1932

Abstract

Actionability is an important concept in medicine that does not have a well-accepted standard definition, nor is there a general consensus on how to establish it. Medical actionability is often conflated with clinical utility, a related but distinct concept. This lack of clarity contributes to practice variation and inconsistent coverage decisions in genomic medicine, leading to the potential for systematic bias in the use of evidence-based interventions. We clarify how medical actionability and clinical utility are distinct and then discuss the spectrum of actionability, including benefits for the person, the family, and society. We also describe applications across the life course, including prediction, diagnosis, and treatment. Current challenges in assessing the medical actionability of identified genomic variants include gaps in the evidence, limited contexts with practice guidelines, and subjective aspects of medical actionability. A standardized and authoritative assessment of medical actionability is critical to implementing genomic medicine in a fashion that improves population health outcomes and reduces health disparities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111021-032401
2022-08-31
2024-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/genom/23/1/annurev-genom-111021-032401.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111021-032401&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Am. Coll. Obstet. Gynecol. Comm. Genet. 2017. Committee Opinion No. 690: carrier screening in the age of genomic medicine. Obstet. Gynecol. 129:e35–40
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Dery V. 2008. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull. World Health Organ. 86:317–19
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Arjunan A, Bellerose H, Torres R, Ben-Shachar R, Hoffman JD et al. 2020. Evaluation and classification of severity for 176 genes on an expanded carrier screening panel. Prenat. Diagn. 40:1246–57
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Bailey DB Jr., Gehtland LM, Lewis MA, Peay H, Raspa M et al. 2019. Early Check: translational science at the intersection of public health and newborn screening. BMC Pediatr 19:238
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Beauchamp KA, Johansen Taber KA, Grauman PV, Spurka L, Lim-Harashima J et al. 2019. Sequencing as a first-line methodology for cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Genet. Med. 21:2569–76
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Ben-Shachar R, Svenson A, Goldberg JD, Muzzey D. 2019. A data-driven evaluation of the size and content of expanded carrier screening panels. Genet. Med. 21:1931–39
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Berg JS, Foreman AK, O'Daniel JM, Booker JK, Boshe L et al. 2016. A semiquantitative metric for evaluating clinical actionability of incidental or secondary findings from genome-scale sequencing. Genet. Med. 18:467–75
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Borry P, Goffin T, Nys H, Dierickx K. 2008. Predictive genetic testing in minors for adult-onset genetic diseases. Mt. Sinai J. Med. 75:287–96
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Botkin JR, Belmont JW, Berg JS, Berkman BE, Bombard Y et al. 2015. Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 97:6–21
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Bowdin SC, Hayeems RZ, Monfared N, Cohn RD, Meyn MS. 2016. The SickKids Genome Clinic: developing and evaluating a pediatric model for individualized genomic medicine. Clin. Genet. 89:10–19
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Boycott K, Hartley T, Adam S, Bernier F, Chong K et al. 2015. The clinical application of genome-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada: Position Statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. J. Med. Genet. 52:431–37
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Brothers KB, Vassy JL, Green RC. 2019. Reconciling opportunistic and population screening in clinical genomics. Mayo Clin. Proc. 94:103–9
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Burke W, Zimmern R. 2007. Moving beyond ACCE: an expanded framework for genetic test evaluation Rep. PHG Found. Cambridge, UK:
  14. 14.
    Cannon J, Van Steijvoort E, Borry P, Chokoshvili D. 2019. How does carrier status for recessive disorders influence reproductive decisions? A systematic review of the literature. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 19:1117–29
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Capalbo A, Fabiani M, Caroselli S, Poli M, Girardi L et al. 2021. Clinical validity and utility of preconception expanded carrier screening for the management of reproductive genetic risk in IVF and general population. Hum. Reprod. 36:2050–61
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Carmichael N, Tsipis J, Windmueller G, Mandel L, Estrella E 2015.. “ Is it going to hurt?”: the impact of the diagnostic odyssey on children and their families. J. Genet. Couns. 24:325–35
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Carmody L, Robinson P. 2021. Medical Action Ontology (MAXO). GitHub. https://github.com/monarch-initiative/MAxO
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Caudle KE, Klein TE, Hoffman JM, Muller DJ, Whirl-Carrillo M et al. 2014. Incorporation of pharmacogenomics into routine clinical practice: the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline development process. Curr. Drug Metab. 15:209–17
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Comm. Bioeth., Comm. Genet., Am. Coll. Med. Genet. Genom. Soc. Ethical Leg. Issues Comm. 2013. Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Pediatrics 131:620–22
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Danos AM, Krysiak K, Barnell EK, Coffman AC, McMichael JF et al. 2019. Standard operating procedure for curation and clinical interpretation of variants in cancer. Genome Med 11:76
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    de Wert G, Dondorp W, Clarke A, Dequeker EMC, Cordier C et al. 2021. Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 29:365–77
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    DeCristo DM, Milko LV, O'Daniel JM, Foreman AKM, Mollison LF et al. 2021. Actionability of commercial laboratory sequencing panels for newborn screening and the importance of transparency for parental decision-making. Genome Med 13:50
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Delanne J, Nambot S, Chassagne A, Putois O, Pelissier A et al. 2019. Secondary findings from whole-exome/genome sequencing evaluating stakeholder perspectives. A review of the literature. Eur. J. Med. Genet. 62:103529
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Delatycki MB, Alkuraya F, Archibald A, Castellani C, Cornel M et al. 2020. International perspectives on the implementation of reproductive carrier screening. Prenat. Diagn. 40:301–10
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Dragojlovic N, van Karnebeek CDM, Ghani A, Genereaux D, Kim E et al. 2020. The cost trajectory of the diagnostic care pathway for children with suspected genetic disorders. Genet. Med. 22:292–300
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    eMERGE Clin. Annot. Work. Group. 2020. Frequency of genomic secondary findings among 21,915 eMERGE network participants. Genet. Med. 22:1470–77
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Eval. Genom. Appl. Pract. Prev. Work. Group. 2014. The EGAPP initiative: lessons learned. Genet. Med. 16:217–24
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Evans DG, Baser ME, O'Reilly B, Rowe J, Gleeson M et al. 2005. Management of the patient and family with neurofibromatosis 2: a consensus conference statement. Br. J. Neurosurg. 19:5–12
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Fraiman YS, Wojcik MH. 2021. The influence of social determinants of health on the genetic diagnostic odyssey: Who remains undiagnosed, why, and to what effect?. Pediatr. Res. 89:295–300
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. 1991. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med. Decis. Mak. 11:88–94
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Ghiossi CE, Goldberg JD, Haque IS, Lazarin GA, Wong KK. 2018. Clinical utility of expanded carrier screening: reproductive behaviors of at-risk couples. J. Genet. Couns. 27:616–25
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Goddard KA, Whitlock EP, Berg JS, Williams MS, Webber EM et al. 2013. Description and pilot results from a novel method for evaluating return of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies. Genet. Med. 15:721–28
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, eds. 2011. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  34. 34.
    Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, Kalia SS, Korf BR et al. 2013. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet. Med. 15:565–74
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Gregg AR, Aarabi M, Klugman S, Leach NT, Bashford MT et al. 2021. Screening for autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions during pregnancy and preconception: a practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 23:1793–806
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Guo MH, Gregg AR. 2019. Estimating yields of prenatal carrier screening and implications for design of expanded carrier screening panels. Genet. Med. 21:1940–47
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Haddow JE, Palomaki GE 2003. ACCE: a model process for evaluating data on emerging genetic tests. Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease M Khoury, J Little, W Burke 217–33 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Haer-Wigman L, van der Schoot V, Feenstra I, Vulto-van Silfhout AT, Gilissen C et al. 2019. 1 in 38 individuals at risk of a dominant medically actionable disease. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 27:325–30
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Health Resour. Serv. Adm. 2020. Recommended Uniform Screening Panel. Health Resources and Services Administration. . https://www.hrsa.gov/advisory-committees/heritable-disorders/rusp
  40. 40.
    Hehir-Kwa JY, Pfundt R, Veltman JA. 2015. Exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing for the detection of copy number variation. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 15:1023–32
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Henneman L, Borry P, Chokoshvili D, Cornel MC, van El CG et al. 2016. Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 24:e1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Hunter JE, Irving SA, Biesecker LG, Buchanan A, Jensen B et al. 2016. A standardized, evidence-based protocol to assess clinical actionability of genetic disorders associated with genomic variation. Genet. Med. 18:1258–68
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Jamal L, Robinson JO, Christensen KD, Blumenthal-Barby J, Slashinski MJ et al. 2017. When bins blur: patient perspectives on categories of results from clinical whole genome sequencing. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 8:82–88
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Johansen Taber KA, Beauchamp KA, Lazarin GA, Muzzey D, Arjunan A, Goldberg JD 2019. Clinical utility of expanded carrier screening: results-guided actionability and outcomes. Genet. Med. 21:1041–48
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Joseph L, Cankovic M, Caughron S, Chandra P, Emmadi R et al. 2016. The spectrum of clinical utilities in molecular pathology testing procedures for inherited conditions and cancer: a report of the Association for Molecular Pathology. J. Mol. Diagn. 18:605–19
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, Chung WK, Eng C et al. 2017. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet. Med. 19:249–55
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Khoury MJ, McCabe LL, McCabe ER. 2003. Population screening in the age of genomic medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 348:50–58
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Kraft SA, McMullen CK, Porter KM, Kauffman TL, Davis JV et al. 2018. Patient perspectives on the use of categories of conditions for decision making about genomic carrier screening results. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 176:376–85
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Larsen KR, Michie S, Hekler EB, Gibson B, Spruijt-Metz D et al. 2017. Behavior change interventions: the potential of ontologies for advancing science and practice. J. Behav. Med. 40:6–22
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Lazarin GA, Hawthorne F, Collins NS, Platt EA, Evans EA, Haque IS. 2014. Systematic classification of disease severity for evaluation of expanded carrier screening panels. PLOS ONE 9:e114391
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Mand C, Gillam L, Delatycki MB, Duncan RE. 2012. Predictive genetic testing in minors for late-onset conditions: a chronological and analytical review of the ethical arguments. J. Med. Ethics 38:519–24
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Manickam K, McClain MR, Demmer LA, Biswas S, Kearney HM et al. 2021. Exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability: an evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 23:2029–37
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Milko LV, O'Daniel JM, DeCristo DM, Crowley SB, Foreman AKM et al. 2019. An age-based framework for evaluating genome-scale sequencing results in newborn screening. J. Pediatr. 209:68–76
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Miller DT, Lee K, Chung WK, Gordon AS, Herman GE et al. 2021. ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 23:1381–90
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2021. NCCN Guidelines: treatment by cancer type. National Comprehensive Cancer Network https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/category_1
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Paquin RS, Mittendorf KF, Lewis MA, Hunter JE, Lee K et al. 2019. Expert and lay perspectives on burden, risk, tolerability, and acceptability of clinical interventions for genetic disorders. Genet. Med. 21:2561–68
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Parkinson DR, McCormack RT, Keating SM, Gutman SI, Hamilton SR et al. 2014. Evidence of clinical utility: an unmet need in molecular diagnostics for patients with cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 20:1428–44
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Peabody JW, Shimkhada R, Tong KB, Zubiller MB. 2014. New thinking on clinical utility: hard lessons for molecular diagnostics. Am. J. Manag. Care 20:750–56
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Peyser A, Singer T, Mullin C, Bristow SL, Gamma A et al. 2019. Comparing ethnicity-based and expanded carrier screening methods at a single fertility center reveals significant differences in carrier rates and carrier couple rates. Genet. Med. 21:1400–6
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Reble E, Gutierrez Salazar M, Zakoor KR, Khalouei S, Clausen M et al. 2021. Beyond medically actionable results: an analytical pipeline for decreasing the burden of returning all clinically significant secondary findings. Hum. Genet. 140:493–504
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Rehm HL, Berg JS, Brooks LD, Bustamante CD, Evans JP et al. 2015. ClinGen—the Clinical Genome Resource. N. Engl. J. Med. 372:2235–42
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Relling MV, Klein TE, Gammal RS, Whirl-Carrillo M, Hoffman JM, Caudle KE. 2020. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium: 10 years later. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 107:171–75
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Richer J, Laberge AM. 2019. Secondary findings from next-generation sequencing: What does actionable in childhood really mean?. Genet. Med. 21:124–32
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Ross LF, Rothstein MA, Clayton EW 2013. Mandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: “incidental findings,” patient autonomy, and shared decision making. JAMA 310:367–68
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Rothwell E, Johnson E, Mathiesen A, Golden K, Metcalf A et al. 2017. Experiences among women with positive prenatal expanded carrier screening results. J. Genet. Couns. 26:690–96
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Sanderson SC, Linderman MD, Suckiel SA, Diaz GA, Zinberg RE et al. 2016. Motivations, concerns and preferences of personal genome sequencing research participants: baseline findings from the HealthSeq project. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 24:14–20
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Savatt JM, Azzariti DR, Faucett WA, Harrison S, Hart J et al. 2018. ClinGen's GenomeConnect registry enables patient-centered data sharing. Hum. Mutat. 39:1668–76
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Sawyer SL, Hartley T, Dyment DA, Beaulieu CL, Schwartzentruber J et al. 2016. Utility of whole-exome sequencing for those near the end of the diagnostic odyssey: time to address gaps in care. Clin. Genet. 89:275–84
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Sebastian A, Carroll JC, Vanstone M, Clausen M, Kodida R et al. 2022. Widening the lens of actionability: a qualitative study of primary care providers’ views and experiences of managing secondary genomic findings. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 30:595603
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Sekijima Y 2021. Hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis. GeneReviews MP Adam, HH Ardinger, RA Pagon, SE Wallace, LJH Bean, et al Seattle: Univ. Wash. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1194
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Silva ESD, Tavares R, Paulitsch FDS, Zhang L. 2018. Use of sunscreen and risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Dermatol. 28:186–201
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Smart A. 2006. A multi-dimensional model of clinical utility. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 18:377–82
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Spillmann RC, McConkie-Rosell A, Pena L, Jiang YH, Schoch K et al. 2017. A window into living with an undiagnosed disease: illness narratives from the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 12:71
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Stark Z, Schofield D, Alam K, Wilson W, Mupfeki N et al. 2017. Prospective comparison of the cost-effectiveness of clinical whole-exome sequencing with that of usual care overwhelmingly supports early use and reimbursement. Genet. Med. 19:867–74
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Stivers T, Timmermans S. 2017. The actionability of exome sequencing testing results. Sociol. Health Illn. 39:1542–56
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, Haddow JE, Piper M et al. 2009. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet. Med. 11:3–14
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Therrell BL, Padilla CD, Loeber JG, Kneisser I, Saadallah A et al. 2015. Current status of newborn screening worldwide: 2015. Semin. Perinatol. 39:171–87
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Tudini E, Davidson AL, Dressel U, Andrews L, Antill Y et al. 2021. Implementing gene curation for hereditary cancer susceptibility in Australia: achieving consensus on genes with clinical utility. J. Med. Genet. 58:853–58
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Tumiene B, Graessner H. 2021. Rare disease care pathways in the EU: from odysseys and labyrinths towards highways. J. Community Genet. 12:231–39
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    US Prev. Serv. Task Force. 2015. Procedure manual Manual, US Prev. Serv. Task Force Rockville, MD: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/sites/default/files/inline-files/procedure-manual_2016%20%281%29.pdf
  81. 81.
    US Task Force Genet. Test. 1997. Promoting safe and effective genetic testing in the United States: final report of the Task Force on Genetic Testing NA Holtzman, MS Watson. Rep. US Task Force Genet. Test. Bethesda, MD:
  82. 82.
    Van Hout CV, Tachmazidou I, Backman JD, Hoffman JD, Liu D et al. 2020. Exome sequencing and characterization of 49,960 individuals in the UK Biobank. Nature 586:749–56
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Wald N, Cuckle H 1989. Reporting the assessment of screening and diagnostic tests. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 96:389–96
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Watson MS, Mann MY, Lloyd-Puryear MA, Rinaldo R, Howell RR, eds. 2006. Newborn screening: toward a uniform screening panel and system. Genet. Med. 8:Suppl. 11S–252S
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Westemeyer M, Saucier J, Wallace J, Prins SA, Shetty A et al. 2020. Clinical experience with carrier screening in a general population: support for a comprehensive pan-ethnic approach. Genet. Med. 22:1320–28
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Wilfond BS, Goddard KA. 2015. It's complicated: criteria for policy decisions for the clinical integration of genome-scale sequencing for reproductive decision making. Mol. Genet. Genom. Med. 3:239–42
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Wilson JMG, Jungner G. 1968. Principles and practice of screening for disease Public Health Pap. 34 World Health Organ. Geneva, Switz.:
  88. 88.
    Wilson RD, De Bie I, Armour CM, Brown RN, Campagnolo C et al. 2016. Joint SOGC-CCMG opinion for reproductive genetic carrier screening: an update for all Canadian providers of maternity and reproductive healthcare in the era of direct-to-consumer testing. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 38:742–62.e3
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Woerner AC, Gallagher RC, Vockley J, Adhikari AN. 2021. The use of whole genome and exome sequencing for newborn screening: challenges and opportunities for population health. Front. Pediatr. 9:663752
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Wright MF, Lewis KL, Fisher TC, Hooker GW, Emanuel TE et al. 2014. Preferences for results delivery from exome sequencing/genome sequencing. Genet. Med. 16:442–47
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Wu AC, McMahon P, Lu C. 2020. Ending the diagnostic odyssey—is whole-genome sequencing the answer?. JAMA Pediatr 174:821–22
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Yang Y, Muzny DM, Xia F, Niu Z, Person R et al. 2014. Molecular findings among patients referred for clinical whole-exome sequencing. JAMA 312:1870–79
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111021-032401
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111021-032401
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error