Review Article

Genomic Medicine

Alan E. Guttmacher, M.D., Editor, Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Editor

Genetic Testing

Wylie Burke, M.D., Ph.D.

N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1867-1875December 5, 2002

Article

Genetic testing can provide dramatic clinical benefits. A child known to have multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN-2) can be spared medullary carcinoma by undergoing prophylactic thyroidectomy (Figure 1Figure 1Autosomal Dominant Inheritance.),1 and an adult with hereditary hemochromatosis can be spared cirrhosis by the early initiation of phlebotomy treatment.2 Genetic testing can also provide diagnostic and prognostic information that aids in difficult clinical decision making. For example, a test for a deletion in the dystrophin gene, the cause of Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, can be used to identify women who are carriers of this condition (Figure 2Figure 2X-Linked Recessive Inheritance.).3 A carrier may avoid having an affected child by avoiding pregnancy or by undergoing prenatal testing for Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, with possible pregnancy termination if the fetus is found to be affected.

As these examples illustrate, most available genetic tests address questions related to rare or uncommon diseases. Even hemochromatosis, often described as a common genetic disease, has a prevalence of 0.5 percent or less.4 However, the scope of genetic testing is expanding to include tests that assess the genetic risk of common diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease.5,6

Definition of Genetic Testing

A genetic test is “the analysis of human DNA, RNA, chromosomes, proteins, and certain metabolites in order to detect heritable disease-related genotypes, mutations, phenotypes, or karyotypes for clinical purposes.”7 This definition reflects the broad range of techniques that can be used in the testing process. Genetic tests also have diverse purposes, including the diagnosis of genetic disease in newborns, children, and adults; the identification of future health risks; the prediction of drug responses; and the assessment of risks to future children. Examples of currently available genetic tests are given in Table 1Table 1Examples of Genetic Tests. and Table 2Table 2Examples of Molecular Genetic Tests. and a comprehensive and continually updated listing of available tests can be found at the GeneTests–GeneClinics Web site (http://www.geneclinics.org).8

Genetic Diagnosis

Genetic testing is often the best way to confirm a diagnosis in a patient with signs or symptoms suggestive of a genetic disease. The technique chosen depends on both the clinical question and the predictive value of the available tests. For a young patient with medullary cancer of the thyroid, for example, the identification of a mutation in the RET oncogene confirms that the cancer is a manifestation of MEN2, which accounts for approximately one quarter of cases of medullary thyroid cancer. The RET-mutation test can identify 85 to 95 percent of affected relatives of patients with medullary carcinoma.12-14

Testing for dystrophin gene deletions with the use of DNA-based technology is now the preferred diagnostic test for Duchenne's muscular dystrophy when clinical signs and symptoms suggest the diagnosis. A positive test confirms the diagnosis. A muscle biopsy is needed if the DNA-based test is negative. A negative test occurs in about 30 percent of patients with Duchenne's muscular dystrophy because some mutations in the dystrophin gene are not detected by current DNA testing.15

This level of genetic complexity is common and is termed “allelic heterogeneity,” meaning that there are multiple different mutations (or alleles) in the same gene, all of which may lead to disease. For example, hundreds of different disease-causing mutations have been found in the cystic fibrosis gene16 and the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes associated with susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer.17

In contrast, the most common form of sickle cell anemia, a disease occurring in 1 in 700 blacks in the United States, is caused by a single specific mutation in the β-globin gene, resulting in a modified hemoglobin, termed hemoglobin S (HbS).18 Both hematologic and DNA-based tests are available. Diagnostic testing can be done reliably by hemoglobin electrophoresis, but the DNA-based test for the HbS mutation is an important additional option because it makes prenatal diagnosis possible (Figure 3Figure 3Autosomal Recessive Inheritance.).19

Cytogenetic tests are used to diagnose chromosomal disorders, in which chromosomes or chromosomal segments are duplicated, deleted, or translocated to different chromosomes. These tests make it possible to identify the chromosomal basis of conditions such as Down's syndrome, which are caused by the presence of an extra chromosome, the lack of a chromosomal segment, or rearrangement of the chromosomes.20,21 One cytogenetic technique, fluorescence in situ hybridization, identifies specific chromosomal regions through the use of fluorescent DNA probes and thus can pinpoint small chromosomal duplications and deletions missed by previous methods.22,23 For example, the 22q11 deletion syndrome, a genetic condition caused by small deletions of chromosome 22 (Figure 4Figure 4Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization Showing the 22q11 Microdeletion Syndrome.), is characterized by a variety of learning disabilities, palatal abnormalities, and congenital heart disease.24 Using fluorescence in situ hybridization, it has been possible to show that six previously described clinical syndromes, each with an overlapping cluster of physical and cognitive deficits, all represent manifestations of the 22q11 deletion syndrome.24

Familial Risk

A genetic diagnosis often indicates that other family members are at risk for the same condition. Genetic testing can help in evaluating this risk. For example, when the causative mutation of a genetic condition is known, presymptomatic diagnosis of family members is often possible and may offer an important opportunity for disease prevention. Thus, after a person is given a diagnosis of MEN2 and the causative RET mutation is identified, testing of all first-degree relatives is recommended (Figure 1) so that prophylactic thyroidectomy can be offered to those who inherited the mutation.25,26 A small number of other inherited cancer syndromes, such as familial adenomatous polyposis, offer a similar opportunity.27

The identification of risk does not necessarily lead to treatment options, however. Genetic testing for Huntington's disease, an autosomal dominant condition that causes progressive motor and cognitive dysfunction starting in midlife, allows people with an affected parent to determine whether they have inherited the causative mutation.28 If the mutation is present, the person's risk of Huntington's disease is virtually 100 percent, given a normal life span. Yet, no effective intervention or preventive treatment is currently available. The choice to be tested is thus highly personal, and test results have the potential to be stigmatizing or psychologically harmful. For this reason, careful pretest counseling is recommended. A 10-year experience in the United Kingdom suggests that only about 20 percent of those at risk for Huntington's disease pursue such testing.28

In the case of X-linked and autosomal recessive conditions (Figure 2 and Figure 3), the purpose of genetic testing is often to identify family members who are carriers — that is, persons who are themselves unaffected but who are at risk of having affected children. As with decisions about testing for Huntington's disease, tests to determine carrier status are done primarily for personal, rather than medical, reasons: in this case to facilitate decisions about having children. For women who are carriers of an X-linked recessive disease, each son has a 50 percent risk of inheriting the disease (Figure 2). With autosomal recessive diseases, such as sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis (Figure 3), the risk of having an affected child is incurred only if both parents are carriers and is 25 percent for each pregnancy. If carrier status is confirmed, prenatal testing can be offered to provide an opportunity to inform parents about the genetic diagnosis before the birth, so that they can decide what course of action is best for them.

Prenatal diagnosis is also commonly used to diagnose Down's syndrome. This genetic condition is rarely inherited; most cases are due to an error in the formation of ovum or sperm, leading to the inclusion of an extra chromosome 21 at conception.29 As with prenatal diagnosis for inherited genetic diseases, this use of genetic testing is focused on reproductive decision making rather than on clinical management of genetic disease.

Genetic testing is also sometimes used to identify family members with mild cases. For example, mild cases of 22q11 deletion syndrome have been documented among parents and siblings of patients with the condition.30 Identifying these affected relatives may explain otherwise unexpected clinical findings, and also provides information about recurrence risks within the family: if a parent is affected, the condition can be passed on to future children.

Clinical Validity of Genetic Tests

These different examples help illustrate the importance of a test's clinical validity, defined as the accuracy with which a test predicts a clinical outcome.7 Clinical validity reflects both the sensitivity of the test — the proportion of affected people with a positive test — and the penetrance of the mutations identified by the test. Penetrance refers to the proportion of people with the mutation who will manifest the disease; in the case of genetic diseases like Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, the proportion is virtually 100 percent in those with a normal life span, whereas in the case of hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer, an inherited colorectal cancer syndrome, about 75 percent are likely to be affected.

Many DNA-based tests have reduced sensitivity because they identify only a subgroup of potentially causative mutations. This limitation is due to the state of scientific knowledge — some causative mutations may not yet be known — and to the properties of clinically available tests. For some conditions, a test for all known mutations would be prohibitively expensive, leading to a pragmatic tradeoff between cost and sensitivity. Just as scientific knowledge and costs change over time, so will the sensitivity and predictive value of various tests.

Reduced sensitivity has important implications for the testing of family members. For example, when a child with Duchenne's muscular dystrophy is found to have a deletion involving the dystrophin gene, the carrier status of female relatives can be determined by the same test. However, if the affected child does not have an identifiable mutation, the test cannot be used effectively either to determine carrier status or for prenatal diagnosis. An alternative approach — linkage analysis — is possible if two or more family members are affected and available for testing; this approach identifies patterns of DNA markers associated with the disease in a particular family (Figure 5Figure 5Linkage Analysis to Determine Carrier Status.). But if the affected child is the only known member of the family with Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, linkage cannot be established, and this approach will not work.

When a genetic test has high sensitivity, people can be tested for carrier status without reference to the test results of an affected family member. This is the case for sickle cell anemia, which is caused by a specific mutation in the β-globin gene (Figure 3).18 In contrast, testing for cystic fibrosis can identify many (but not all) carriers in the general population; currently available tests identify the most common mutations and in the process usually identify 85 percent of carriers in the U.S. population.16,31 (The use of genetic testing in population screening is discussed in another article in this series.)

Most well-defined genetic diseases are caused by mutations with a high rate of penetrance and, as a result, have a high positive predictive value — that is, the likelihood of disease is high when the test is positive. This observation may contribute to the perception that current genetic tests are always highly predictive. However, even when mutations are highly penetrant, the negative predictive value of a test — the likelihood that disease is absent if the test is negative — can be low, if the test fails to identify all causative mutations.

Genetic Testing to Improve Preventive Care

Genetic tests can also be used to determine genetic contributions to the risk of common diseases, in order to guide preventive care. Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations provides an opportunity to identify people who may benefit from tailored screening and prevention protocols that are based on their genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer.32-34 Estimates of the lifetime risk of breast cancer associated with these mutations range from 26 to 85 percent; the risk of ovarian cancer is also elevated but to a lesser extent, and risk estimates also vary.35-41

In conditions with a low rate of penetrance, more evidence is needed to establish the efficacy of interventions to reduce risk.42,43 In the case of MEN-2, the evidence favoring prophylactic thyroidectomy derives from the observation of a low rate of medullary thyroid cancer among patients who had the surgery.25,26 The power of such studies derives from historical data demonstrating a lifetime risk of cancer of close to 100 percent in patients with untreated MEN2, with an associated high rate of premature mortality.1 When a genetic test predicts an increased risk rather than a certainty of future disease, the efficacy of interventions to reduce risk is more difficult to measure,42 particularly when the level of risk is uncertain, as is the case with BRCA1 and BRCA2. If the risk is initially overestimated — a common bias when mutations conferring risk are found in families selected for high risk — the efficacy of an intervention may be greatly overestimated in the absence of controlled observations.38

This issue will take on greater importance as genetic factors conferring smaller risks are identified.44,45 Mutations associated with a high risk account for only a small percentage of common diseases; mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are a rare cause of breast cancer, for example. The largest genetic contribution to health is in the form of common variants that increase or decrease risk to a moderate degree.5,46,47 These tests have lower positive and negative predictive values than most currently available genetic tests, but they have potential implications for a larger number of people and are an important byproduct of the Human Genome Project.5 Two examples offer insights into the implications of genetic tests of this kind: hemochromatosis and factor V Leiden.

Hemochromatosis, a condition involving excess accumulation of iron, can lead to iron overload, which in turn can result in complications such as cirrhosis, diabetes, cardiomyopathy, and arthritis.4 Two mutations in the HFE gene, C282Y and H63D, promote excess accumulation of iron. C282Y is the more severe mutation, and the C282Y/C282Y genotype accounts for the majority of clinically penetrant cases.4 But current data suggest that clinical disease does not develop in a substantial proportion of people with this genotype.48,49 A pooled analysis found that patients with the HFE genotypes C282Y/H63D and H63D/H63D are also at increased risk for iron overload,50 yet overall, disease is likely to develop in fewer than 1 percent of people with these genotypes. Thus, DNA-based tests for hemochromatosis identify a genetic risk rather than the disease itself.51 Environmental factors such as diet and exposure to alcohol or other hepatotoxins may modify the clinical outcome in patients with hemochromatosis,4 and variations in other genes affecting iron metabolism may also be a factor.52 As a result, the clinical condition of iron overload is most reliably diagnosed on the basis of biochemical evidence of excess body iron.2,4 Whether it is beneficial to screen asymptomatic people for a genetic risk of iron overload is a matter of debate.47,53

Factor V Leiden offers another example. This factor V gene mutation is relatively common, ranging in prevalence from 1 to 5 percent in different American ethnic groups,54 and results in up to an eightfold increased risk of venous thrombosis.55,56 Estimates of the annual incidence of venous thrombosis in people who are heterozygous for factor V Leiden range from 0.19 to 0.58 percent,57-59 suggesting a lifetime risk of 12 to 30 percent. However, more than half of the thromboembolic events associated with factor V Leiden occur when other risk factors, such as surgery, use of oral contraceptives, and bed rest, are also present.55,57,60 Both gene–gene and gene–environment interactions contribute to the overall risk of venous thrombosis.55 Thus, factor V Leiden, like mutations in the HFE gene, is a risk factor for disease rather than an indication of the presence of disease.

As is the case for predictive testing for hemochromatosis, the clinical usefulness of testing for factor V Leiden is not established. Although a positive test identifies people at increased risk for venous thrombosis, the implications for management are unclear. Interventions such as prophylactic anticoagulation therapy or avoidance of risk factors might be considered, but evidence of the clinical benefit of such interventions is so far lacking.61,62

The issue of specificity of treatment is an important one. New genetic tests to assess the risk of common diseases are likely to have properties similar to those of tests for factor V Leiden. They will identify relatively common genetic traits that interact with other genetic and environmental factors to increase risk. Their clinical usefulness will depend on the availability of specific, effective interventions to reduce risk. In the absence of genotype-specific interventions, the knowledge of a person's genetic susceptibility to a condition could result in worry or job- or insurance-related discrimination without yielding health benefits or could even be harmful to a person's health by reducing motivation to pursue risk-reducing measures.63

Informed Consent and Genetic Counseling

Patients are usually given detailed counseling before undergoing genetic testing, to ensure that they make informed decisions about the use of tests with complex personal implications. Genetic counseling is traditionally “nondirective” — that is, counseling provides sufficient information to allow families or individual persons to determine the best course of action for themselves but avoids making testing recommendations.64,65 This approach was developed in the context of genetic tests for reproductive decision making and untreatable conditions such as Huntington's disease, in which the value of testing is based on personal preference.

When tests are conducted to improve clinical management, pretest counseling needs differ. A testing recommendation is appropriate, for example, when a test offers an opportunity to prevent disease, as in the case with testing for MEN-2.66 Since some tests for genetic risk factors will probably become a routine part of clinical practice, they are likely to be offered without formal pretest counseling. In approaching the question of informed consent to conduct a specific genetic test, however, the potential social and family implications need to be acknowledged, including the potential for discrimination on the basis of genetic-risk status7 and the possibility that the predictive value of genetic information may be overestimated.67 These considerations suggest that clinicians should err on the side of caution and follow carefully-thought-out informed-consent procedures for genetic testing, unless outcome studies suggest otherwise.

Conclusions

Genetic testing offers important opportunities for diagnosis and assessment of genetic risk. The sensitivity of tests for rare conditions will continue to improve as additional causative mutations are identified. Genetic tests are available to determine the risk of common diseases, but these often have limited predictive value. Evaluating the clinical usefulness of these tests will require a careful assessment of the risks and benefits of testing; the availability of specific measures to reduce risk in genetically susceptible people will be a major consideration.

One of the difficult challenges in the use of genetic tests is a constantly changing knowledge base. Fortunately, a growing number of Internet sites are available to provide clinicians with up-to-date information (Table 1).68,69 Research to evaluate interventions based on genetic risk will assume increasing importance as new tests become available. Because the development of tests to assess risk is likely to outpace the ability to reduce the risk, an ongoing dialogue involving clinicians and policymakers will be needed to develop a consensus about their appropriate clinical use.

Supported in part by a grant (R01-HG02263) from the National Institutes of Health. The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Source Information

From the Department of Medical History and Ethics, University of Washington, Seattle.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Burke at the Department of Medical History and Ethics, Box 357120, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific, Rm. A204, Seattle, WA 98195, or at wburke@u.washington.edu.

References

References

1. 1

   Hoff AO, Cote GJ, Gagel RF. Multiple endocrine neoplasias. Annu Rev Physiol 2000;62:377-411
   CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

2. 2

   Bacon BR, Sadiq SA. Hereditary hemochromatosis: presentation and diagnosis in the 1990s. Am J Gastroenterol 1997;92:784-789
   Web of Science | Medline

3. 3

   Abbs S, Bobrow M. Report on the 16th ENMC workshop -- carrier diagnosis of Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord 1993;3:241-242
   CrossRef | Medline

4. 4

   Hanson EH, Imperatore G, Burke W. HFE gene and hereditary hemochromatosis: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol 2001;154:193-206
   CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

5. 5

   Collins FS. Shattuck Lecture -- medical and societal consequences of the Human Genome Project. N Engl J Med 1999;341:28-37
   Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

6. 6

   Roses AD. Pharmacogenetics and the practice of medicine. Nature 2000;405:857-865
   CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

7. 7

   Holtzman NA, Watson MS, eds. Promoting safe and effective genetic testing in the United States: final report of the Task Force on Genetic Testing. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
   

8. 8

   GeneTests–GeneClinics home page. Seattle: University of Washington, 2002. (Accessed November 8, 2002, at http://www.geneclinics.org.)
   

9. 9

   The Human Genome Epidemiology Network: HuGE reviews. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002. (Accessed October 8, 2002, at http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/hugenet/reviews.htm.)
   

10. 10

    CancerNet PDQ. Bethesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute, 2002. (Accessed November 8, 2002, at http://www.cancer.gov/cancer_information/pdq.)
    

11. 11

    OMIM: online Mendelian inheritance in man. Bethesda, Md.: National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2002. (Accessed October 8, 2002, at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/.)
    

12. 12

    Weisner GL, Snow K. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 [includes: MEN 2A (Sipple syndrome), MEN 2B (mucosal neuroma syndrome), familial medullary thyroid carcinoma (FMTC)]. Seattle: GeneClinics, 1999. (Accessed November 8, 2002, at http://www.geneclinics.org/profiles/men2/details.html.)
    

13. 13

    Raue F. German medullary thyroid carcinoma/multiple endocrine neoplasia registry. Arch Surg 1998;383:334-336
    CrossRef | Web of Science

14. 14

    Kebebew E, Ituarte PH, Siperstein AE, Duh QY, Clark OH. Medullary thyroid carcinoma: clinical characteristics, treatment, prognostic factors, and a comparison of staging systems. Cancer 2000;88:1139-1148
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

15. 15

    Korf BR, Darras BT, Urion DK. Dystrophinopathies [includes: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD, pseudohypertrophic muscular dystrophy), Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD), and X-linked dilated cardiomyopathy (XLDCM)]. Seattle: GeneClinics, 2000. (Accessed November 8, 2002, at http://www.geneclinics.org/profiles/dbmd/details.html.)
    

16. 16

    Grody WW. Cystic fibrosis: molecular diagnosis, population screening, and public policy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999;123:1041-1046
    Web of Science | Medline

17. 17

    Brody LC, Biesecker BB. Breast cancer susceptibility genes: BRCA1 and BRCA2. Medicine (Baltimore) 1998;77:208-226
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

18. 18

    Ashley-Koch A, Yang Q, Olney RS. Sickle hemoglobin (HbS) allele and sickle cell disease: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol 2000;151:839-845
    Web of Science | Medline

19. 19

    Cao A, Galanello R, Rosatelli MC. Prenatal diagnosis and screening of the haemoglobinopathies. Baillieres Clin Haematol 1998;11:215-238
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

20. 20

    Crow JF. Two centuries of genetics: a view from halftime. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2000;1:21-40.
    

21. 21

    Capone GT. Down syndrome: advances in molecular biology and the neurosciences. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2001;22:40-59
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

22. 22

    Pergament E. New molecular techniques for chromosome analysis. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2000;14:677-690
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

23. 23

    McDonald-McGinn D, Emanuel BS, Zackai EH, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 22q11 Deletion syndrome. [Includes: Shprintzen syndrome, DiGeorge syndrome (DGS), velocardiofacial syndrome (VCFS), conotruncal anomaly face syndrome (CTAF), Caylor cardiofacial syndrome, Opitz G/BBB]. Seattle: GeneClinics, 1999. (Accessed November 8, 2002, at http://www.geneclinics.org/profiles/22q11deletion/index.html.)
    

24. 24

    De Decker HP, Lawrenson JB. The 22q11.2 deletion: from diversity to a single gene theory. Genet Med 2001;3:2-5
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

25. 25

    Wells SA Jr, Skinner MA. Prophylactic thyroidectomy, based on direct genetic testing, in patients at risk for the multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 syndromes. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 1998;106:29-34
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

26. 26

    Niccoli-Sire P, Murat A, Baudin E, et al. Early or prophylactic thyroidectomy in MEN 2/FMTC gene carriers: results in 71 thyroidectomized patients. Eur J Endocrinol 1999;141:468-474
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

27. 27

    Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, adopted on February 20, 1996. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:1730-1740
    Web of Science | Medline

28. 28

    Harper PS, Lim C, Craufurd D. Ten years of presymptomatic testing for Huntington's disease: the experience of the UK Huntington's Disease Prediction Consortium. J Med Genet 2000;37:567-571
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

29. 29

    Wald NJ, Hackshaw AK. Advances in antenatal screening for Down syndrome. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2000;14:563-580
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

30. 30

    McDonald-McGinn DM, Tonnesen MK, Laufer-Cahana A, et al. Phenotype of the 22q11.2 deletion in individuals identified through an affected relative: cast a wide FISHing net! Genet Med 2001;3:23-29
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

31. 31

    Tait JF, Gibson RL, Marshall SG, Sternen DL, Cheng E, Cutting GR. Cystic fibrosis [CF, Mucovisiodosis: includes: congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens (CBAVD)]. Seattle: GeneClinics, 2001. (Accessed November 8, 2002, at http://www.geneclinics.org/profiles/cf/details.html.)
    

32. 32

    Burke W, Daly M, Garber J, et al. Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. II. BRCA1 and BRCA2. JAMA 1997;277:997-1003
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

33. 33

    Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340:77-84
    Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

34. 34

    CancerNet. CancerNet PDQ summary on breast/ovarian and colorectal cancer genetics. Bethesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute, 2001. (Accessed November 8, 2002, at http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/genetics.)
    

35. 35

    Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1401-1408
    Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

36. 36

    Thorlacius S, Struewing JP, Hartge P, et al. Population-based study of risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA2 mutation. Lancet 1998;352:1337-1339
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

37. 37

    Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. Am J Hum Genet 1998;62:676-689
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

38. 38

    Hopper JL, Southey MC, Dite GS, et al. Population-based estimate of the average age-specific cumulative risk of breast cancer for a defined set of protein-truncating mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: Australian Breast Cancer Family Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:741-747
    Web of Science | Medline

39. 39

    Warner E, Foulkes W, Goodwin P, et al. Prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations in unselected Ashkenazi Jewish women with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1241-1247
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

40. 40

    Prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based series of breast cancer cases. Br J Cancer 2000;83:1301-1308
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

41. 41

    Satagopan JM, Offit K, Foulkes W, et al. The lifetime risks of breast cancer in Ashkenazi Jewish carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10:467-473
    Web of Science | Medline

42. 42

    Welch HG, Burke W. Uncertainties in genetic testing for chronic disease. JAMA 1998;280:1525-1527
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

43. 43

    Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services: report of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1996.
    

44. 44

    Ziv E, Cauley J, Morin PA, Saiz R, Browner WS. Association between the T29→C polymorphism in the transforming growth factor beta1 gene and breast cancer among elderly white women: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. JAMA 2001;285:2859-2863[Erratum, JAMA 2001;286:3081.]
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

45. 45

    Armstrong K. Genetic susceptibility to breast cancer: from the roll of the dice to the hand women were dealt. JAMA 2001;285:2907-2909
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

46. 46

    Holtzman NA, Marteau TM. Will genetics revolutionize medicine? N Engl J Med 2000;343:141-144
    Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

47. 47

    Kaprio J. Science, medicine, and the future: genetic epidemiology. BMJ 2000;320:1257-1259
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

48. 48

    Beutler E, Felitti VJ, Koziol JA, Ho NJ, Gelbart T. Penetrance of 845G→A (C282Y) HFE hereditary haemochromatosis mutation in the USA. Lancet 2002;359:211-218
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

49. 49

    Asberg A, Hveem K, Thorstensen K, et al. Screening for hemochromatosis: high prevalence and low morbidity in an unselected population of 65,238 persons. Scand J Gastroenterol 2001;36:1108-1115
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

50. 50

    Burke W, Imperatore G, McDonnell SM, Baron RC, Khoury MJ. Contribution of different HFE genotypes to iron overload disease: a pooled analysis. Genet Med 2000;2:271-277
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

51. 51

    Adams P, Brissot P, Powell LW. EASL International Consensus Conference on Haemochromatosis. J Hepatol 2000;33:485-504
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

52. 52

    Andrews NC. Disorders of iron metabolism. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1986-1995[Erratum, N Engl J Med 2000;342:364.]
    Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

53. 53

    Cogswell ME, McDonnell SM, Khoury MJ, Franks AL, Burke W, Brittenham G. Iron overload, public health, and genetics: evaluating the evidence for hemochromatosis screening. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:971-979
    Web of Science | Medline

54. 54

    Ridker PM, Miletich JP, Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Ethnic distribution of factor V Leiden in 4047 men and women: implications for venous thromboembolism screening. JAMA 1997;277:1305-1307
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

55. 55

    Rosendaal F. Venous thrombosis: a multicausal disease. Lancet 1999;353:1167-1173
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

56. 56

    Meyer G, Emmerich J, Helley D, et al. Factors V Leiden and II 20210A in patients with symptomatic pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. Am J Med 2001;110:12-15
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

57. 57

    Middeldorp S, Meinardi JR, Koopman MM, et al. A prospective study of asymptomatic carriers of the factor V Leiden mutation to determine the incidence of venous thromboembolism. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:322-327
    Web of Science | Medline

58. 58

    Simioni P, Sanson BJ, Prandoni P, et al. Incidence of venous thromboembolism in families with inherited thrombophilia. Thromb Haemost 1999;81:198-202
    Web of Science | Medline

59. 59

    Martinelli I, Bucciarelli P, Margaglione M, De Stefano V, Castaman G, Mannucci PM. The risk of venous thromboembolism in family members with mutations in the genes of factor V or prothrombin or both. Br J Haematol 2000;111:1223-1229
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

60. 60

    Bloemenkamp KW, Rosendaal FR, Helmerhorst FM, Buller HR, Vandenbroucke JP. Enhancement by factor V Leiden mutation of risk of deep-vein thrombosis associated with oral contraceptives containing a third-generation progestagen. Lancet 1995;346:1593-1596
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

61. 61

    Grody WW, Griffin JH, Taylor AK, Korf BR, Heit JA. American College of Medical Genetics consensus statement on factor V Leiden mutation testing. Genet Med 2001;3:139-148
    CrossRef | Medline

62. 62

    Bauer KA. The thrombophilias: well-defined risk factors with uncertain therapeutic implications. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:367-373
    Web of Science | Medline

63. 63

    Marteau TM, Lerman C. Genetic risk and behavioural change. BMJ 2001;322:1056-1059
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

64. 64

    Genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet 1975;27:240-242
    Web of Science | Medline

65. 65

    Michie S, Smith JA, Heaversedge J, Read S. Genetic counseling: clinical geneticists' views. J Genet Couns 1999;8:275-287
    CrossRef

66. 66

    Cummings S. The genetic testing process: how much counseling is needed? J Clin Oncol 2000;18:Suppl:60S-64S
    Web of Science | Medline

67. 67

    Hubbard R, Lewontin RC. Pitfalls of genetic testing. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1192-1194
    Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

68. 68

    Pagon RA, Pinsky L, Beahler CC. Online medical genetics resources: a US perspective. BMJ 2001;322:1035-1037
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

69. 69

    Stewart A, Haites N, Rose P. Online medical genetics resources: a UK perspective. BMJ 2001;322:1037-1039
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

Citing Articles (50)

Citing Articles

1. 1

   Vanessa J. Marshall, Nnenna Kalu, John Kwagyan, Carla Williams, Robert E. Taylor, Denise M. Scott. (2011) Perceptions About Genetic Testing for the Susceptibility to Alcohol Dependence and Other Multifactorial Diseases. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers111222122123006
   CrossRef

2. 2

   Marc Blondon, Melody Hwang, Nicholas L. Smith. (2011) Genotyping in Prothrombotic States: Implications for the Clinician. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports 5:6, 525-532
   CrossRef

3. 3

   P. Charron, M. Arad, E. Arbustini, C. Basso, Z. Bilinska, P. Elliott, T. Helio, A. Keren, W. J. McKenna, L. Monserrat, S. Pankuweit, A. Perrot, C. Rapezzi, A. Ristic, H. Seggewiss, I. van Langen, L. Tavazzi. (2010) Genetic counselling and testing in cardiomyopathies: a position statement of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases. European Heart Journal 31:22, 2715-2726
   CrossRef

4. 4

   M. Arias Gómez. (2010) Catástrofes derivadas de las técnicas complementarias de diagnóstico neurológico. Neurología 25, 61-67
   CrossRef

5. 5

   François Rousseau, Carmen Lindsay, Marc Charland, Yves Labelle, Jean Bergeron, Ingeborg Blancquaert, Robert Delage, Brian Gilfix, Michel Miron, Grant A. Mitchell, Luc Oligny, Mario Pazzagli, Cyril Mamotte, Deborah Payne. (2010) Development and description of GETT: a Genetic testing Evidence Tracking Tool. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 48:10, 1397-1407
   CrossRef

6. 6

   Noah P. Parker, Aaron N. Pearlman, David B. Conley, Robert C. Kern, Rakesh K. Chandra. (2010) The dilemma of midline destructive lesions: a case series and diagnostic review. American Journal of Otolaryngology 31:2, 104-109
   CrossRef

7. 7

   York Pei, Terry Watnick. (2010) Diagnosis and Screening of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease. Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease 17:2, 140-152
   CrossRef

8. 8

   Han Wook Yoo. (2010) Genetic testing in clinical pediatric practice. Korean Journal of Pediatrics 53:3, 273
   CrossRef

9. 9

   Chiou-Fen Lin, Meei-Shiow Lu, Chun-Chih Chung, Che-Ming Yang. (2010) The Establishment of an Ethical Guideline for Genetic Testing Through Citizen Consensus via the Internet in Taiwan. Journal of Medical Internet Research 12:4,
   CrossRef

10. 10

    Sato Ashida, Laura M. Koehly, J. Scott Roberts, Clara A. Chen, Susan Hiraki, Robert C. Green. (2009) Disclosing the Disclosure: Factors Associated With Communicating the Results of Genetic Susceptibility Testing for Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Health Communication 14:8, 768-784
    CrossRef

11. 11

    Ilka Warshawsky. 2009. Molecular Biology Basics for the Pathologist. , 3-9.
    CrossRef

12. 12

    Edmund Huang, Millie Samaniego-Picota, Thomas McCune, Joseph K. Melancon, Robert A. Montgomery, Richard Ugarte, Edward Kraus, Karl Womer, Hamid Rabb, Terry Watnick. (2009) DNA Testing for Live Kidney Donors at Risk for Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease. Transplantation 87:1, 133-137
    CrossRef

13. 13

    Kjetil Rommetveit. (2008) Towards a hermeneutic of technomedical objects. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29:2, 103-120
    CrossRef

14. 14

    Rose Geransar, Edna Einsiedel. (2008) Evaluating Online Direct-to-Consumer Marketing of Genetic Tests: Informed Choices or Buyers Beware?. Genetic Testing 12:1, 13-23
    CrossRef

15. 15

    Jason Cowan, Ana Morales, Jimena Dagua, Ray E. Hershberger. (2008) Genetic Testing and Genetic Counseling in Cardiovascular Genetic Medicine: Overview and Preliminary Recommendations. Congestive Heart Failure 14:2, 97-105
    CrossRef

16. 16

    Pamela S. Douglas, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg. (2008) Clinical Genomic Testing: Getting It Right. Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research 1:1, 17-20
    CrossRef

17. 17

    Joris Robert Vermeesch, Heike Fiegler, Nicole de Leeuw, Karoly Szuhai, Jacqueline Schoumans, Roberto Ciccone, Frank Speleman, Anita Rauch, Jill Clayton-Smith, Conny Van Ravenswaaij, Damien Sanlaville, Philippos C Patsalis, Helen Firth, Koen Devriendt, Orsetta Zuffardi. (2007) Guidelines for molecular karyotyping in constitutional genetic diagnosis. European Journal of Human Genetics 15:11, 1105-1114
    CrossRef

18. 18

    Mark Kroese, Ron L Zimmern, Peter Farndon, Fiona Stewart, Joanne Whittaker. (2007) How can genetic tests be evaluated for clinical use? Experience of the UK Genetic Testing Network. European Journal of Human Genetics 15:9, 917-921
    CrossRef

19. 19

    Sandra Taddie Nance. (2007) Operational issues for implementation of donor genotyping for red blood cell antigens. Transfusion 47:s1, 69S-72S
    CrossRef

20. 20

    Antonello Pietrangelo, Ronald Oude Elferink, Jesus Prieto, Bruce R. Bacon. (2007) Genetics in liver diseases. Journal of Hepatology 46:6, 1143-1148
    CrossRef

21. 21

    Russell A Wilke. (2006) Translational pharmacogenetics and risk management in the cardiovascular arena: CYP3A5*3 model for gene-based drug selection. Personalized Medicine 3:4, 385-390
    CrossRef

22. 22

    Ebony B. Bookman, Aleisha A. Langehorne, John H. Eckfeldt, Kathleen C. Glass, Gail P. Jarvik, Michael Klag, Greg Koski, Arno Motulsky, Benjamin Wilfond, Teri A. Manolio, Richard R. Fabsitz, Russell V. Luepker. (2006) Reporting genetic results in research studies: Summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 140A:10, 1033-1040
    CrossRef

23. 23

    Orhan Soykan. 2006. Biological Sensors for Diagnostics. , 51-1-51-13.
    CrossRef

24. 24

    Wolfgang van den Daele. (2006) The Spectre of Coercion: Is Public Health Genetics the Route to Policies of Enforced Disease Prevention?. Community Genetics 9:1, 40-49
    CrossRef

25. 25

    Marta Gwinn, Muin J. Khoury. (2006) Genomics and Public Health in the United States: Signposts on the Translation Highway. Community Genetics 9:1, 21-26
    CrossRef

26. 26

    Gregory J. Tsongalis, William B. Coleman. (2006) Clinical genotyping: The need for interrogation of single nucleotide polymorphisms and mutations in the clinical laboratory. Clinica Chimica Acta 363:1-2, 127-137
    CrossRef

27. 27

    C. Gregory Elliott. 2006. Genetics of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. , 50-65.
    CrossRef

28. 28

    Dale H. LEA, Judith A. COOKSEY, Patricia A. FLANAGAN, Janet K. WILLIAMS, Gaetano FORTE. (2005) Innovations in United States genetics nursing: Practice and research. Japan Journal of Nursing Science 2:2, 71-83
    CrossRef

29. 29

    Russell A. Wilke, David M. Reif, Jason H. Moore. (2005) Combinatorial Pharmacogenetics. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 4:11, 911-918
    CrossRef

30. 30

    Catherine Y. Read, Donna J. Perry, Mary E. Duffy. (2005) Design and Psychometric Evaluation of the Psychological Adaptation to Genetic Information Scale. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 37:3, 203-208
    CrossRef

31. 31

    Russell A Wilke, A  Kenneth Musana, Wendell W Weber. (2005) Cytochrome P450 gene-based drug prescribing and factors impacting translation into routine clinical practice. Personalized Medicine 2:3, 213-224
    CrossRef

32. 32

    Cynthia A. Moore, Muin J. Khoury, Linda A. Bradley. (2005) From Genetics to Genomics: Using Gene-Based Medicine to Prevent Disease and Promote Health in Children. Seminars in Perinatology 29:3, 135-143
    CrossRef

33. 33

    Suzanne Feetham, Elizabeth J. Thomson, Ada Sue Hinshaw. (2005) Nursing Leadership in Genomics for Health and Society. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 37:2, 102-110
    CrossRef

34. 34

    Dana C. Crawford, Deborah A. Nickerson. (2005) Definition and Clinical Importance of Haplotypes. Annual Review of Medicine 56:1, 303-320
    CrossRef

35. 35

    Larry D. Scott. (2004) Ethical Issues in Genetic Testing. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 99:10, 1871-1873
    CrossRef

36. 36

    SHARON D. HORNER. (2004) Ethics and Genetics. Clinical Nurse Specialist 18:5, 228-231
    CrossRef

37. 37

    Michael A Hillman, Russell A Wilke, Michael D Caldwell, Richard L Berg, Ingrid Glurich, James K Burmester. (2004) Relative impact of covariates in prescribing warfarin according to CYP2C9 genotype. Pharmacogenetics 14:8, 539-547
    CrossRef

38. 38

    Charles J. Epstein. (2004) Genetic testing: Hope or hype?. Genetics in Medicine 6:4, 165-172
    CrossRef

39. 39

    Richard R. Sharp, Michael A. Yudell, Samuel H. Wilson. (2004) Science and society: Shaping science policy in the age of genomics. Nature Reviews Genetics 5:4, 311-315
    CrossRef

40. 40

    Ronald JA Trent, Bing Yu, Melody Caramins. (2004) Challenges for clinical genetic DNA testing. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 4:2, 201-208
    CrossRef

41. 41

    Cabot, Richard C.Harris, Nancy Lee, Shepard, Jo-Anne O., Ebeling, Sally H.Ellender, Stacey M.Peters, Christine C., Tsao, Hensin, Sober, Arthur J., Niendorf, Kristin Baker, Zembowicz, Artur, . (2004) Case 7-2004. New England Journal of Medicine 350:9, 924-932
    Full Text

42. 42

    Fernando Rosa. (2004) Risk Interpretation: Between Doctor and Patient. Topoi 23:2, 165-176
    CrossRef

43. 43

    Kari Hemminki, Xinjun Li, Kamila Czene. (2004) Familial risk of cancer: Data for clinical counseling and cancer genetics. International Journal of Cancer 108:1, 109-114
    CrossRef

44. 44

    Tom W.J. Huizinga. (2003) Genetics in rheumatoid arthritis. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 17:5, 703-716
    CrossRef

45. 45

    Guttmacher, Alan E., Collins, Francis S., . (2003) Welcome to the Genomic Era. New England Journal of Medicine 349:10, 996-998
    Full Text

46. 46

    Kari Hemminki, Charlotta Granstrm. (2003) Familial invasive and borderline ovarian tumors by proband status, age and histology. International Journal of Cancer 105:5, 701-705
    CrossRef

47. 47

    Basil Hanss, Leslie A. Bruggeman. (2003) Applications of gene therapy to kidney disease. Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension 12:4, 439-445
    CrossRef

48. 48

    Muin J. Khoury. (2003) Genetics and genomics in practice: The continuum from genetic disease to genetic information in health and disease. Genetics in Medicine 5:4, 261-268
    CrossRef

49. 49

    (2003) Genetic Testing. New England Journal of Medicine 348:11, 1066-1067
    Full Text

50. 50

    Phyllis Griffin Epps. (2003) Policy Before Practice. American Journal of PharmacoGenomics 3:6, 405-418
    CrossRef

Letters