Wylie Burke

American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography.

New evidence on breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) screening has become available since the American Cancer Society (ACS) last issued guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer in 2003. A guideline panel has reviewed this evidence and developed new recommendations for women at different defined levels of risk. Screening MRI is recommended for women with an approximately 20–25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer, including women with a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer and women who were treated for Hodgkin disease. There are several risk subgroups for which the available data are insufficient to recommend for or against screening, including women with a personal history of breast cancer, carcinoma in situ, atypical hyperplasia, and extremely dense breasts on mammography. Diagnostic uses of MRI were not considered to be within the scope of this review.

American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Update 2003

In 2003, the American Cancer Society updated its guidelines for early detection of breast cancer based on recommendations from a formal review of evidence and a recent workshop. The new screening recommendations address screening mammography, physical examination, screening older women and women with comorbid conditions, screening women at high risk, and new screening technologies.

Reconsidering the family history in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to review the role of the family history in predictive genetic testing, describe how family history taking is practiced in adult primary care, identify the current barriers to appropriate application of the family history, and outline the requirements for a new family history tool for primary care.DESIGN: We reviewed current perspectives on the family history, identifying key references in the medical literature and web-based family history tools through discussions with multiple content experts in clinical genetics, family medicine, and internal medicine. We conducted a Medline query using the search terms family history and primary care to identify references from the past 10 years. To illustrate the usefulness of family history information, we calculated the predictive value of family history and genetic information for familial adenomatous polyposis using current references and standard formulas. We identified paper and web-based family history tools through discussions with content experts. We also conducted a search on the World Wide Web to identify resources for electronic medical record and family history.RESULTS: The family history is the most important tool for diagnosis and risk assessment in medical genetics, and promises to serve as a critical element in the use of predictive genetic testing in primary care. Traditional medical education about family history has often been unsophisticated and use of family history in adult primary care has been limited, compounded by multiple substantive barriers. Although there are numerous paper and computer-based aides for taking the family history, none currently meets all the needs of adult primary care.CONCLUSIONS: The patient’s family history remains a critical element in risk assessment for many conditions, but substantive barriers impede application in primary care practice, and evidence for its contribution to improved health outcomes is limited in this setting. Short of radical changes in reimbursement, new tools will be required to aid primary care physicians in the efficient collection and application of patient family history in the era of genetic testing.

An Unwelcome Side Effect of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genome Testing: Raiding the Medical Commons

It is now possible for individuals to learn about their genetic susceptibility to dozens of common and complex disorders, such as coronary artery disease, diabetes, obesity, prostate cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease, without ever seeing a physician. Direct-to-consumer personal genome testing companies, such as 23andMe, Navigenics, and deCODEme hope to empower consumers to take control of their health by providing tailored assessments of genetic risk based on reported associations between genomic variation and susceptibility to disease. Several states limit or forbid this practice as a violation of state law that requires the appropriate involvement of a licensed physician when providing medical diagnostic information (1). Personal genome testing companies claim that their services are for informational and educational purposes only. They warn consumers that the information should not be used for diagnosis, treatment, or health ascertainment purposes and direct them to their physician if they have questions or concerns about their health status (2–3). Because of uncertainty about the validity and clinical utility of test results, Hunter and colleagues advise physicians to discourage patients from pursuing personal genome testing and to respond to test results with general statements about their limited predictive value (4). While this response is consistent with current knowledge, a recent survey of online social networking users suggests that at least some potential consumers would expect their physician to help them interpret test results and believe that physicians have a professional obligation to do so (ALM, unpublished data). This expectation has important implications for primary care physicians, even pediatricians, because many direct-to-consumer personal genome testing companies allow testing of children as well as adults. Primary care physicians already spend much of their time helping patients understand and manage health risks. Assessment of cardiac risk factors, occupational exposures and other health indicators allow physicians to identify health risks and counsel patients accordingly. Physicians are also accustomed to talking with patients about health information disclosed on the internet or through other media outlets. At the same time, primary care physicians have limited time with patients, face many competing demands (5), and are poorly reimbursed for time spent counseling patients about preventive care. Patient concerns about direct-to-consumer test results have the potential to exacerbate these problems and strain already limited health care resources.

National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives on the basis of 1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session, 3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session, and 4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and morning of the third. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of NIH or the U.S. government. The statement reflects the panel’s assessment of medical knowledge available at the time the statement was written. Thus, it provides a “snapshot in time” of the state of knowledge on the conference topic. When reading the statement, keep in mind that new knowledge is inevitably accumulating through medical research. The following statement is an abridged version of the panel’s report, which is available in full at http://consensus.nih.gov/2011/prostatefinalstatement.htmNational Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus and Stateof-the-Science Statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives on the basis of 1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session, 3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session, and 4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and morning of the third. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of NIH or the U.S. government. The statement reflects the panel’s assessment of medical knowledge available at the time the statement was written. Thus, it provides a “snapshot in time” of the state of knowledge on the conference topic. When reading the statement, keep in mind that new knowledge is inevitably accumulating through medical research. The following statement is an abridged version of the panel’s report, which is available in full at http: //consensus.nih.gov/2011/prostatefinalstatement.htm In 2011, more than 240 000 men are projected to receive a diagnosis of prostate cancer and 33 000 are projected to die of this condition. More than 2.5 million men in the United States are long-term survivors of prostate cancer. Men with a strong family history of prostate cancer and African American men are at increased risk for prostate cancer. Most cases of prostate cancer are localized at diagnosis and detected as a result of screening with prostatespecific antigen (PSA) testing. Most of these screendetected cases of cancer are low risk and are unlikely to cause death. The natural history of prostate cancer has changed dramatically in the past 3 decades because of PSA screening. Although most cases of prostate cancer are slowgrowing and unlikely to spread, most men receive immediate treatment with surgery or radiation. These therapeutic strategies are associated with shortand long-term complications, including impotence and urinary incontinence. Only a few men choose observational strategies, thereby delaying the initiation of curative therapy or avoiding it completely. Given the high prevalence of low-risk prostate cancer, the roles of active surveillance and other observational strategies as alternatives to immediate treatment need to be clarified. The National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the NIH Office of Medical Applications of Research convened a State-of-the-Science Conference on 5 to 7 December 2011 to assess the available scientific evidence about active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer. The conference, which addressed 5 key questions, was informed by a formal evidence report commissioned through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, data presented by speakers, and input from attendees.

Ethical and Practical Guidelines for Reporting Genetic Research Results to Study Participants: Updated Guidelines From a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group

In January 2009, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a 28-member multidisciplinary Working Group to update the recommendations of a 2004 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group focused on Guidelines to the Return of Genetic Research Results. Changes in the genetic and societal landscape over the intervening 5 years raise multiple questions and challenges. The group noted the complex issues arising from the fact that technological and bioinformatic progress has made it possible to obtain considerable information on individuals that would not have been possible a decade ago. Although unable to reach consensus on a number of issues, the working group produced 5 recommendations. The working group offers 2 recommendations addressing the criteria necessary to determine when genetic results should and may be returned to study participants, respectively. In addition, it suggests that a time limit be established to limit the duration of obligation of investigators to return genetic research results. The group recommends the creation of a central body, or bodies, to provide guidance on when genetic research results are associated with sufficient risk and have established clinical utility to justify their return to study participants. The final recommendation urges investigators to engage the broader community when dealing with identifiable communities to advise them on the return of aggregate and individual research results. Creation of an entity charged to provide guidance to institutional review boards, investigators, research institutions, and research sponsors would provide rigorous review of available data, promote standardization of study policies regarding return of genetic research results, and enable investigators and study participants to clarify and share expectations for the handling of this increasingly valuable information with appropriate respect for the rights and needs of participants.

Recommendations for Returning Genomic Incidental Findings? We Need to Talk!

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently issued recommendations for reporting incidental findings from clinical whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. The recommendations call for evaluating a specific set of genes as part of all whole-genome sequencing/whole-exome sequencing and reporting all pathogenic variants irrespective of patient age. The genes are associated with highly penetrant disorders for which treatment or prevention is available. The effort to generate a list of genes with actionable findings is commendable, but the recommendations raise several concerns. They constitute a call for opportunistic screening, through intentional effort to identify pathogenic variants in specified genes unrelated to the clinical concern that prompted testing. Yet for most of the genes, we lack evidence about the predictive value of testing, genotype penetrance, spectrum of phenotypes, and efficacy of interventions in unselected populations. Furthermore, the recommendations do not allow patients to decline the additional findings, a position inconsistent with established norms. Finally, the recommendation to return adult-onset disease findings when children are tested is inconsistent with current professional consensus, including other policy statements of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Instead of premature practice recommendations, we call for robust dialogue among stakeholders to define a pathway to normatively sound, evidence-based guidelines.Genet Med 15 11, 854–859.Genetics in Medicine (2013); 15 11, 854–859. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.113

Genomic profiling to promote a healthy lifestyle: not ready for prime time

Genomic profiling has the potential to usher in a revolution of personalized healthcare and disease prevention. But evidence to support genomic profiling is inconsistent, and data on the health outcome benefits based on such testing are lacking. For genomic profiling to become valid and useful, well designed epidemiologic studies and thorough clinical evaluations of recommended interventions based on genotype are required.

Family History as a Predictor of Asthma Risk

Asthma, one of the most important chronic diseases of children, disproportionately affects minority and low-income children. Many environmental risk factors for asthma have been identified, including animal, mite, and other allergens; cigarette smoke; and air pollutants. Genetics also play an important causative role, as indicated by familial aggregation and the identification of candidate genes and chromosomal regions linked to asthma risk. Using a positive family history of asthma to identify children at increased risk could provide a basis for targeted prevention efforts, aimed at reducing exposure to environmental risk factors. To assess the predictive value of family history as an indicator of risk for childhood asthma, we reviewed population-based studies that evaluated family history of asthma and atopic disease in children with asthma. Our search identified 33 studies from all geographic regions of the world for review. The studies varied in definitions of positive family history and asthma phenotype and used study populations with asthma prevalence ranging from 2% to 26%. Nevertheless, family history of asthma in one or more first-degree relatives was consistently identified as a risk factor for asthma. In ten studies, sensitivity and predictive value of a positive family history of asthma could be calculated: sensitivity ranged from 4% to 43%, positive predictive value from 11% to 37%, and negative predictive value from 86% to 97%. Although a positive family history predicts an increased risk of asthma, it identifies a minority of children at risk. Positive family history may have utility in targeting some individual prevention efforts, but the low positive predictive value limits its value as a means to direct environmental remediation efforts.

ASHG Statement* on Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in the United States

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has been gaining prominence over the past several years.1 Proponents of DTC testing cite benefits that include increased consumer access to testing, greater consumer autonomy and empowerment, and enhanced privacy of the information obtained. Critics of DTC genetic testing have pointed to the risks that consumers will choose testing without adequate context or counseling, will receive tests from laboratories of dubious quality, and will be misled by unproven claims of benefit.