The Genetics Journey: A Case Report of a Genetic Diagnosis Made 30 Years Later

Mandibulofacial dysostosis with microcephaly (MFDM) is a rare autosomal dominant condition that was first described in 2006. The causative gene, EFTUD2, identified in 2012. We report on a family that initially presented to a pediatric genetics clinic in the 1980s for evaluation of multiple congenital anomalies. Re‐evaluation of one member thirty years later resulted in a phenotypic and molecularly confirmed diagnosis of MFDM. This family’s clinical histories and the novel EFTUD2 variant identified, c.1297_1298delAT (p.Met433Valfs*17), add to the literature about MFDM. This case presented several genetic counseling challenges and highlights that “the patient” can be multiple family members. We discuss testing considerations for an unknown disorder complicated by the time constraint of the patient’s daughter’s pregnancy and how the diagnosis changed previously provided recurrence risks. Of note, 1) the 1980s clinic visit letters provided critical information about affected family members and 2) the patient’s husband’s internet search of his wife’s clinical features also yielded the MFDM diagnosis, illustrating the power of the internet in the hands of patients. Ultimately, this case emphasizes the importance of re‐evaluation given advances in genetics and the value of a genetic diagnosis for both patient care and risk determination for family members.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147210/1/jgc40894.pd

Postal survey of physicians and laboratories: Practices and perceptions of molecular oncology testing

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Molecular oncology testing (MOT) to detect genomic alterations underlying cancer holds promise for improved cancer care. Yet knowledge limitations regarding the delivery of testing services may constrain the translation of scientific advancements into effective health care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered, postal survey of active cancer physicians in Ontario, Canada (N = 611) likely to order MOT, and cancer laboratories (N = 99) likely to refer (i.e., referring laboratories) or conduct (i.e., testing laboratories) MOT in 2006, to assess respondents' perceptions of the importance and accessibility of MOT and their preparedness to provide it.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>54% of physicians, 63% of testing laboratories and 60% of referring laboratories responded. Most perceived MOT to be important for treatment, diagnosis or prognosis now, and in 5 years (61% – 100%). Yet only 45% of physicians, 59% of testing labs and 53% of referring labs agreed that patients in their region were receiving MOT that is indicated as a standard of care. Physicians and laboratories perceived various barriers to providing MOT, including, among 70% of physicians, a lack of clear guidelines regarding clinical indications, and among laboratories, a lack of funding (73% – 100%). Testing laboratories were confident of their ability to determine whether and which MOT was indicated (77% and 82% respectively), and perceived that key elements of formal and continuing education were helpful (75% – 100%). By contrast, minorities of physicians were confident of their ability to assess whether and which MOT was indicated (46% and 34% respectively), and while majorities considered various continuing educational resources helpful (68% – 75%), only minorities considered key elements of formal education helpful in preparing for MOT (17% – 43%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Physicians and laboratory professionals were enthusiastic about the value of MOT for cancer care but most did not believe patients were gaining adequate access to clinically necessary testing. Further, our results suggest that many were ill equipped as individual stakeholders, or as a coordinated system of referral and interpretation, to provide MOT. These challenges should inspire educational, training and other interventions to ensure that developments in molecular oncology can result in optimal cancer care.</p

Ebola: translational science considerations

We are currently in the midst of the most aggressive and fulminating outbreak of Ebola-related disease, commonly referred to as “Ebola”, ever recorded. In less than a year, the Ebola virus (EBOV, Zaire ebolavirus species) has infected over 10,000 people, indiscriminately of gender or age, with a fatality rate of about 50%. Whereas at its onset this Ebola outbreak was limited to three countries in West Africa (Guinea, where it was first reported in late March 2014, Liberia, where it has been most rampant in its capital city, Monrovia and other metropolitan cities, and Sierra Leone), cases were later reported in Nigeria, Mali and Senegal, as well as in Western Europe (i.e., Madrid, Spain) and the US (i.e., Dallas, Texas; New York City) by late October 2014. World and US health agencies declared that the current Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak has a strong likelihood of growing exponentially across the world before an effective vaccine, treatment or cure can be developed, tested, validated and distributed widely. In the meantime, the spread of the disease may rapidly evolve from an epidemics to a full-blown pandemic. The scientific and healthcare communities actively research and define an emerging kaleidoscope of knowledge about critical translational research parameters, including the virology of EBOV, the molecular biomarkers of the pathological manifestations of EVD, putative central nervous system involvement in EVD, and the cellular immune surveillance to EBOV, patient-centered anthropological and societal parameters of EVD, as well as translational effectiveness about novel putative patient-targeted vaccine and pharmaceutical interventions, which hold strong promise, if not hope, to curb this and future Ebola outbreaks. This work reviews and discusses the principal known facts about EBOV and EVD, and certain among the most interesting ongoing or future avenues of research in the field, including vaccination programs for the wild animal vectors of the virus and the disease from global translational science perspective

Use of Real-World Evidence in US Payer Coverage Decision-Making for Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Tests: Challenges, Opportunities, and Potential Solutions.

ObjectivesGiven the potential of real-world evidence (RWE) to inform understanding of the risk-benefit profile of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based testing, we undertook a study to describe the current landscape of whether and how payers use RWE as part of their coverage decision making and potential solutions for overcoming barriers.MethodsWe performed a scoping literature review of existing RWE evidentiary frameworks for evaluating new technologies and identified barriers to clinical integration and evidence gaps for NGS. We synthesized findings as potential solutions for improving the relevance and utility of RWE for payer decision-making.ResultsPayers require evidence of clinical utility to inform coverage decisions, yet we found a relatively small number of published RWE studies, and these are predominately focused on oncology, pharmacogenomics, and perinatal/pediatric testing. We identified 3 categories of innovation that may help address the current undersupply of RWE studies for NGS: (1) increasing use of RWE to inform outcomes-based contracting for new technologies, (2) precision medicine initiatives that integrate clinical and genomic data and enable data sharing, and (3) Food and Drug Administration reforms to encourage the use of RWE. Potential solutions include development of data and evidence review standards, payer engagement in RWE study design, use of incentives and partnerships to lower the barriers to RWE generation, education of payers and providers concerning the use of RWE and NGS, and frameworks for conducting outcomes-based contracting for NGS.ConclusionsWe provide numerous suggestions to overcome the data, methodologic, infrastructure, and policy challenges constraining greater integration of RWE in assessments of NGS

Multicancer Screening Tests: Anticipating And Addressing Considerations For Payer Coverage And Patient Access.

There is a tremendous public health need to identify potentially lethal cancers at earlier stages, when there is a greater chance for improved survival. Although in the US there are currently screening recommendations for only five cancers (breast, colorectal, cervical, lung, and prostate), new tests can screen for up to fifty cancers simultaneously based on a simple blood draw. However, these multicancer screening tests (also called "liquid biopsy" tests) will also present challenges to payers because of intrinsic features of the tests and the complexity of payer coverage assessments for screening tests. We describe these considerations while also offering potential solutions that can inform payers' decision making if these tests prove to be beneficial

Genetic Test Availability And Spending: Where Are We Now? Where Are We Going?

Genetic testing and spending on that testing have grown rapidly since the mapping of the human genome in 2003. However, it is not widely known how many tests there are, how they are used, and how they are paid for. Little evidence from large data sets about their use has emerged. We shed light on the issue of genetic testing by providing an overview of the testing landscape. We examined test availability and spending for the full spectrum of genetic tests, using unique data sources on test availability and commercial payer spending for privately insured populations, focusing particularly on tests measuring multiple genes in the period 2014-17. We found that there were approximately 75,000 genetic tests on the market, with about ten new tests entering the market daily. Prenatal tests accounted for the highest percentage of spending on genetic tests, and spending on hereditary cancer tests accounted for the second-highest. Our results provide insights for those interested in assessing genetic testing markets, test usage, and health policy implications, including current debates over the most appropriate regulatory and payer coverage mechanisms

Genetic Test Availability And Spending: Where Are We Now? Where Are We Going?

Genetic testing and spending on that testing have grown rapidly since the mapping of the human genome in 2003. However, it is not widely known how many tests there are, how they are used, and how they are paid for. Little evidence from large data sets about their use has emerged. We shed light on the issue of genetic testing by providing an overview of the testing landscape. We examined test availability and spending for the full spectrum of genetic tests, using unique data sources on test availability and commercial payer spending for privately insured populations, focusing particularly on tests measuring multiple genes in the period 2014-17. We found that there were approximately 75,000 genetic tests on the market, with about ten new tests entering the market daily. Prenatal tests accounted for the highest percentage of spending on genetic tests, and spending on hereditary cancer tests accounted for the second-highest. Our results provide insights for those interested in assessing genetic testing markets, test usage, and health policy implications, including current debates over the most appropriate regulatory and payer coverage mechanisms