Correspondence on ACMG STATEMENT: ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) by Miller et al
Authors:
Kathryn A. McGurk,
Sean L. Zheng,
Albert Henry,
Katherine Josephs,
Matthew Edwards,
Antonio de Marvao,
Nicola Whiffin,
Angharad Roberts,
Thomas R. Lumbers,
Declan P. O Regan,
James S. Ware
Abstract:
We were interested to read the recent update on recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical sequencing1, and the accompanying updated list of genes in which secondary findings should be sought (ACMG SF v3.0)2. Though the authors discuss challenges around incomplete penetrance in considerable detail, we are concerned that the recommendations do not fully convey the degree of unc…
▽ More
We were interested to read the recent update on recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical sequencing1, and the accompanying updated list of genes in which secondary findings should be sought (ACMG SF v3.0)2. Though the authors discuss challenges around incomplete penetrance in considerable detail, we are concerned that the recommendations do not fully convey the degree of uncertainty regarding the penetrance of variants in genes associated with inherited cardiomyopathies, which make up almost a quarter of the list. Since penetrance is incomplete and age-related, individuals found to carry variants will often require surveillance, rather than a one-off definitive diagnostic assessment. There is a lack of evidence regarding benefits, harms, and healthcare costs associated with opportunistic screening.
△ Less
Submitted 9 March, 2022;
originally announced March 2022.
How to estimate the association between change in a risk factor and a health outcome?
Authors:
Michail Katsoulis,
Alvina G Lai,
Dimitra-Kleio Kipourou,
Reecha Sofat,
Manuel Gomes,
Amitava Banerjee,
Spiros Denaxas,
Thomas R Lumbers,
Kostas Tsilidis,
Harry Hemingway,
Karla Diaz-Ordaz
Abstract:
Estimating the effect of a change in a particular risk factor and a chronic disease requires information on the risk factor from two time points; the enrolment and the first follow-up. When using observational data to study the effect of such an exposure (change in risk factor) extra complications arise, namely (i) when is time zero? and (ii) which information on confounders should we account for…
▽ More
Estimating the effect of a change in a particular risk factor and a chronic disease requires information on the risk factor from two time points; the enrolment and the first follow-up. When using observational data to study the effect of such an exposure (change in risk factor) extra complications arise, namely (i) when is time zero? and (ii) which information on confounders should we account for in this type of analysis? From enrolment or the 1st follow-up? Or from both?. The combination of these questions has proven to be very challenging. Researchers have applied different methodologies with mixed success, because the different choices made when answering these questions induce systematic bias. Here we review these methodologies and highlight the sources of bias in each type of analysis. We discuss the advantages and the limitations of each method ending by making our recommendations on the analysis plan.
△ Less
Submitted 21 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
