Search

Purpose: We previously described a combined risk score (CRS) that integrates a multiple-ancestry polygenic risk score (MA-PRS) with the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) model to assess breast cancer (BC) risk. Here, we present a longitudinal validation of CRS in a real-world cohort., Methods: This study included 130,058 patients referred for hereditary cancer genetic testing and negative for germline pathogenic variants in BC-associated genes. Data were obtained by linking genetic test results to medical claims (median follow-up 12.1 months). CRS calibration was evaluated by the ratio of observed to expected BCs., Results: Three hundred forty BCs were observed over 148,349 patient-years. CRS was well-calibrated and demonstrated superior calibration compared with TC in high-risk deciles. MA-PRS alone had greater discriminatory accuracy than TC, and CRS had approximately 2-fold greater discriminatory accuracy than MA-PRS or TC. Among those classified as high risk by TC, 32.6% were low risk by CRS, and of those classified as low risk by TC, 4.3% were high risk by CRS. In cases where CRS and TC classifications disagreed, CRS was more accurate in predicting incident BC., Conclusion: CRS was well-calibrated and significantly improved BC risk stratification. Short-term follow-up suggests that clinical implementation of CRS should improve outcomes for patients of all ancestries through personalized risk-based screening and prevention., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Brent Mabey, Elisha Hughes, Matthew Kucera, Timothy Simmons, Brooke Hullinger, Sarah Ratzel, Susanne Wagner, Jerry S. Lanchbury, Katherine Johansen Taber, Thomas P. Slavin, and Alexander Gutin were employed by Myriad Genetics, Inc. at the time of the study and received salaries and stocks as compensation. Holly J. Pederson and Monique Gary have received consulting fees from Myriad Genetics, Inc. Charis Eng has ownership interests in MyLegacy/MyFHH/Family Care Path. Judy Garber has received research funding from Ambry Genetics and Invitae and has other relationships, or an immediate family member with relationships, with AACR, Diana Helis Henry Medical Foundation, James P. Wilmot Foundation, Adrianne Helis Malvin Medical Research Foundation, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Facing our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Novartis, GTx, Aleta BioTherapeutics, H3 Biomedicine, and Kronos Bio. Ora Gordon has had a consulting or advisory role with GRAIL and Genetic Technologies, has received travel or accommodation expenses from GRAIL, and has received research funding from GRAIL. Jennifer R. Klemp has received consulting fees and speakers’ bureaus fees from AstraZeneca, has ownership interests in Cancer Survivorship Training, is employed by Caris Life Sciences, Inc, and has received a salary as compensation and consulting fees. Olufunmilayo I. Olopade has an ownership interest in 54Gene and Tempus, has an ownership interest and has received a salary from CancerIQ, and has other interests in Color Genomics, Healthy Life for All Foundation, and Roche/Genetech. Mark E. Robson has provided clinical trial services to AstraZeneca and Merck and has received consulting fees from and/or been on advisory boards for Change Healthcare, Intellisphere, MyMedEd, Physician’s Education Resources, and Research to Practice. Pat W. Whitworth has received consulting fees from or had contracted research with Agendia, Biotheranostics, Genomic Health, Impedimed, Myriad Genetics, Inc, Prelude, and Veracyte, and has an ownership interest in Medneon. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This Article was originally published under Nature Research's License to Publish, but has now been made available under a [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0] license. The PDF and HTML versions of the Article have been modified accordingly.

We examined how 372 psychiatrists view genetic aspects of mental disorders and behaviors and use genetic tests (GTs). Most thought that the genetic contribution was moderate/high for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, Alzheimer's, intelligence, creativity, anxiety, and suicidality. In the past 6 months, 14.1% ordered GTs, 18.3% discussed prenatal testing with patients, 36.0% initiated discussions about other GTs, 41.6% had patients ask about GTs, and 5.3% excluded GT results from patient records. Many thought that GTs; were available for schizophrenia (24.3%) and major depression (19.6%). Women were more likely to report that patients asked about GTs; and were less certain about the degree of genetic contribution to several disorders. Psychiatrists perceive strong genetic bases for numerous disorders and traits, and many have discussed and ordered tests for GTs, but have relatively limited knowledge about available tests. These data suggest possible sex differences in psychiatrists' beliefs about genetic contributions to disorders and have implications for future research, education, policy, and care.

This study explores neurologists' and psychiatrists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning genetic tests. Psychiatrists (n = 5,316) and neurologists (n = 2,167) on the American Medical Association master list who had agreed to receive surveys were sent an email link to a survey about their attitudes and practices regarding genetic testing; 372 psychiatrists and 163 neurologists responded. A higher proportion of neurologists (74%) than psychiatrists (14%) who responded to the survey had ordered genetic testing in the past 6 months. Overall, most respondents thought that genetic tests should be performed more frequently, but almost half believed genetic tests could harm patients psychologically and considered legal protections inadequate. Almost half of neurologists (49%) and over 75% of psychiatrists did not have a genetics professional to whom to refer patients; those who had ordered genetic tests were more likely than those who did not do so to have access to a genetic counselor. Of respondents, 10% had received patient requests not to document genetic information and 15% had received inquiries about direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Neurologists reported themselves to be relatively more experienced and knowledgeable about genetics than psychiatrists. These data, the first to examine several important issues concerning knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of neurologists and psychiatrists regarding genetic tests, have important implications for future practice, research, and education.

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommends carrier screening for all pregnant women regardless of race or ethnicity. In recent years, the ACMG broadened the guidelines to include expanded carrier screening (ECS) which can screen for 112 conditions. This study seeks to explore the perceptions of pregnant Latina women about the benefits and concerns related to ECS use. Partnering with prenatal clinics in Texas, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 pregnant Latina women in their second or third trimester of pregnancy. NVivo 8 was used to conduct content analysis and emergent coding of the data. Participants reported the benefits of ECS as helping them prepare for the baby's arrival, informing them of the baby's risk for genetic conditions, ensuring the health of their baby, and preventing diseases before birth. The ECS-related concerns expressed by the participants included worries surrounding potential positive ECS results, insufficient knowledge about the genetic diseases screened for by ECS, the accuracy of the ECS, the potential harm ECS may cause the baby, and the affordability of ECS. After weighing both their perceived benefits and concerns, nearly all the participants believed that ECS should be offered to all pregnant women. This study contributes to an understudied research area in the genetic/genomic field. Our findings can help increase the awareness of obstetricians, genetic professionals, and other healthcare providers regarding pregnant Latina women's views on ECS and inform the design of culturally appropriate care as ECS is adopted into routine clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic testing is one of the most high-yield diagnostic tests in the evaluation of pediatric sensorineural (SNHL) hearing loss, leading to a genetic diagnosis in 40–65% of patients. Previous research has focused on the utility of genetic testing in pediatric SNHL and otolaryngologists' general understanding of genetics. This qualitative study examines otolaryngologists' perceptions about facilitators and barriers when ordering genetic testing in the workup of pediatric hearing loss. Potential solutions for overcoming barriers are also explored. Eleven (N = 11) semi-structured interviews were conducted with otolaryngologists in the USA. Most participants were currently practicing in a southern, academic, urban setting and had completed a pediatric otolaryngology fellowship. Insurance was one of the main barriers to testing, and increased genetics provider accessibility was the most frequently cited solution to increase utilization of genetic services. Difficulty acquiring insurance coverage and unfamiliarity with the genetic testing process were the most common reasons otolaryngologists referred patients to genetics clinics for genetic testing, as opposed to ordering testing themselves. This study suggests that otolaryngologists recognize the importance and utility of genetic testing, but a lack of genetics-specific skills, knowledge, and resources makes it difficult for them to facilitate testing. Multidisciplinary hearing loss clinics that include genetics providers may increase the overall accessibility of genetic services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Women of reproductive age who carry fragile X premutation (PM) alleles have 56 to 200 CGG repeats in the 5′-untranslated region of FMR1 gene are at increased risk for producing children with intellectual disabilities (ID) or autism spectrum disorders (ASD) due to expansion of PM alleles to full mutation alleles (> 200 repeats) during maternal transmission. Methods: In present study fragile X PM carrier screening was performed in total 808 women who were consulting primary health care centers for preconception care in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region of Pakistan between April, 2018 and December, 2020. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed for detection of PM carrier women and the CGG repeats number was confirmed by Southern blotting and capillary electrophoresis. Results: The prevalence rate for PM carriers among preconception women was found to be 0.7% that was contributed by 0.5% women in risk group (RG1) with family history of ID and 0.2% in risk group 2 (RG2) with family history of ASD. PM carrier women had at least one affected child or sibling. In addition, the preconception women with FMR1 PM alleles were found to be at increased risk for primary ovary insufficiency (RG1: P = 0.0265, RG2: P = 0.0389), postpartum depression (RG1: P = 0.0240, RG2: P = 0.0501) and neuropsychiatric disorders (RG1: P = 0.0389, RG2: P = 0.0432). Conclusions: Current study provides first evidence of fragile X PM carrier screening in Pakistani preconception women in primary care consultation. Findings of current study may help to improve preconception care and to reduce burden of fragile X associated disorders in our population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE In this study, pathogenic, likely pathogenic and variant of uncertain significance/variant unknown significance (VUS) identified in the Hereditary Cancer Panel Genes between 2016 and 2017 and specified in the report are re-examined in 2022 and shown whether they have changed over time. METHODS Containing 26 genes in 2016-2017 variants of patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic/VUS detected in the Hereditary Cancer Panel were analyzed again in 2022 on Clinvar (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ clinvar/) and other databases. RESULTS The results of a total of 137 patients, 137 women and 2 men, were evaluated. While no pathogenic/ likely pathogenic/VUS variant was detected in the results of 95 patients, at least 1 variant was detected in 42 female patients. A total of 58 variants were detected in 42 patients, and we found that 24 variants among them fell into a different class. While 12 more variants were included in the lower pathogenicity subgroup, 5 of them were higher in pathogenicity. We saw that 6 variants that were not yet identified in 2016-2017 were identified, except for 1 of them. CONCLUSION We have seen that the pathogenicity of the variants written in patient reports, which can cause serious changes in the patient's life, can change over time. While giving genetic counseling about these variants, it should be stated that much more comprehensive research and information should be given to the patient, this information was given to the patient under the current conditions and that there may be a possibility of change in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pharmacogenetics targets genetic variations that influence drug response. It is relatively a new science that has not been vastly employed in most developing countries including Syria. Therefore we aimed at evaluating the depth of knowledge in pharmacogenetics and the attitude towards it amongst Syrian pharmacists and physicians.Methods: We carried out an internet-based questionnaire consisted of 26 questions, sent through specialized websites and private groups with a large number of pharmacists and physicians members. The survey was available online for a period of 1 month.Results: The total number of respondents was 154, mostly female pharmacists. Our statistical analysis showed a strong positive association between profession (in favour of pharmacists) and pharmacogenetics knowledge p = 0.049; however, no correlation with experience p = 0.811 was found. A significant difference was reported between the knowledge of pharmacists and physicians p = 0.001 concerning drugs that need pharmacogenetics testing before being prescribed. The majority of respondents had no information about applying genetic tests in Syria before prescribing medications nor did they possess the knowledge regarding drugs that show differential responses in patients according to their unique genotypes. In our study, the percentage knowledge assessment score was low in general (mean ± Standard deviation, SD) (46% ± 13.9%). The majority of the respondents agreed that pharmacists should provide counselling to patients on the subject of pharmacogenetics. Respondents' opinions varied concerning making pharmacogenetics learning a priority.Conclusion: Lack of pharmacogenetics knowledge was found amongst respondents in general. Our findings raise concerns about the lack of awareness amongst physicians, which may hinder the implementation of this crucial field in Syria. We suggest an emphasis on the role of education, training, and conducting genotyping research on the Syrian population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare disparities exist in the provision of cancer genetic services including genetic counseling and testing related to BRCA1/2 mutations. To address this in a community health setting a screening tool was created to identify high-risk women. This study evaluates the implementation of the tool and identifies opportunities for improved cancer genetic screening, including regular clinician education. A mixed-method approach was used to evaluate clinician utilization of the screening tool at Planned Parenthood affiliates. Novel surveys that evaluated acceptance and implementation were administered to clinicians (n = 14) and semi-structured interviews (n = 6) were used to explore clinicians' perspectives and identify gaps in its utilization. Educational modules that addressed gaps were developed, implemented, and evaluated using a post-education survey (n = 8). Clinicians reported confidence in administering and interpreting the screening tool, but reported less confidence in their knowledge of cancer genetics and ability to connect clients with genetic counseling and testing (p = .003). Educational modules resulted in significant gains in clinician knowledge on genetic topics (p < .05) and increased self-reported confidence in connecting clients with genetic services. The modules reinforced the belief that genetic testing is beneficial for patients at increased risk (p = .001) and is important to inform subsequent medical management (p = .027). While building community clinicians' capacity to connect clients with genetic services is crucial, it is challenged by knowledge and confidence gaps in discussions of genetic services with clients. Consistent genetic-focused education with non-genetic clinicians can improve confidence and knowledge, enabling a more effective screening program in community health settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Médecine de la Reproduction is the property of John Libbey Eurotext Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: Expanded carrier screening (ECS) assesses the risk of individuals and couples of having a child affected with a set of genetic conditions. Carriers have options available to optimize pregnancy outcomes based on personal values and preferences. The greatest range of options is available prior to pregnancy, therefore professional societies recommend this screening be performed preconception. This study aimed to assess awareness of, and interest in, ECS in women preconception. Additionally, it aimed to evaluate preferences for timing and location of education and availability of ECS., Methods: A total of 260 nulliparous women from the general population were surveyed through Qualtrics, a national market research survey platform. Data were delineated using descriptive statistics., Results: Of this cohort, 43.5% reported being aware of ECS prior to the survey and 77.8% indicated interest. Those previously aware were first informed by family, friends, or independent online research. Interest was primarily driven by a desire for reassurance and to make informed decisions about future pregnancies. Interested respondents indicated a willingness to request testing from providers. Participants showed a preference for education and access from a healthcare provider in person., Conclusion: These findings provide insight regarding when and where to best educate and reach women prior to pregnancy about ECS to maximize pregnancy outcomes., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: This study evaluated whether pharmacogenomic information contained in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved package inserts of sixty-five drugs was present in five drug information resources. Methods: The study searched for biomarkers from the FDA package inserts in 5 drug information sources: American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information (AHFS), Facts & Comparisons 4.0 (Facts), ePocrates Online Free (ePocrates Free), Lexicomp Online (Lexicomp), and Micromedex 2.0. Each resource had the opportunity to present biomarker information for 65 drugs, a total of 325 opportunities. A binary system was used to indicate presence or absence of the biomarker information. A sub-analysis was performed on the 13 most frequently prescribed drugs in the United States. Results: Package insert biomarker information was available, on average, for 81.5% of the 65 FDA-listed drugs in 2011. Percent availability for the individual resources was: Lexicomp, 95.3%; Micromedex 2.0, 92.3%; Facts, 76.9%; AHFS, 75.3%; and ePocrates Free, 67.7%. The sub-analysis of the 13 top drugs showed Lexicomp and Micromedex 2.0 had the most mentions, 92.3%; ePocrates Free had the least, 53.8%. Conclusion: The strongest resource for pharmacogenomic information was Lexicomp. The gap between Lexicomp and ePocrates Free is concerning. Clinicians would miss pharmacogenomic information 6.6 times more often in ePocrates Free than in Lexicomp. Implications: Health sciences librarians should be aware of the variation in biomarker availability when recommending drug resources for licensing and use. Librarians can also use this study to encourage publishers to include pharmacogenomics information from the package insert as a minimum standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]