Towards implementation of comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction tools in health care for personalised prevention.

Advances in knowledge about breast cancer risk factors have led to the development of more comprehensive risk models. These integrate information on a variety of risk factors such as lifestyle, genetics, family history, and breast density. These risk models have the potential to deliver more personalised breast cancer prevention. This is through improving accuracy of risk estimates, enabling more effective targeting of preventive options and creating novel prevention pathways through enabling risk estimation in a wider variety of populations than currently possible. The systematic use of risk tools as part of population screening programmes is one such example. A clear understanding of how such tools can contribute to the goal of personalised prevention can aid in understanding and addressing barriers to implementation. In this paper we describe how emerging models, and their associated tools can contribute to the goal of personalised healthcare for breast cancer through health promotion, early disease detection (screening) and improved management of women at higher risk of disease. We outline how addressing specific challenges on the level of communication, evidence, evaluation, regulation, and acceptance, can facilitate implementation and uptake.

Implications of using whole genome sequencing to test unselected populations for high risk breast cancer genes: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The decision to test for high risk breast cancer gene mutations is traditionally based on risk scores derived from age, family and personal cancer history. Next generation sequencing technologies such as whole genome sequencing (WGS) make wider population testing more feasible. In the UK's 100,000 Genomes Project, mutations in 16 genes including BRCA1 and BRCA2 are to be actively sought regardless of clinical presentation. The implications of deploying this approach at scale for patients and clinical services are unclear. In this study we aimed to model the effect of using WGS to test an unselected UK population for high risk BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene variants to inform the debate around approaches to secondary genomic findings. METHODS: We modelled the test performance of WGS for identifying pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in an unselected hypothetical population of 100,000 UK women, using published literature to derive model input parameters. We calculated analytic and clinical validity, described potential health outcomes and highlighted current areas of uncertainty. We also performed a sensitivity analysis in which we re-ran the model 100,000 times to investigate the effect of varying input parameters. RESULTS: In our models WGS was predicted to identify correctly 93 pathogenic BRCA1 mutations and 151 BRCA2 mutations in 120 and 200 women respectively, resulting in an analytic sensitivity of 75.5-77.5 %. Of 244 women with identified pathogenic mutations, we estimated that 132 (range 121-198) would develop breast cancer, so could potentially be helped by intervention. We also predicted that breast cancer would occur in 41 women (range 36-62) incorrectly identified with no pathogenic mutations and in 12,460 women without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. There was considerable uncertainty about the penetrance of mutations in people without a family history of disease and the appropriate threshold of absolute disease risk for clinical action, which impacts on judgements about the clinical utility of intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This simple model demonstrates the need for robust processes to support the testing for secondary genomic findings in unselected populations that acknowledge levels of uncertainty about the clinical validity and clinical utility of testing positive for a cancer risk gene.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the birth prevalence of five inherited metabolic diseases.

Many newborn screening programmes now use tandem mass spectrometry in order to screen for a variety of diseases. However, countries have embraced this technology with a differing pace of change and for different conditions. This has been facilitated by the ability of this diagnostic method to limit analysis to specific metabolites of interest, enabling targeted screening for particular conditions. MS/MS was introduced in 2009 in England to implement newborn bloodspot screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency (MCADD) raising the possibility of screening for other inherited metabolic disorders. Recently, a pilot screening programme was conducted in order to evaluate the health and economic consequences of screening for five additional inherited metabolic disorders in England. As part of this study we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the birth prevalence of these conditions: maple syrup urine disease, homocystinuria (pyridoxine unresponsive), glutaric aciduria type I, isovaleric acidaemia and long-chain 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency including trifunctional protein deficiency. We identified a total of 99 studies that were able to provide information on the prevalence of one or more of the disorders. The vast majority of studies were of screening programmes with some reporting on clinically detected cases.

What ethical and legal principles should guide the genotyping of children as part of a personalised screening programme for common cancer?

Increased knowledge of the gene-disease associations contributing to common cancer development raises the prospect of population stratification by genotype and other risk factors. Individual risk assessments could be used to target interventions such as screening, treatment and health education. Genotyping neonates, infants or young children as part of a systematic programme would improve coverage and uptake, and facilitate a screening package that maximises potential benefits and minimises harms including overdiagnosis. This paper explores the potential justifications and risks of genotyping children for genetic variants associated with common cancer development within a personalised screening programme. It identifies the ethical and legal principles that might guide population genotyping where the predictive value of the testing is modest and associated risks might arise in the future, and considers the standards required by population screening programme validity measures (such as the Wilson and Jungner criteria including cost-effectiveness and equitable access). These are distinguished from the normative principles underpinning predictive genetic testing of children for adult-onset diseases-namely, to make best-interests judgements and to preserve autonomy. While the case for population-based genotyping of neonates or young children has not yet been made, the justifications for this approach are likely to become increasingly compelling. A modified evaluative and normative framework should be developed, capturing elements from individualistic and population-based approaches. This should emphasise proper communication and genuine parental consent or informed choice, while recognising the challenges associated with making unsolicited approaches to an asymptomatic group. Such a framework would be strengthened by complementary empirical research.

Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications.

Individual risk prediction and stratification based on polygenic profiling may be useful in disease prevention. Risk-stratified population screening based on multiple factors including a polygenic risk profile has the potential to be more efficient than age-stratified screening. In this article, we summarize the implications of personalized screening for breast and prostate cancers. We report the opinions of multidisciplinary international experts who have explored the scientific, ethical, and logistical aspects of stratified screening. We have identified (i) the need to recognize the benefits and harms of personalized screening as compared with existing screening methods, (ii) that the use of genetic data highlights complex ethical issues including discrimination against high-risk individuals by insurers and employers and patient autonomy in relation to genetic testing of minors, (iii) the need for transparency and clear communication about risk scores, about harms and benefits, and about reasons for inclusion and exclusion from the risk-based screening process, and (iv) the need to develop new professional competences and to assess cost-effectiveness and acceptability of stratified screening programs before implementation. We conclude that health professionals and stakeholders need to consider the implications of incorporating genetic information in intervention strategies for health-care planning in the future.

Systematic review of birth prevalence of neural tube defects in India.

BACKGROUND: Neural tube defects are one of the most prevalent congenital anomalies. Data on the total birth prevalence, live birth and stillbirth prevalence of neural tube defects in India are lacking. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review of birth prevalence of neural tube defects in India and compare it with existing estimates. METHODS: A PubMed search identified 463 articles, of which 19 articles were eligible for inclusion in the review. Meta-analysis was used to estimate the overall birth prevalence of neural tube defects and to investigate the variation among studies identified by this review. RESULTS: The 19 articles reported a total of 308,387 births, among which 1310 cases of neural tube defects were reported, giving an overall birth prevalence of 4.1 per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-5.4). The live birth and stillbirth prevalence of neural tube defects was 1.3 per 1000 births (95% CI, 0.9-1.8) and 1.7 per 1000 births (95% CI, 0.7-4.0), respectively. Among the neural tube defects, the reported prevalence of anencephaly was highest at 2.1 per 1000 births (95% CI, 1.6-2.8) followed by spina bifida at 1.9 per 1000 births (95% CI, 1.4-2.7). CONCLUSION: The systematic review suggests that neural tube defects contribute to a significant number of live births and stillbirths in India, suggesting that preconception folic acid supplementation should be an essential element of reproductive health services.

Extending the reach of public health genomics: what should be the agenda for public health in an era of genome-based and "personalized" medicine?

The decade following the completion of the Human Genome Project has been marked by divergent claims about the utility of genomics for improving population health. On the one hand, genomics is viewed as the harbinger of a brave new world in which novel treatments rectify known causes of disease. On the other hand, genomics may have little practical relevance to the principal causes or remedies of diseases which are predominantly social or environmental in origin, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Those supportive of a role for public health genomics argue that increasing knowledge of genomics and molecular pathology could unlock effective diagnostic techniques and treatments, and better target public health interventions. To resolve some of these tensions, an international multidisciplinary meeting was held in May 2010 in Ickworth, United Kingdom, with the aim of setting an agenda for the development of public health in an era of genome-based and "personalized" medicine. A number of key themes emerged, suggesting a need to reconfigure both the focus for existing genomic research and the stage at which funding is targeted, so that priority is given to areas of greatest potential health impact and that translation from basic science to implementation is given greater emphasis. To support these developments, there should be an immediate, sustained and systematic effort to provide an evidence base. These deliberations formed the basis for six key recommendations, which could guide the practice of public health in an era of genomics and personalized medicine.

Legal and ethical implications of inherited cardiac disease in clinical practice within the UK.

Increasing genetic knowledge over the last decade has enabled hundreds of genetic variants associated with inherited cardiac conditions to be identified, many of which cause increased risk of sudden cardiac death. While individually these conditions are rare, taken together they impose a significant burden. The severity of these conditions--the possibility that they might cause sudden unheralded death of a teenager or young adult--juxtaposed with uncertainty about the pathology linked with many of the genetic variants is significant in terms of professional practice because, increasingly, clinicians have been encouraged to cascade out genetic testing from the proband or consultand to other family members who may be at risk of developing the same condition. This process often involves sharing human tissue samples, DNA or personal information. This paper reviews the legal and regulatory frameworks which may apply when tissue and DNA samples are collected, used and retained, both for the purpose of diagnosis and for benefiting other family members, when a suspected or definitive diagnosis of an inherited cardiovascular condition is made. Sometimes the interests of family members may conflict, and it may be difficult for practitioners to reconcile the interests of one family member with another, particularly if the balance of benefits and harms from testing is unclear. The paper then examines some of the ethical tensions which may arise in practice and concludes that all involved should be conversant with the legal and ethical frameworks that apply.

Genetics in ophthalmology: equity in service provision?

BACKGROUND: Scientific advances in the understanding of the molecular biology of inherited eye conditions now allow more effective diagnosis and management for patients and families. For translation into clinical practice, it is vital that specialist services are developed with the necessary multi-disciplinary expertise, investigatory resources and organizational arrangements. We investigate the equity of specialist provision in the UK and make recommendations for service development. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was carried out of all providers of specialist genetic services in the UK. Results were analysed by provider, catchment population and Strategic Health Authority population. RESULTS: Nineteen specialist services were identified. Provision of annual out-patient clinics and medical consultant sessions varied widely with many small services lacking full multi-disciplinary teams. There was an 8-fold regional variation in patient activity. Across the UK, we estimated an annual shortfall of 1000 new patient referrals. CONCLUSIONS: There should be a national programme of strategic planning of specialist genetic ophthalmology services. Necessary elements will include service specifications and standards, overall number and configuration of services, models which maximize the efficiency of use of specialist genetics elements and education of specialist and general ophthalmologists in genetics elements of their specialty.

A toolkit for incorporating genetics into mainstream medical services: Learning from service development pilots in England.

BACKGROUND: As advances in genetics are becoming increasingly relevant to mainstream healthcare, a major challenge is to ensure that these are integrated appropriately into mainstream medical services. In 2003, the Department of Health for England announced the availability of start-up funding for ten 'Mainstreaming Genetics' pilot services to develop models to achieve this. METHODS: Multiple methods were used to explore the pilots' experiences of incorporating genetics which might inform the development of new services in the future. A workshop with project staff, an email questionnaire, interviews and a thematic analysis of pilot final reports were carried out. RESULTS: Seven themes relating to the integration of genetics into mainstream medical services were identified: planning services to incorporate genetics; the involvement of genetics departments; the establishment of roles incorporating genetic activities; identifying and involving stakeholders; the challenges of working across specialty boundaries; working with multiple healthcare organisations; and the importance of cultural awareness of genetic conditions. Pilots found that the planning phase often included the need to raise awareness of genetic conditions and services and that early consideration of organisational issues such as clinic location was essential. The formal involvement of genetics departments was crucial to success; benefits included provision of clinical and educational support for staff in new roles. Recruitment and retention for new roles outside usual career pathways sometimes proved difficult. Differences in specialties' working practices and working with multiple healthcare organisations also brought challenges such as the 'genetic approach' of working with families, incompatible record systems and different approaches to health professionals' autonomous practice. 'Practice points' have been collated into a Toolkit which includes resources from the pilots, including job descriptions and clinical tools. These can be customised for reuse by other services. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare services need to translate advances in genetics into benefits for patients. Consideration of the issues presented here when incorporating genetics into mainstream medical services will help ensure that new service developments build on the body of experience gained by the pilots, to provide high quality services for patients with or at risk of genetic conditions.

Array CGH in patients with learning disability (mental retardation) and congenital anomalies: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies and 13,926 subjects.

Array-based comparative genomic hybridization is being increasingly used in patients with learning disability (mental retardation) and congenital anomalies. In this article, we update our previous meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic and false-positive yields of this technology. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted investigating patients with learning disability and congenital anomalies in whom conventional cytogenetic analyses have proven negative. Nineteen studies (13,926 patients) were included of which 12 studies (13,464 patients) were published since our previous analysis. The overall diagnostic yield of causal abnormalities was 10% (95% confidence interval: 8-12%). The overall number needed to test to identify an extra causal abnormality was 10 (95% confidence interval: 8-13). The overall false-positive yield of noncausal abnormalities was 7% (95% confidence interval: 5-10%). This updated meta-analysis provides new evidence to support the use of array-based comparative genomic hybridization in investigating patients with learning disability and congenital anomalies in whom conventional cytogenetic tests have proven negative. However, given that this technology also identifies false positives at a similar rate to causal variants, caution in clinical practice should be advised.

Mainstreaming of genomic medicine in gastroenterology, present and future: a nationwide survey of UK gastroenterology trainees.

OBJECTIVE: Genomics and personalised medicine are increasingly relevant for patients with gastroenterological conditions. We aim to capture the current state of genomics training in gastroenterology to review current understanding, clinical experience and long-term educational needs of UK trainees. DESIGN AND SETTING: A web-based nationwide survey of all UK gastroenterology specialty trainees was conducted in 2017. RESULTS: 100 trainees (14% of UK gastroenterology trainees) completed this survey. Only 9% and 16% of respondents believe that their local training programme adequately prepares them for the future clinical practice using genomic medicine and personalised medicine, respectively. Barriers identified include the need for greater trainee education (95%), inadequate clinical guidance to base interventions on the results of genomic testing (53%), concerns over misinterpretation by patients (43%) and overuse/misuse of testing by clinicians (34%).Survey respondents felt prepared to perform HFE genotyping (98%), assess TPMT status (97%) and interpret HLA subtyping for suspected coeliac disease (85%). However, only a minority felt prepared to perform the following investigations: polyposis screening (34%), hereditary pancreatitis screening (30%), testing for Lynch yndrome (33%) and KRAS testing for colorectal cancer (20%).Most respondents would support holding dedicated training days on genomic medicine (83%), formal training provisions for the mainstreaming of genomic testing (64%), an update to the UK gastroenterology specialty training curriculum and examinations (57%) and better-defined referral pathways for local genomic services (91%). CONCLUSION: Most gastroenterology trainees in this survey feel ill equipped to practise genomic and personalised medicine as consultants. We propose specific revisions to the UK gastroenterology specialty curriculum that addresses trainees needs.

Risk stratification, genomic data and the law.

Risk prediction models have a key role in stratified disease prevention, and the incorporation of genomic data into these models promises more effective personalisation. Although the clinical utility of incorporating genomic data into risk prediction tools is increasingly compelling, at least for some applications and disease types, the legal and regulatory implications have not been examined and have been overshadowed by discussions about clinical and scientific utility and feasibility. We held a workshop to explore relevant legal and regulatory perspectives from four EU Member States: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. While we found no absolute prohibition on the use of such data in those tools, there are considerable challenges. Currently, these are modest and result from genomic data being classified as sensitive data under existing Data Protection regulation. However, these challenges will increase in the future following the implementation of EU Regulations on data protection which take effect in 2018, and reforms to the governance of the manufacture, development and use of in vitro diagnostic devices to be implemented in 2022. Collectively these will increase the regulatory burden placed on these products as risk stratification tools will be brought within the scope of these new Regulations. The failure to respond to the challenges posed by the use of genomic data in disease risk stratification tools could therefore prove costly to those developing and using such tools.

Competences, education and support for new roles in cancer genetics services: outcomes from the cancer genetics pilot projects.

In 2004 the Department of Health in collaboration with Macmillan Cancer Support set up service development projects to pilot the integration of genetics in mainstream medicine in the area of cancer genetics.In developing these services, new roles and responsibilities were devised that required supporting programmes of education and training. The NHS National Genetics Education and Development Centre has worked with the projects to draw together their experience in these aspects. New roles include the Cancer Family Nurse Specialist, in which a nurse working in a cancer setting was trained to identify and manage genetic or family history concerns, and the Genetic Risk Assessment Practitioner--a small team of practitioners working within a secondary care setting to deliver a standardised risk assessment pathway. Existing roles were also adapted for a different setting, in particular the use of genetic counsellors working in a community ethnic minority setting. These practitioners undertook a range of clinical activities that can be mapped directly to the 'UK National Workforce Competences for Genetics in Clinical Practice for Non-genetics Healthcare Staff' framework developed by Skills for Health and the NHS National Genetics Education and Development Centre (2007; draft competence framework). The main differences between the various roles were in the ordering of genetic tests and the provision of advice on invasive preventive options such as mastectomy. Those involved in service development also needed to develop competences in project management, business skills, audit and evaluation, working with users, general management (personnel, multi-agency work and marketing), educational supervision, IT, public and professional outreach, and research. Important resources to support the development of new roles and competences included pathways and guidelines, a formal statement of competences, a recognised syllabus, appropriate and timely courses, the availability of a mentor, supervision and opportunities to discuss cases, a formal assessment of learning and continuing support from specialist genetics services. This represents a current resource gap that will be of concern to cancer networks and a challenge to providers of educational resources and regional genetics services.

Genomics education for medical professionals - the current UK landscape.

Genomics education in the UK is at an early stage of development, and its pace of evolution has lagged behind that of the genomics research upon which it is based. As a result, knowledge of genomics and its applications remains limited among non-specialist clinicians. In this review article, we describe the complex landscape for genomics education within the UK, and highlight the large number and variety of organisations that can influence, direct and provide genomics training to medical professionals. Postgraduate genomics education is being shaped by the work of the Health Education England (HEE) Genomics Education Programme, working in conjunction with the Joint Committee on Genomics in Medicine. The success of their work will be greatly enhanced by the full cooperation and engagement of the many groups, societies and organisations involved with medical education and training (such as the royal colleges). Without this cooperation, there is a risk of poor coordination and unnecessary duplication of work. Leadership from an organisation such as the HEE Genomics Education Programme will have a key role in guiding the formulation and delivery of genomics education policy by various stakeholders among the different disciplines in medicine.

Do Health Professionals Need Additional Competencies for Stratified Cancer Prevention Based on Genetic Risk Profiling?

There is growing evidence that inclusion of genetic information about known common susceptibility variants may enable population risk-stratification and personalized prevention for common diseases including cancer. This would require the inclusion of genetic testing as an integral part of individual risk assessment of an asymptomatic individual. Front line health professionals would be expected to interact with and assist asymptomatic individuals through the risk stratification process. In that case, additional knowledge and skills may be needed. Current guidelines and frameworks for genetic competencies of non-specialist health professionals place an emphasis on rare inherited genetic diseases. For common diseases, health professionals do use risk assessment tools but such tools currently do not assess genetic susceptibility of individuals. In this article, we compare the skills and knowledge needed by non-genetic health professionals, if risk-stratified prevention is implemented, with existing competence recommendations from the UK, USA and Europe, in order to assess the gaps in current competences. We found that health professionals would benefit from understanding the contribution of common genetic variations in disease risk, the rationale for a risk-stratified prevention pathway, and the implications of using genomic information in risk-assessment and risk management of asymptomatic individuals for common disease prevention.

From Mendel to the Human Genome Project: the implications for nurse education.

The Human Genome Project has heralded a whole new era in our understanding of the molecular basis of disease. New opportunities now arise to predict disease by genetic testing, and in some cases to prevent disease through surveillance or other specific interventions. Increasingly it will be possible to test for predisposition to disease, to develop new treatments or to tailor available treatments more specifically to an individual's genetic make-up. Midwives and paediatric nurses are at the forefront of these developments with new national antenatal and neonatal genetic screening programmes due to be implemented by 2004. However, in the near future it is likely that nurses in most clinical areas will encounter genetic aspects of their practice. If they are to capitalise on opportunities offered by the new genetics, health professionals will need to become knowledgeable and skilled in genetics. They will need to understand something of the basic science and also develop an awareness of many ethical, legal and social aspects. In the light of a recent review of education in genetics for health professionals, the Department of Health and The Wellcome Trust have commissioned a process to develop a programme of education for the United Kingdom.