Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to navigation Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content


Main|Search|PHGKB
Search PHGKB:

Last Posted: Oct 04, 2024
spot light Highlights

Screening Familial Risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

From the abstract: "In a large health system, how many ungenotyped patients meet family history genetic testing criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer? In this cross-sectional analysis, 2.9% of patients had no evidence of prior genetic testing but had electronic health records indicating they met family history criteria. These criteria were associated with significantly increased prevalence of genetic risk variants among 38?003 genotyped patients. These findings suggest that substantial gaps exist in identifying and testing patients meeting family history criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and other methods may be needed to close these gaps. "

Wilson and Jungner Revisited: Are Screening Criteria Fit for the 21st Century?

From the abstract: "This systematic review revealed a set of general limitations of the WJ criteria, such as imprecise terminology, lack of measurability and objectivity, missing pediatric focus, and absent guidance on program management. Furthermore, it unraveled specific aspects of criticism on clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic, and economical aspects. A major obstacle was found to be the incompletely understood natural history and phenotypic diversity of rare diseases prior to NBS implementation, resulting in uncertainty about case definition, risk stratification, and indications for treatment. This gap could be closed through the systematic collection and evaluation of real-world evidence on the quality, safety, and (cost-)effectiveness of NBS, as well as the long-term benefits experienced by screened individuals. "

Every baby deserves access to genetic screening

From the article: "Nation-wide genetic screening, available to all newborns, could in principle also be a tool to narrow the disparities that exist in today’s healthcare systems, providing to every family information about their baby’s health, regardless of socioeconomic and geographical factors. Designing genomics-based newborn screening programs that bring benefit equitably to the population is, however, an extremely complex task, also given the costs, and there is an urgent need to generate robust evidence on the potential benefits and harms of the approach, at the population level, before it can be implemented more widely. "

Health Care Costs After Genome-Wide Sequencing for Children With Rare Diseases in England and Canada

From the abstract: "Is diagnosis from genome-wide sequencing associated with reduced health care costs for children with suspected rare diseases? Findings: In this cohort study of 3 groups of children who underwent genome-wide sequencing in England (7775 children in a research study) or Canada (118 children who received publicly funded sequencing and 77 children in a research study), diagnosis from genome-wide sequencing was not associated with changes in health care or diagnostic costs. Meaning: These findings suggest that sustainable clinical implementation of genome-wide sequencing must be motivated by evidence of patient and family benefit and cost-effectiveness rather than promises of cost savings from earlier diagnosis. "

Search Result Summary


Disclaimer: Articles listed in the Public Health Genomics and Precision Health Knowledge Base are selected by the CDC Office of Public Health Genomics to provide current awareness of the literature and news. Inclusion in the update does not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor does it imply endorsement of the article's methods or findings. CDC and DHHS assume no responsibility for the factual accuracy of the items presented. The selection, omission, or content of items does not imply any endorsement or other position taken by CDC or DHHS. Opinion, findings and conclusions expressed by the original authors of items included in the update, or persons quoted therein, are strictly their own and are in no way meant to represent the opinion or views of CDC or DHHS. References to publications, news sources, and non-CDC Websites are provided solely for informational purposes and do not imply endorsement by CDC or DHHS.

TOP