Skip to main content
Log in

The challenge of implementing genetic tests with clinical utility while avoiding unsound applications

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Community Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genetics and genomics have developed fast in the last decade, but have not revolutionized medicine, as some had expected. While translation of research findings to public health applications is lagging behind, direct-to-consumer (DTC) offers of genetic testing have become available, both for monogenic and severe genetic disorders and for genetic variants possibly associated with common complex diseases (susceptibility variants). The European Society of Human Genetics is concerned about the way in which commercial companies are currently introducing genetic tests into the market outside of the scope of the traditional health-care system. There is a sort of a paradox between the lagging implementation in health care of the few genetic tests with proven clinical utility, on the one hand, and the speedy DTC offer of tests, with or without clinical utility. To translate research findings into appropriate clinical applications, assessment of the clinical validity and utility is needed. Many of the parameters needed in assessment frameworks are not available yet. Clinically relevant associations between genetic variants and disease risks have been established, e.g., in oncogenetics and cardiogenetics, and can be used to reflect on the possibilities and obstacles in using the new genetics in public health. In the absence of sufficient information on clinical validity and clinical utility, introduction of genetic tests in common complex disorders is often premature. Priority should be given to settings where clinical utility is proven or likely, to gain additional information concerning diagnosis, prognosis, and disease management. Monitoring and evaluation are essential.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BRCA1/2:

Breast cancer gene 1 or 2

DTC:

Direct-to-consumer

ESHG:

European Society of Human Genetics (www.eshg.org)

FAP:

Familial adenomatous polyposis

HNPCC:

Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer/Lynch syndrome

IPTS:

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/)

LQTS:

Long QT syndrome

MODY:

Maturity onset diabetes of the young

PPPC:

Public and Professional Policy Committee of ESHG

SNPs:

Single-nucleotide polymorphisms

References

  • Becker F, van El CG, Ibarreta D, Zika E, Hogarth S, Borry P, Cambon-Thomsen A, Cassiman JJ, Evers-Kiebooms G, Hodgson S et al (2011) Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. Background Document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing and common disorders. Eur J Hum Genet 19(Suppl 1):S6–S44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bomprezzi R, Kovanen PE, Martin R (2003) New approaches to investigating heterogeneity in complex traits. J Med Genet 40:553–559

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman JJ (2005) EuroGentest—a European Network of Excellence aimed at harmonizing genetic testing services. Eur J Hum Genet 13:1103–1105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Collins F (2010) Has the revolution arrived. Nature 464:674–675

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Collins FS, McKusick VA (2001) Implications of the Human Genome Project for medical science. JAMA 285:540–544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2008) Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Genetic Testing for Health Purposes. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/203.htm Accessed 3 June 2012

  • European Academies Science Advisory Council, Federation of European Academies of Medicine (2012) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for health-related purposes in the European Union: The view from EASAC and FEAM. German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, Halle. ISBN 978-3-8047-3083-0

    Google Scholar 

  • European Society of Human Genetics (2010) Statement of the ESHG on direct-to-consumer genetic testing for health-related purposes. Eur J Hum Genet 18:1271–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster MW, Sharp RR (2008) Out of sequence: how consumer genomics could displace clinical genetics. Nat Rev Genet 9:419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg GS (2008) ‘Grand challenges’ in the translation of genomics to human health. Eur J Hum Genet 16:873–874

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Godard B, Kaariainen H, Kristoffersson U, Tranebjaerg L, Coviello D, Ayme S (2003) Provision of genetic services in Europe: current practices and issues. Eur J Hum Genet 11(Suppl 2):S13–S48, S13-S48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N (2006) Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 26:13–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grosse SD, Kalman L, Khoury MJ (2010) Evaluation of the validity and utility of genetic testing for rare diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol 686:115–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howard HC, Borry P (2012) Is there a doctor in the house?: the presence of physicians in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing context. J Community Genet 3:105–112

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarreta D, Elles R, Cassiman JJ, Rodriguez-Cerezo E, Dequeker E (2004) Towards quality assurance and harmonization of genetic testing services in the European Union. Nat Biotechnol 22:1230–1235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Khoury MJ, Feero WG, Reyes M, Citrin T, Freedman A, Leonard D, Burke W, Coates R, Croyle RT, Edwards K et al (2009) The genomic applications in practice and prevention network. Genet Med 11:488–494

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli-Laven N, Bourret P, Keating P, Cambrosio A (2011) Cancer clinical trials in the era of genomic signatures: biomedical innovation, clinical utility, and regulatory-scientific hybrids. Soc Stud Sci 41:487–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manolio TA, Collins FS, Cox NJ, Goldstein DB, Hindorff LA, Hunter DJ, McCarthy MI, Ramos EM, Cardon LR, Chakravarti A, Cho JH, Guttmacher AE, Kong A, Kruglyak L, Mardis E, Rotimi CN, Slatkin M, Valle D, Whittemore AS, Boehnke M, Clark AG, Eichler EE, Gibson G, Haines JL, Mackay TF, McCarroll SA, Visscher PM (2009) Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 461(7265):747–753

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (2007) Guidelines for Quality assurance in molecular genetic testing. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/6/38839788.pdf Accessed 3 June 2012

  • Patch C, Sequeiros J, Cornel MC (2009) Genetic horoscopes: is it all in the genes? Points for regulatory control of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Eur J Hum Genet 17:857–859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Professional and Public Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (2009) Letter to the Human Genetics Commission. In https://www.eshg.org/fileadmin/www.eshg.org/documents/PPPC-ESHG-DTC-06122009.pdf Accessed 3 June 2012

  • Rahner N, Steinke V, Schlegelberger B, Olschwang S, Eisinger F, Hutter P (2010) Clinical utility gene card for: Lynch syndrome (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2). Eur J Hum Genet 18(9). doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.232

  • Rutgers E, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Bogaerts J, Delaloge S, Veer LV, Rubio IT, Viale G, Thompson AM, Passalacqua R, Nitz U, Vindevoghel A, Pierga JY, Ravdin PM, Werutsky G, Cardoso F (2011) The EORTC 10041/BIG 03–04 MINDACT trial is feasible: results of the pilot phase. Eur J Cancer 47(18):2742–2749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson S, Zimmern R, Kroese M, Higgins J, Patch C, Emery J (2005) How can the evaluation of genetic tests be enhanced? Lessons learned from the ACCE framework and evaluating genetic tests in the United Kingdom. Genet Med 7(7):495–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuner MT, Sieverding P, Shekelle PG (2008) Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. JAMA 299:1320–1334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidtke J, Cassiman JJ (2010) The EuroGentest clinical utility gene cards. Eur J Hum Genet 18(9):1068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van El CG, Cornel MC, ESHG Public and Professional Policy Committee (2011) Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework. Eur J Hum Genet 19:377–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina C. Cornel.

Additional information

For special issue: “Predictive genetic testing, risk communication and risk perception”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cornel, M.C., van El, C.G. & Borry, P. The challenge of implementing genetic tests with clinical utility while avoiding unsound applications. J Community Genet 5, 7–12 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-012-0121-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-012-0121-1

Keywords

Navigation