Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34404389›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2021

Physician-directed genetic screening to evaluate personal risk for medically actionable disorders: a large multi-center cohort study.

Eden V Haverfield, Edward D Esplin, Sienna J Aguilar, Kathryn E Hatchell, Kelly E Ormond, Andrea Hanson-Kahn, Paldeep S Atwal, Sarah Macklin-Mantia, Stephanie Hines, Caron W-M Sak and 15 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Functional Profiling ofCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Health care utilization and behavior changes after workplace genetic testing at a large US health care system.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Returning integrated genomic risk and clinical recommendations: The eMERGE study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

Eden V HaverfieldInvitae, 1400 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94103, USA. eden.haverfield@invitae.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2126-0982
Edward D EsplinInvitae, 1400 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94103, USA.
Sienna J AguilarInvitae, 1400 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94103, USA.
Kathryn E HatchellInvitae, 1400 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94103, USA.
Kelly E OrmondStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Andrea Hanson-KahnStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Paldeep S AtwalMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Sarah Macklin-MantiaMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Stephanie HinesMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Caron W-M SakTucker Medical, Singapore, Singapore.
Steven TuckerTucker Medical, Singapore, Singapore.
Steven B BleylGenome Medical, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Peter J HulickNorthShore University HealthSystem, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ora K GordonProvidence Research Network, St John Cancer Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Lea VelsherMedcan, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jessica Y J GuMedcan, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Scott M WeissmanGenome Medical, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Teresa KruisselbrinkMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Christopher AbelCooper Clinic, Dallas, TX, USA.
Michele KettlesCooper Clinic, Dallas, TX, USA.
Anne SlavotinekUniversity of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Bryce A MendelsohnKaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA, USA.
Robert C GreenBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Swaroop AradhyaInvitae, 1400 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94103, USA.
Robert L NussbaumInvitae, 1400 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94103, USA.
Invitae (United States) · USCooper Clinic · USJacksonville College · USStanford University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USBroad Institute · USConsultants in Neurology · USEngenderHealth · USKaiser Permanente · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USNorthShore University HealthSystem · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of proactive genetic screening for disease prevention and early detection is not yet widespread. Professional practice guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) have encouraged reporting pathogenic variants that confer personal risk for actionable monogenic hereditary disorders, but only as secondary findings from exome or genome sequencing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes the potential public health impact of three Tier 1 actionable disorders. Here, we report results of a large multi-center cohort study to determine the yield and potential value of screening healthy individuals for variants associated with a broad range of actionable monogenic disorders, outside the context of secondary findings.

methodsEligible adults were offered a proactive genetic screening test by health care providers in a variety of clinical settings. The screening panel based on next-generation sequencing contained up to 147 genes associated with monogenic disorders within cancer, cardiovascular, and other important clinical areas. Sequence and intragenic copy number variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, pathogenic (low penetrance), or increased risk allele were considered clinically significant and reported. Results were analyzed by clinical area and severity/burden of disease using chi-square tests without Yates' correction.

resultsAmong 10,478 unrelated adults screened, 1619 (15.5%) had results indicating personal risk for an actionable monogenic disorder. In contrast, only 3.1 to 5.2% had clinically reportable variants in genes suggested by the ACMG version 2 secondary findings list to be examined during exome or genome sequencing, and 2% had reportable variants related to CDC Tier 1 conditions. Among patients, 649 (6.2%) were positive for a genotype associated with a disease of high severity/burden, including hereditary cancer syndromes, cardiovascular disorders, or malignant hyperthermia susceptibility.

conclusionsThis is one of the first real-world examples of specialists and primary care providers using genetic screening with a multi-gene panel to identify health risks in their patients. Nearly one in six individuals screened for variants associated with actionable monogenic disorders had clinically significant results. These findings provide a foundation for further studies to assess the role of genetic screening as part of regular medical care.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingPhysiciansAdultCohort StudiesExomeGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenomicsHumansCardiovascular disordersClinical geneticsHereditary cancer syndromesMonogenic disordersPopulation screeningProactive genetic screening

Identifiers

PMID34404389
PMCPMC8371767
OpenAlexW3195344219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.