1932

Abstract

Applications of genomics to population screening are expanding in the United States and internationally. Many of these programs are being implemented in the context of healthcare systems, mostly in a clinical research setting, but there are some emerging examples of clinical models. This review examines these genomic population screening programs to identify common features and differences in screened conditions, genomic technology employed, approach to results disclosure, health outcomes, financial models, and sustainability. The diversity of approaches provides opportunities to learn and better understand the optimal approach to implementation based on the contextual setting.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111221-115239
2022-08-31
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/genom/23/1/annurev-genom-111221-115239.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111221-115239&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Abul-Husn NS, Soper ER, Braganza GT, Rodriguez JE, Zeid N et al. 2021. Implementing genomic screening in diverse populations. Genome Med 13:17
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    ACMG Board Dir. 2019. The use of ACMG secondary findings recommendations for general population screening: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 21:1467–68
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Alhuqail AJ, Alzahrani A, Almubarak H, Al-Qadheeb S, Alghofaili L et al. 2018. High prevalence of deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in Arab breast and ovarian cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 168:695–702
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Alver M, Palover M, Saar A, Läll K, Zekavat SM et al. 2019. Recall by genotype and cascade screening for familial hypercholesterolemia in a population-based biobank from Estonia. Genet. Med. 21:1173–80
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Apostolou P, Fostira F, Kouroussis C, Kalfakakou D, Delimitsou A et al. 2020. BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline testing in Cretan isolates reveals novel and strong founder effects. Int. J. Cancer 147:1334–42
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Bowling KM, Thompson ML, Gray DE, Lawlor JMJ, Williams K et al. 2021. Identifying rare, medically relevant variation via population-based genomic screening in Alabama: opportunities and pitfalls. Genet. Med. 23:280–88
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Buchanan AH, Kirchner HL, Schwartz MLB, Kelly MA, Schmidlen T et al. 2020. Clinical outcomes of a genomic screening program for actionable genetic conditions. Genet. Med. 22:1874–82
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Cao WM, Gao Y, Yang HJ, Xie SN, Ding XW et al. 2016. Novel germline mutations and unclassified variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Chinese women with familial breast/ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer 16:64
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Cent. Dis. Control Prev. Off. Genom. Precis. Public Health. 2021. About us. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office of Genomics and Precision Public Health https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/about
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Cent. Dis. Control Prev. Off. Genom. Precis. Public Health. 2021. Tier 1 genomics applications and their importance to public health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office of Genomics and Precision Public Health. https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/implementation/toolkit/tier1.htm#:∼:text=Tier%201%20genomic%20applications%20are,evidence%2Dbased%20guidelines%20and%20recommendations
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Charles Bronfman Inst. Pers. Med. 2021. BioMe® BioBank Program. Charles Bronfman Institute for Personalized Medicine https://icahn.mssm.edu/research/ipm/programs/biome-biobank
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Clinical OMICs. 2021. NorthShore taps Sema4 in launch of system-wide genomics program. Clinical OMICs Apr. 19. https://www.clinicalomics.com/topics/precision-medicine-topic/precision-medicine/northshore-taps-sema4-in-launch-of-system-wide-genomics-program
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Collins FS, Varmus H. 2015. A new initiative on precision medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 372:793–95
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Cotrim DP, Ribeiro ARG, Paixão D, de Queiroz Soares DC, Jbili R et al. 2019. Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in non-selected ovarian carcinoma patients in Brazil. BMC Cancer 19:4
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    David SP, Dunnenberger HM, Ali R, Matsil A, Lemke AA et al. 2021. Implementing primary care mediated population genetic screening within an integrated health system. J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 34:861–65
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    De Lew N, Greenberg G, Kinchen K. 1992. A layman's guide to the U.S. health care system. Health Care Financ. Rev. 14:151–69
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Demir S, Tozkir H, Gurkan H, Atli EI, Yalcintepe S et al. 2020. Genetic screening results of individuals with high risk BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer in Trakya region of Turkey. J. BUON 25:1337–47
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    East KM, Kelley WV, Cannon A, Cochran ME, Moss IP et al. 2021. A state-based approach to genomics for rare disease and population screening. Genet. Med. 23:777–81
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Goonasekera HW, Paththinige CS, Dissanayake VHW. 2018. Population screening for hemoglobinopathies. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 19:355–80
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Gronwald J, Huzarski T, Byrski T, Debniak T, Metcalfe K et al. 2006. Direct-to-patient BRCA1 testing: the Twoj Styl experience. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 100:239–45
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Grzymski JJ, Elhanan G, Morales Rosado JA, Smith E, Schlauch KA et al. 2020. Population genetic screening efficiently identifies carriers of autosomal dominant diseases. Nat. Med. 26:1235–39
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Guzauskas GF, Garbett S, Zhou Z, Spencer SJ, Smith HS et al. 2020. Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the United States. JAMA Netw. Open. 3:e2022874
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Healthy Nev. Proj. 2021. About us. Healthy Nevada Project. https://healthynv.org/about
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Int. HundredK+ Cohorts Consort. 2021. Member cohorts. International HundredK+ Cohorts Consortium https://ihccglobal.org/membercohorts
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Intermt. Healthc. 2021. Joining HerediGene is simple. Intermountain Healthcare. https://intermountainhealthcare.org/health-wellness-promotion/genomics/heredigene
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    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 Erratum. 2017. Genet. Med. 19:484
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Kohane IS, Masys DR, Altman RB. 2006. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 296:212–15 Erratum. 2006. JAMA 296:1466
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Kovanda A, Zimani AN, Peterlin B. 2021. How to design a national genomic project—a systematic review of active projects. Hum. Genom. 15:20
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Leitsalu L, Palover M, Sikka TT, Reigo A, Kals M et al. 2021. Genotype-first approach to the detection of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk, and effects of risk disclosure to biobank participants. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 29:471–81
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Lieberman S, Tomer A, Ben-Chetrit A, Olsha O, Strano S et al. 2017. Population screening for BRCA1/BRCA2 founder mutations in Ashkenazi Jews: proactive recruitment compared with self-referral. Genet. Med. 19:754–762 Correction. 2020. Genet. Med. 22:672
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Manchanda R, Lieberman S, Gaba F, Lahad A, Levy-Lahad E. 2020. Population screening for inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet 21:373–412
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Manolio TA, Goodhand P, Ginsburg G 2020. The International Hundred Thousand Plus Cohort Consortium: integrating large-scale cohorts to address global scientific challenges. Lancet Digit. Health 2:e567–68
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Med. Univ. S.C. 2021. MUSC and Helix launch In Our DNA SC, first-of-its-kind population genomics program to drive preventive, precision health care for South Carolinians News Release Sept. 20. https://web.musc.edu/about/leadership/institutional-offices/communications/pamr/news-releases/2021/musc-and-helix-launch-in-our-dna-sc
  34. 34.
    Metcalfe KA, Poll A, Royer R, Llacuachaqui M, Tulman A et al. 2010. Screening for founder mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in unselected Jewish women. J. Clin. Oncol. 28:387–91
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    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]
  36. 36.
    Nguyen-Dumont T, Karpinski P, Sasiadek MM, Akopyan H, Steen JA et al. 2020. Genetic testing in Poland and Ukraine: Should comprehensive germline testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 be recommended for women with breast and ovarian cancer?. Genet. Res. 102:e6
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    NL Genome Proj. 2021. Home page. NL Genome Project https://www.nlgenomeproject.ca
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    NorthShore Univ. HealthSyst. 2019. NorthShore launches complimentary whole genome sequencing for 10,000 patients Press Release June 4. https://www.northshore.org/newsroom/press-releases/northshore-launches-complimentary-whole-genome-sequencing-for-10000-patients
  39. [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Prins BP, Leitsalu L, Pärna K, Fischer K, Metspalu A et al. 2021. Advances in genomic discovery and implications for personalized prevention and medicine: Estonia as example. J. Pers. Med. 11:358
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Public Health Engl. 2021. NHS population screening explained. Public Health England. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-population-screening-explained
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S et al. 2015. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet. Med. 17:405–24
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Riedlova P, Janoutova J, Hermanova B 2020. Frequency of mutations in BRCA genes and other candidate genes in high-risk probands or probands with breast or ovarian cancer in the Czech Republic. Mol. Biol. Rep. 47:2763–69
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Singh J, Thota N, Singh S, Padhi S, Mohan P et al. 2018. Screening of over 1000 Indian patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer with a multi-gene panel: prevalence of BRCA1/2 and non-BRCA mutations. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 170:189–96
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Stark Z, Dolman L, Manolio TA, Ozenberger B, Hill SL et al. 2019. Integrating genomics into healthcare: a global responsibility. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104:13–20
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Strande NT, Rocha H, Kelly MA, Schwartz MLB, Hallquist MLG et al. 2020. Evaluating population-based DNA screening as a routine test in primary and specialty clinics Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics virtual: Oct. 27–30. https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/9070/presentation/2958
  47. 47.
    Trottier M, Lunn J, Butler R, Curling D, Turnquest T et al. 2016. Prevalence of founder mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes among unaffected women from the Bahamas. Clin. Genet. 89:328–31
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Tunstall L. 2015. Backgrounder: making sense of the U.S. health care system: a primer. Evidence Network https://evidencenetwork.ca/backgrounder-making-sense-of-the-u-s-health-care-system-a-primer-2
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    UAB Med. 2021. Alabama Genomic Health Initiative. UAB Medicine. https://www.uabmedicine.org/aghi
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Umans-Eckenhausen MA, Defesche JC, Sijbrands EJ, Scheerder RL, Kastelein JJ. 2001. Review of first 5 years of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia in the Netherlands. Lancet 357:165–68
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Univ. Vt. Med. Cent. 2021. Genomic population health and the genomic DNA test italicUniversity of Vermont Medical Center https://www.uvmhealth.org/medcenter/departments-and-programs/genomic-medicine/genomic-dna-test
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Williams JL, Chung WK, Fedotov A, Kiryluk K, Weng C et al. 2018. Harmonizing outcomes for genomic medicine: comparison of eMERGE outcomes to ClinGen outcome/intervention pairs. Healthcare 6:83
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Williams MS. 2019. Early lessons from the implementation of genomic medicine programs. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 20:389–411
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Williams MS, Buchanan AH, Davis FD, Faucett WA, Hallquist MLG et al. 2018. Patient-centered precision health in a learning health care system: Geisinger's genomic medicine experience. Health Aff 37:757–64
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111221-115239
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