ArticleBMC medicine2021
Physician-directed genetic screening to evaluate personal risk for medically actionable disorders: a large multi-center cohort study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Secondary findings in hereditary cancer genes after germline genetic testing - systematic review of literature.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.BMC medical genomics · 2026Article
- Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- PROTOCOL: Utilisation of Genetics and Genomics in Primary Care: Protocol for an Evidence and Gap Map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Secondary findings after multi-gene panel testing in 7,388 patients with suspected cancer predisposition syndrome.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Implications and ramifications of using the CDC tier 1 genetic screening concept in East Asian populations.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
- Deficiencies in germline DNA repair are associated with early-onset gastrointestinal cancers and inform precision prevention strategies.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Functional Profiling ofCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2025Article
- Validation of a guidelines-based digital tool to assess the need for germline cancer genetic testing.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Tools to differentiate between Filamin C and Titin truncating variant carriers: value of MRI.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- An Environmental Scan of Consumer-Initiated Germline Genetic Testing for Health Risks.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2023Review
- Rate of Pathogenic Germline Variants in Patients With Lung Cancer.JCO precision oncology · 2023Review
- Returning integrated genomic risk and clinical recommendations: The eMERGE study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2023Article
- Germ line predisposition variants occur in myelodysplastic syndrome patients of all ages.Blood · 2022Article
- Real-World Results from Combined Screening for Monogenic Genomic Health Risks and Reproductive Risks in 300 Adults.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Germline Cancer Testing in Unselected Patients with Gastric and Esophageal Cancers: A Multi-center Prospective Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
- Molecular Biomarkers in Cancer.Biomolecules · 2022Review
- Technical Performance of a 430-Gene Preventative Genomics Assay to Identify Multiple Variant Types Associated with Adult-Onset Monogenic Conditions, Susceptibility Loci, and Pharmacogenetic Insights.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Primary Care Implementation of Genomic Population Health Screening Using a Large Gene Sequencing Panel.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
25 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.