genetic regions are associated with weak effects on sporadic CRC, and it has been estimated that increasingly large genome wide scans will identify many additional novel genetic regions. Subsequent experimental validations have identified the causally related variant(s) in a limited number of these genetic regions. Further biological insight could be obtained through ethnically diverse study populations, larger genetic sequencing studies and development of higher throughput functional experiments. Along with inherited variation, integration of the tumour genome may shed light on the carcinogenic processes in CRC. In addition to summarising the genetic architecture of CRC, this review discusses genetic factors that modify environmental predictors of CRC, as well as examples of how genetic insight has improved clinical surveillance, prevention and treatment strategies. In summary, substantial progress has been made in uncovering the genetic architecture of CRC, and continued research efforts are expected to identify additional genetic risk factors that further our biological understanding of this disease. Subsequently these new insights will lead to improved treatment and prevention of colorectal cancer.

Perspectives on pharmacogenomics of antiretroviral medications and HIV-associated comorbidities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize current knowledge and provide perspective on relationships between human genetic variants, antiretroviral medications, and aging-related complications of HIV-1 infection.

RECENT FINDINGS

Human genetic variants have been convincingly associated with interindividual variability in antiretroviral toxicities, drug disposition, and aging-associated complications in HIV-1 infection. Screening for HLA-B5701 to avoid abacavir hypersensitivity reactions has become a routine part of clinical care, and has markedly improved drug safety. There are well established pharmacogenetic associations with other agents (efavirenz, nevirapine, atazanavir, dolutegravir, and others), but this knowledge has yet to have substantial impact on HIV-1 clinical care. As metabolic complications including diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease are becoming an increasing concern among individuals who are aging with well controlled HIV-1 infection, human genetic variants that predispose to these complications also become more relevant in this population.

SUMMARY

Pharmacogenetic knowledge has already had considerable impact on antiretroviral prescribing. With continued advances in the field of human genomics, the impact of pharmacogenomics on HIV-1 clinical care and research is likely to continue to grow in importance and scope.

Family history and the natural history of colorectal cancer: systematic review

PURPOSE

Family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a known risk factor for CRC and encompasses both genetic and shared environmental risks.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to estimate the impact of family history on the natural history of CRC and adherence to screening.

RESULTS

We found high heterogeneity in family-history definitions, the most common definition being one or more first-degree relatives. The prevalence of family history may be lower than the commonly cited 10%, and confirms evidence for increasing levels of risk associated with increasing family-history burden. There is evidence for higher prevalence of adenomas and of multiple adenomas in people with family history of CRC but no evidence for differential adenoma location or adenoma progression by family history. Limited data regarding the natural history of CRC by family history suggest a differential age or stage at cancer diagnosis and mixed evidence with respect to tumor location. Adherence to recommended colonoscopy screening was higher in people with a family history of CRC.

CONCLUSION

Stratification based on polygenic and/or multifactorial risk assessment may mature to the point of displacing family history-based approaches, but for the foreseeable future, family history may remain a valuable clinical tool for identifying individuals at increased risk for CRC.

Cancer prevention: state of the art and future prospects

Cancer imposes a heavy societal burden worldwide, in terms of both epidemiology and costs. The introduction of more sophisticated imaging and diagnostic techniques and advanced drugs that specifically target tumor cells is leading to increasingly expensive treatments, which may be affordable only for few patients. Prevention, and particularly primary prevention, is an effective way of addressing the challenging issue of cancer, since between a third and a half of cancers could be prevented on the basis of our current knowledge of risk factors. Moreover, prevention is cost-effective, its effects are not limited to high-risk subjects but extend to the entire population, and it is not dependent on socioeconomic status. Regulatory measures can have a broad impact, even on future generations; by empowering and educating subjects, promoting healthy behaviours and teaching self-care, they can trigger a virtuous cycle. In recent decades, oncology has shifted from being merely reactive to being proactive; this shift has led to the development of so-called "P4 medicine", where the 4 Ps stand for "preventive", "predictive", "personalized" and "participatory". Prevention programs are an important part of the effort to control cancer, as they are able to reduce both the incidence of cancer and mortality. For instance, screening for colorectal, breast and cervical cancer is reducing the burden of these common tumors. Anti-cancer vaccines, both prophylactic and therapeutic, constitute another important preventive tool. Although progress has been made in these areas, much remains to be done. With regard to screening programs, coverage could be increased by introducing new, more acceptable, less invasive tests, stratifying screening through correlation with anamnestic, clinical, radiological and genomic data (so-called "populationbased personalized cancer screening"), and exploiting new information and communication technologies, such as smartphone applications or personalized text messages (so-called "screening 2.0"). Advocacy and recommendations by physicians can also play a role, in that eligible subjects need to be able to discuss their doubts and their perceived psycho-social barriers. However, new screening initiatives should be implemented only after a careful health technology assessment has been performed within the framework of evidence-based medicine, organized screening programs have been strengthened and opportunistic or spontaneous programs have been limited.

Do Health Professionals Need Additional Competencies for Stratified Cancer Prevention Based on Genetic Risk Profiling?

There is growing evidence that inclusion of genetic information about known common susceptibility variants may enable population risk-stratification and personalized prevention for common diseases including cancer. This would require the inclusion of genetic testing as an integral part of individual risk assessment of an asymptomatic individual. Front line health professionals would be expected to interact with and assist asymptomatic individuals through the risk stratification process. In that case, additional knowledge and skills may be needed. Current guidelines and frameworks for genetic competencies of non-specialist health professionals place an emphasis on rare inherited genetic diseases. For common diseases, health professionals do use risk assessment tools but such tools currently do not assess genetic susceptibility of individuals. In this article, we compare the skills and knowledge needed by non-genetic health professionals, if risk-stratified prevention is implemented, with existing competence recommendations from the UK, USA and Europe, in order to assess the gaps in current competences. We found that health professionals would benefit from understanding the contribution of common genetic variations in disease risk, the rationale for a risk-stratified prevention pathway, and the implications of using genomic information in risk-assessment and risk management of asymptomatic individuals for common disease prevention.

Public interest in and acceptability of the prospect of risk-stratified screening for breast and prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

For risk-stratified screening to be implemented as a screening program for breast and prostate cancer it has to be accepted among the general population. Investigating public interest in stratified screening and its acceptability to the public is therefore essential since as yet little is known.

METHOD

Cross-sectional web survey sent to a sample of 10 000 individuals (20-74 years of age) representative of the Swedish population as registered in 2009.

RESULTS

Among the responders (28%), a vast majority (94%) expressed an interest in knowing their breast or prostate cancer risk and stated wanting to know to 'avoid worrying'. Men and women were equally interested in knowing their prostate and breast cancer risk, respectively. However, men showed more certainty. Trusting the healthcare workers with personal information (63%) as well as genetic information (70%), in order to calculate the risk, did not seem to be a major issue. Furthermore, 87% would agree to get screened more often if identified with a high risk, whereas, if identified with a low risk, only 27% would agree to get screened less often. Finally, although a consultation with a physician seemed to be the preferred way to communicate the risk, a majority would agree to receive it via a letter or a phone call.

CONCLUSION

Risk-stratified screening has the possibility to be accepted by the general public. Knowledge about interest and acceptability of the prospect of risk-stratified screening for breast and prostate cancer will help when implementing new screening strategies.

Quantifying the cumulative effect of low-penetrance genetic variants on breast cancer risk

Many common diseases have a complex genetic basis in which large numbers of genetic variations combine with environmental factors to determine risk. However, quantifying such polygenic effects has been challenging. In order to address these difficulties we developed a global measure of the information content of an individual's genome relative to a reference population, which may be used to assess differences in global genome structure between cases and appropriate controls. Informally this measure, which we call relative genome information (RGI), quantifies the relative "disorder" of an individual's genome. In order to test its ability to predict disease risk we used RGI to compare single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes from two independent samples of women with early-onset breast cancer with three independent sets of controls. We found that RGI was significantly elevated in both sets of breast cancer cases in comparison with all three sets of controls, with disease risk rising sharply with RGI. Furthermore, these differences are not due to associations with common variants at a small number of disease-associated loci, but rather are due to the combined associations of thousands of markers distributed throughout the genome. Our results indicate that the information content of an individual's genome may be used to measure the risk of a complex disease, and suggest that early-onset breast cancer has a strongly polygenic component.

A genome-wide pleiotropy scan for prostate cancer risk

BACKGROUND

No single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) specific for aggressive prostate cancer have been identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS).

OBJECTIVE

To test if SNPs associated with other traits may also affect the risk of aggressive prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

SNPs implicated in any phenotype other than prostate cancer (p≤10(-7)) were identified through the catalog of published GWAS and tested in 2891 aggressive prostate cancer cases and 4592 controls from the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3). The 40 most significant SNPs were followed up in 4872 aggressive prostate cancer cases and 24,534 controls from the Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome (PRACTICAL) consortium.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for aggressive prostate cancer were estimated.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 4666 SNPs were evaluated by the BPC3. Two signals were seen in regions already reported for prostate cancer risk. rs7014346 at 8q24.21 was marginally associated with aggressive prostate cancer in the BPC3 trial (p=1.6×10(-6)), whereas after meta-analysis by PRACTICAL the summary OR was 1.21 (95% CI 1.16-1.27; p=3.22×10(-18)). rs9900242 at 17q24.3 was also marginally associated with aggressive disease in the meta-analysis (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94; p=2.5×10(-6)). Neither of these SNPs remained statistically significant when conditioning on correlated known prostate cancer SNPs. The meta-analysis by BPC3 and PRACTICAL identified a third promising signal, marked by rs16844874 at 2q34, independent of known prostate cancer loci (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06-1.19; p=4.67×10(-5)); it has been shown that SNPs correlated with this signal affect glycine concentrations. The main limitation is the heterogeneity in the definition of aggressive prostate cancer between BPC3 and PRACTICAL.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify new SNPs for aggressive prostate cancer. However, rs16844874 may provide preliminary genetic evidence on the role of the glycine pathway in prostate cancer etiology.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated whether genetic variants associated with several traits are linked to the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. No new such variants were identified.

Closing the gap between knowledge and clinical application: challenges for genomic translation

Despite early predictions and rapid progress in research, the introduction of personal genomics into clinical practice has been slow. Several factors contribute to this translational gap between knowledge and clinical application. The evidence available to support genetic test use is often limited, and implementation of new testing programs can be challenging. In addition, the heterogeneity of genomic risk information points to the need for strategies to select and deliver the information most appropriate for particular clinical needs. Accomplishing these tasks also requires recognition that some expectations for personal genomics are unrealistic, notably expectations concerning the clinical utility of genomic risk assessment for common complex diseases. Efforts are needed to improve the body of evidence addressing clinical outcomes for genomics, apply implementation science to personal genomics, and develop realistic goals for genomic risk assessment. In addition, translational research should emphasize the broader benefits of genomic knowledge, including applications of genomic research that provide clinical benefit outside the context of personal genomic risk.

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

AIM

To describe practicing physicians' perceived clinical utility of genome sequencing.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of data from 18 primary care physicians and cardiologists in a study of the clinical integration of whole-genome sequencing. Physicians underwent brief genomics continuing medical education before completing surveys and semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

Physicians described sequencing as currently lacking clinical utility because of its uncertain interpretation and limited impact on clinical decision-making, but they expressed the idea that its clinical integration was inevitable. Potential clinical uses for sequencing included complementing other clinical information, risk stratification, motivating patient behavior change and pharmacogenetics.

CONCLUSION

Physicians given genomics continuing medical education use the language of both evidence-based and personalized medicine in describing the utility of genome-wide testing in patient care.

Maximising the efficiency of clinical screening programmes: balancing predictive genetic testing with a right not to know

We explored the dilemma between patients' right not to know their genetic status and the efficient use of health-care resources in the form of clinical cancer screening programmes. Currently, in the Netherlands, 50% risk carriers of heritable cancer syndromes who choose not to know their genetic status have access to the same screening programmes as proven mutation carriers. This implies an inefficient use of health-care resources, because half of this group will not carry the familial mutation. At the moment, only a small number of patients are involved; however, the expanding possibilities for genetic risk profiling means this issue must be addressed because of potentially adverse societal and financial impact. The trade-off between patients' right not to know their genetic status and efficient use of health-care resources was discussed in six focus groups with health-care professionals and patients from three Dutch university hospitals. Professionals prefer patients to undergo a predictive DNA test as a prerequisite for entering cancer screening programmes. Professionals prioritise treating sick patients or proven mutation carriers over screening untested individuals. Participation in cancer screening programmes without prior DNA testing is, however, supported by most professionals, as testing is usually delayed and relatively few patients are involved at present. Reducing the number of 50% risk carriers undergoing screening is expected to be achieved by: offering more psychosocial support, explaining the iatrogenic risks of cancer screening, increasing out-of-pocket costs, and offering a less stringent screening programme for 50% risk carriers.

Testing calibration of risk models at extremes of disease risk

Risk-prediction models need careful calibration to ensure they produce unbiased estimates of risk for subjects in the underlying population given their risk-factor profiles. As subjects with extreme high or low risk may be the most affected by knowledge of their risk estimates, checking the adequacy of risk models at the extremes of risk is very important for clinical applications. We propose a new approach to test model calibration targeted toward extremes of disease risk distribution where standard goodness-of-fit tests may lack power due to sparseness of data. We construct a test statistic based on model residuals summed over only those individuals who pass high and/or low risk thresholds and then maximize the test statistic over different risk thresholds. We derive an asymptotic distribution for the max-test statistic based on analytic derivation of the variance-covariance function of the underlying Gaussian process. The method is applied to a large case-control study of breast cancer to examine joint effects of common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) discovered through recent genome-wide association studies. The analysis clearly indicates a non-additive effect of the SNPs on the scale of absolute risk, but an excellent fit for the linear-logistic model even at the extremes of risks.

Cancer screening and genetics: a tale of two paradigms

The long-standing medical tradition to "first do no harm" is reflected in population-wide evidence-based recommendations for cancer screening tests that focus primarily on reducing morbidity and mortality. The conventional cancer screening process is predicated on finding early-stage disease that can be treated effectively; yet emerging genetic and genomic testing technologies have moved the target earlier in the disease development process to identify a probabilistic predisposition to disease. Genetic risk information can have varying implications for the health and well-being of patients and their relatives, and has raised important questions about the evaluation and value of risk information. This article explores the paradigms that are being applied to the evaluation of conventional cancer screening tests and emerging genetic and genomic tests of cancer susceptibility, and how these perspectives are shifting and evolving in response to advances in our ability to detect cancer risks. We consider several challenges germane to the evaluation of both categories of tests, including defining benefits and harms in terms of personal and clinical utility, addressing healthcare consumers' information preferences, and managing scientific uncertainty. We encourage research and dialogue aimed at developing a better understanding of the value of all risk information, nongenetic and genetic, to people's lives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(6); 909-16. ©2014 AACR.

Are public health professionals prepared for public health genomics? A cross-sectional survey in Italy

Background

Public health genomics is an emerging multidisciplinary approach, which aims to integrate genome-based knowledge in a responsible and effective way into public health. Despite several surveys performed to evaluate knowledge, attitudes and professional behaviors of physicians towards predictive genetic testing, similar surveys have not been carried out for public health practitioners. This study is the first to assess knowledge, attitudes and training needs of public health professionals in the field of predictive genetic testing for chronic diseases.

Methods

A self-administered questionnaire was used to carry out a cross-sectional survey of a random sample of Italian public health professionals.

Results

A response rate of 67.4% (797 questionnaires) was achieved. Italian public health professionals have the necessary attitudinal background to contribute to the proper use of predictive genetic testing for chronic diseases, but they need additional training to increase their methodological knowledge. Knowledge significantly increases with exposure to predictive genetic testing during postgraduate training (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05–2.88), time dedicated to continuing medical education (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.14–2.04) and level of English language knowledge (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.07–1.72). Adequate knowledge is the strongest predictor of positive attitudes from a public health perspective (OR = 3.98, 95% CI = 2.44–6.50). Physicians show a lower level of knowledge and more public health attitudes than other public health professionals do. About 80% of public health professionals considered their knowledge inadequate and 86.0% believed that it should be improved through specific postgraduate training courses.

Conclusions

Specific and targeted training initiatives are needed to develop a skilled public health workforce competent in identifying genomic technology that is ready for use in population health and in modeling public health genomic programs and primary care services that need to be developed, implemented and evaluated.

Stakeholder consultation insights on the future of genomics at the clinical-public health interface

In summer 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office of Public Health Genomics conducted a stakeholder consultation, administered by the University of Michigan Center for Public Health and Community Genomics, and Genetic Alliance, to recommend priorities for public health genomics from 2012 through 2017. Sixty-two responses from health professionals, administrators, and members of the public were pooled with 2 sets of key informant interviews and 3 discussion groups. NVivo 9 and manual methods were used to organize themes. This review offers an interim analysis of progress with respect to the final recommendations, which demonstrated a strong interest in moving genomic discoveries toward implementation and comparative effectiveness (T3/T4) translational research. A translational research continuum exists with familial breast and ovarian cancer at one end and prostate cancer at the other. Cascade screening for inherited arrhythmia syndromes and hypercholesterolemia lags stakeholder recommendations in the United States but not in Europe; implementation of health service-based screening for Lynch syndrome, and integration into electronic health information systems, is on pace with the recommended timeline. A number of options exist to address deficits in the funding of translational research, particularly for oncogenomic gene expression profiling. The goal of personalized risk assessment necessitates both research progress (eg, in whole genome sequencing, as well as provider education in the differentiation of low- vs high-risk status. The public health approach supports an emphasis on genetic test validation while endorsing clinical translation research inclusion of an environmental and population-based perspective.

Genetic tests: clinical validity and clinical utility

When evaluating the appropriate use of new genetic tests, clinicians and health care policymakers must consider the accuracy with which a test identifies a patient's clinical status (clinical validity) and the risks and benefits resulting from test use (clinical utility). Genetic tests in current use vary in accuracy and potential to improve health outcomes, and these test properties may be influenced by testing technology and the clinical setting in which the test is used. This unit defines clinical validity and clinical utility, provides examples, and considers the implications of these test properties for clinical practice.