Genomic medicine implementation protocols in the PhenX Toolkit: tools for standardized data collection

Consensus reporting guidelines to address gaps in descriptions of ultra-rare genetic conditions

Genome-wide sequencing and genetic matchmaker services are propelling a new era of genotype-driven ascertainment of novel genetic conditions. The degree to which reported phenotype data in discovery-focused studies address informational priorities for clinicians and families is unclear. We identified reports published from 2017 to 2021 in 10 genetics journals of novel Mendelian disorders. We adjudicated the quality and detail of the phenotype data via 46 questions pertaining to six priority domains: (I) Development, cognition, and mental health; (II) Feeding and growth; (III) Medication use and treatment history; (IV) Pain, sleep, and quality of life; (V) Adulthood; and (VI) Epilepsy. For a subset of articles, all subsequent published follow-up case descriptions were identified and assessed in a similar manner. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop consensus reporting guidelines, with input from content experts across four countries. In total, 200 of 3243 screened publications met inclusion criteria. Relevant phenotypic details across each of the 6 domains were rated superficial or deficient in >87% of papers. For example, less than 10% of publications provided details regarding neuropsychiatric diagnoses and "behavioural issues", or about the type/nature of feeding problems. Follow-up reports (n = 95) rarely contributed this additional phenotype data. In summary, phenotype information relevant to clinical management, genetic counselling, and the stated priorities of patients and families is lacking for many newly described genetic diseases. The PHELIX (PHEnotype LIsting fiX) reporting guideline checklists were developed to improve phenotype reporting in the genomic era.

Social Determinants of Health Factors for Gene-Environment COVID-19 Research: Challenges and Opportunities

The characteristics of a person's health status are often guided by how they live, grow, learn, their genetics, as well as their access to health care. Yet, all too often, studies examining the relationship between social determinants of health (behavioral, sociocultural, and physical environmental factors), the role of demographics, and health outcomes poorly represent these relationships, leading to misinterpretations, limited study reproducibility, and datasets with limited representativeness and secondary research use capacity. This is a profound hurdle in what questions can or cannot be rigorously studied about COVID-19. In practice, gene-environment interactions studies have paved the way for including these factors into research. Similarly, our understanding of social determinants of health continues to expand with diverse data collection modalities as health systems, patients, and community health engagement aim to fill the knowledge gaps toward promoting health and wellness. Here, a conceptual framework is proposed, adapted from the population health framework, socioecological model, and causal modeling in gene-environment interaction studies to integrate the core constructs from each domain with practical considerations needed for multidisciplinary science.

Multiomics subtyping for clinically prognostic cancer subtypes and personalized therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Multiomics cancer subtyping is becoming increasingly popular for directing state-of-the-art therapeutics. However, these methods have never been systematically assessed for their ability to capture cancer prognosis for identified subtypes, which is essential to effectively treat patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, The Cancer Genome Atlas, and Pan-Cancer Atlas for multiomics cancer subtyping studies from 2010 through 2019. Studies comprising at least 50 patients and examining survival were included. Pooled Cox and logistic mixed-effects models were used to compare the ability of multiomics subtyping methods to identify clinically prognostic subtypes, and a structural equation model was used to examine causal paths underlying subtyping method and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 31 studies comprising 10,848 unique patients across 32 cancers were analyzed. Latent-variable subtyping was significantly associated with overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.16-6.83; P = .023) and vital status (1 year adjusted odds ratio, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.34-16.49; P = .015; 5 year adjusted odds ratio, 7.69; 95% CI, 1.83-32.29; P = .005); latent-variable-identified subtypes had greater associations with mortality across models (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.42; P = .050). Our structural equation model confirmed the path from subtyping method through multiomics subtype (βˆ = 0.66; P = .048) on survival (βˆ = 0.37; P = .008).

CONCLUSION

Multiomics methods have different abilities to define clinically prognostic cancer subtypes, which should be considered before administration of personalized therapy; preliminary evidence suggests that latent-variable methods better identify clinically prognostic biomarkers and subtypes.