A standardized, evidence-based protocol to assess clinical actionability of genetic disorders associated with genomic variation.

PURPOSE: Genome and exome sequencing can identify variants unrelated to the primary goal of sequencing. Detecting pathogenic variants associated with an increased risk of a medical disorder enables clinical interventions to improve future health outcomes in patients and their at-risk relatives. The Clinical Genome Resource, or ClinGen, aims to assess clinical actionability of genes and associated disorders as part of a larger effort to build a central resource of information regarding the clinical relevance of genomic variation for use in precision medicine and research. METHODS: We developed a practical, standardized protocol to identify available evidence and generate qualitative summary reports of actionability for disorders and associated genes. We applied a semiquantitative metric to score actionability. RESULTS: We generated summary reports and actionability scores for the 56 genes and associated disorders recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for return as secondary findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing. We also describe the challenges that arose during the development of the protocol that highlight important issues in characterizing actionability across a range of disorders. CONCLUSION: The ClinGen framework for actionability assessment will assist research and clinical communities in making clear, efficient, and consistent determinations of actionability based on transparent criteria to guide analysis and reporting of findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing.Genet Med 18 12, 1258-1268.

Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of blood pressure screening methods with consideration of rescreening intervals: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure (BP) is the largest contributing risk factor to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. PURPOSE: To update a systematic review on the benefits and harms of screening for high BP in adults and to summarize evidence on rescreening intervals and diagnostic and predictive accuracy of different BP methods for cardiovascular events. DATA SOURCES: Selected databases searched through 24 February 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Fair- and good-quality trials and diagnostic accuracy and cohort studies conducted in adults and published in English. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data, and a second checked for accuracy. Study quality was dual-reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) predicted long-term cardiovascular outcomes independently of office BP (hazard ratio range, 1.28 to 1.40, in 11 studies). Across 27 studies, 35% to 95% of persons with an elevated BP at screening remained hypertensive after nonoffice confirmatory testing. Cardiovascular outcomes in persons who were normotensive after confirmatory testing (isolated clinic hypertension) were similar to outcomes in those who were normotensive at screening. In 40 studies, hypertension incidence after rescreening varied considerably at each yearly interval up to 6 years. Intrastudy comparisons showed at least 2-fold higher incidence in older adults, those with high-normal BP, overweight and obese persons, and African Americans. LIMITATION: Few diagnostic accuracy studies of office BP methods and protocols in untreated adults. CONCLUSION: Evidence supports ABPM as the reference standard for confirming elevated office BP screening results to avoid misdiagnosis and overtreatment of persons with isolated clinic hypertension. Persons with BP in the high-normal range, older persons, those with an above-normal body mass index, and African Americans are at higher risk for hypertension on rescreening within 6 years than are persons without these risk factors. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

IMPORTANCE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC. DATA SOURCES: Searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, with surveillance through February 23, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting CRC or adenomas, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Four pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating 1-time or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 458,002) were associated with decreased CRC-specific mortality compared with no screening (incidence rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.82). Five RCTs with multiple rounds of biennial screening with guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (n = 419,966) showed reduced CRC-specific mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, at 19.5 years to RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93, at 30 years). Seven studies of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with bowel preparation demonstrated per-person sensitivity and specificity to detect adenomas 6 mm and larger comparable with colonoscopy (sensitivity from 73% [95% CI, 58%-84%] to 98% [95% CI, 91%-100%]; specificity from 89% [95% CI, 84%-93%] to 91% [95% CI, 88%-93%]); variability and imprecision may be due to differences in study designs or CTC protocols. Sensitivity of colonoscopy to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger ranged from 75% (95% CI, 63%-84%) to 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%). On the basis of a single stool specimen, the most commonly evaluated families of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) demonstrated good sensitivity (range, 73%-88%) and specificity (range, 90%-96%). One study (n = 9989) found that FIT plus stool DNA test had better sensitivity in detecting CRC than FIT alone (92%) but lower specificity (84%). Serious adverse events from colonoscopy in asymptomatic persons included perforations (4/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 2-5 in 10,000) and major bleeds (8/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 5-14 in 10,000). Computed tomographic colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation exposure or identification of extracolonic findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and stool tests have differing levels of evidence to support their use, ability to detect cancer and precursor lesions, and risk of serious adverse events in average-risk adults. Although CRC screening has a large body of supporting evidence, additional research is still needed.

Evaluating genomic tests from bench to bedside: a practical framework.

The development of genomic tests is one of the most significant technological advances in medical testing in recent decades. As these tests become increasingly available, so does the need for a pragmatic framework to evaluate the evidence base and evidence gaps in order to facilitate informed decision-making. In this article we describe such a framework that can provide a common language and benchmarks for different stakeholders of genomic testing. Each stakeholder can use this framework to specify their respective thresholds for decision-making, depending on their perspective and particular needs. This framework is applicable across a broad range of test applications and can be helpful in the application and communication of a regulatory science for genomic testing. Our framework builds upon existing work and incorporates principles familiar to researchers involved in medical testing (both diagnostic and prognostic) generally, as well as those involved in genomic testing. This framework is organized around six phases in the development of genomic tests beginning with marker identification and ending with population impact, and highlights the important knowledge gaps that need to be filled in establishing the clinical relevance of a test. Our framework focuses on the clinical appropriateness of the four main dimensions of test research questions (population/setting, intervention/index test, comparators/reference test, and outcomes) rather than prescribing a hierarchy of study designs that should be used to address each phase.

Evidence of clinical utility: an unmet need in molecular diagnostics for patients with cancer.

This article defines and describes best practices for the academic and business community to generate evidence of clinical utility for cancer molecular diagnostic assays. Beyond analytical and clinical validation, successful demonstration of clinical utility involves developing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a diagnostic test results in an improvement in patient outcomes. This discussion is complementary to theoretical frameworks described in previously published guidance and literature reports by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Institute of Medicine, and Center for Medical Technology Policy, among others. These reports are comprehensive and specifically clarify appropriate clinical use, adoption, and payer reimbursement for assay manufacturers, as well as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratories, including those that develop assays (laboratory developed tests). Practical criteria and steps for establishing clinical utility are crucial to subsequent decisions for reimbursement without which high-performing molecular diagnostics will have limited availability to patients with cancer and fail to translate scientific advances into high-quality and cost-effective cancer care. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, "The Precision Medicine Conundrum: Approaches to Companion Diagnostic Co-development."