Improved Models of Coalescence Ages of Y-DNA Haplogroups.

Databases of commercial DNA-testing companies now contain more customers with sequenced DNA than any completed academic study, leading to growing interest from academic and forensic entities. An important result for both these entities and the test takers themselves is how closely two individuals are related in time, as calculated through one or more molecular clocks. For Y-DNA, existing interpretations of these clocks are insufficiently accurate to usefully measure relatedness in historic times. In this article, I update the methods used to calculate coalescence ages (times to most-recent common ancestor, or TMRCAs) using a new, probabilistic statistical model that includes Y-SNP, Y-STR and ancilliary historical data, and provide examples of its use.

Disease risk scores for skin cancers.

We trained and validated risk prediction models for the three major types of skin cancer- basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma-on a cross-sectional and longitudinal dataset of 210,000 consented research participants who responded to an online survey covering personal and family history of skin cancer, skin susceptibility, and UV exposure. We developed a primary disease risk score (DRS) that combined all 32 identified genetic and non-genetic risk factors. Top percentile DRS was associated with an up to 13-fold increase (odds ratio per standard deviation increase >2.5) in the risk of developing skin cancer relative to the middle DRS percentile. To derive lifetime risk trajectories for the three skin cancers, we developed a second and age independent disease score, called DRSA. Using incident cases, we demonstrated that DRSA could be used in early detection programs for identifying high risk asymptotic individuals, and predicting when they are likely to develop skin cancer. High DRSA scores were not only associated with earlier disease diagnosis (by up to 14 years), but also with more severe and recurrent forms of skin cancer.

Regional Adoption of Commercial Gene Expression Testing for Prostate Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Although tissue-based genomic tests can aid in treatment decision-making for patients with prostate cancer, little is known about their clinical adoption. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate regional adoption of genomic testing for prostate cancer and understand common trajectories of uptake shared by regions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This dynamic cohort study of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer used administrative claims from Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, the largest source of commercial health insurance in the US, to characterize temporal trends in the use of commercial, tissue-based genomic testing and calculate the proportion of tested patients at the hospital referral region (HRR) level. Eligible patients from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2018, were those aged 40 to 89 years with prostate cancer diagnosed from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Group-based trajectory modeling was used to classify regions according to discrete trajectories of adoption of commercial, tissue-based genomic testing for prostate cancer. Across regions with distinct trajectories, HRR-level sociodemographic and health care contextual characteristics were compared, using data previously calculated among Medicare beneficiaries. RESULTS: A total of 92 418 men with prostate cancer who met inclusion criteria were identified; the median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis was 60 (56-63) years. Overall, the proportion of patients who received genomic testing increased from 0.8% in July 2012 to June 2013 to 11.3% in July 2017 to June 2018. Trajectory modeling identified 5 distinct regional trajectories of genomic testing adoption. Although less than 1% of patients in each group were tested at baseline, group 1 (lowest adoption) increased to 4.0%. Groups 2 (7.8%), 3 (14.6%), and 4 (17.3%) experienced more modest growth, while in group 5 (highest adoption), use increased to 33.8% of patients tested from June 2017 to July 2018. Compared with regions that more slowly adopted testing, HRRs with the highest rate of adoption (group 5) had higher HRR-level education measures (percentage [SD] with college education: group 1, 25.6% [4.8%]; vs group 2, 27.5% [7.3%]; vs group 3, 30.3% [9.1%]; vs group 4, 29.8% [8.2%]; vs group 5, 30.4% [11.4%]; P for trend = .03), median (SD) household income (group 1, $50 412.8 [$6907.4]; vs group 2, $54 419.6 [$11 324.5]; vs group 3, $61 424.0 [$17 723.8]; vs group 4, $58 508.3 [$15 174.6]; vs group 5, $58 367.0 [$13 180.5]; P for trend = .005), and prostate cancer resources, including clinician density (No. [SD] of clinicians per 100 000: group 1, 2.5 [0.3]; vs group 2, 2.5 [0.5]; vs group 3, 2.6 [0.5]; vs group 4, 2.7 [0.7]; vs group 5, 2.6 [0.5]; P for trend = .04) and prostate cancer screening (percentage [SD] of prostate-specific antigen testing among patients aged 68-74 y: group 1, 29.4% [11.8%]; vs group 2, 32.4% [11.2%]; vs group 3, 33.1% [12.7%]; vs group 4, 36.1% [9.7%]; vs group 5, 28.8% [11.8%]; P for trend = .05). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of patients with prostate cancer, the adoption of commercial tissue-based genomic testing for prostate cancer was highly variable in the US at the regional level and may be associated with contextual measures related to socioeconomic status and patterns of prostate cancer care. These findings highlight factors underlying differential adoption of prognostic technologies for patients with cancer.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for factor V Leiden and prothrombin 20210G>A: the consumer experience.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genetic testing for inherited predisposition to venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common among patients and their families. However, there is incomplete consensus about which individuals should receive testing, and the relative risks and benefits. METHODS: We assessed outcomes of receiving direct-to-consumer (DTC) results for the two most common genetic risk factors for VTE, factor V Leiden in the F5 gene (FVL) and prothrombin 20210G>A in the F2 gene (PT). Two thousand three hundred fifty-four customers (1244 variant-positive and 1110 variant-negative individuals) of the personal genetics company 23andMe, Inc., who had received results online for F5 and F2 variants, participated in an online survey-based study. Participants responded to questions about perception of VTE risk, discussion of results with healthcare providers (HCPs) and recommendations received, actions taken to control risk, emotional responses to receiving risk results, and perceived value of the information. RESULTS: Most participants (90% of variant-positive individuals, 99% of variant-negative individuals) had not previously been tested for F5 and/or F2 variants. The majority of variant-positive individuals correctly perceived that they were at higher than average risk for developing VTE. These individuals reported moderate rates of discussing results with HCPs (41%); receiving prevention advice from HCPs (31%), and making behavioral changes to control risk (e.g., exercising more, 30%). A minority (36%) of variant-positive individuals worried more after receiving VTE results. Nevertheless, most participants reported that knowing their risk had been an advantage (78% variant-positive and 58% variant-negative) and were satisfied knowing their genetic probability for VTE (81% variant-positive and 67% variant-negative). CONCLUSION: Consumers reported moderate rates of behavioral change and perceived personal benefit from receiving DTC genetic results for VTE risk.

Health orientation and individual tendencies of a sample of Italian genetic testing consumers.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, genetic testing (GT) had markedly spread in European countries and struggled the debate concerning the psychological effects on the population. The aim of this study was to investigate the individual tendencies of GT consumers in a sample of Italian citizens. METHODS: A total of 152 Italian clients from GenomaLab, a private genetic company, were enrolled from February 2016 to September 2018 and completed an ad hoc survey. RESULTS: Results showed that GT consumers were motivated to preserve their well-being, they felt responsible for their health, they were neither pessimistic nor optimistic toward negative occurrences, and poorly inclined to take high risks in their lives. Participants who had suffered from a disease in the past appear to be less tolerant to the uncertainty for future negative events. CONCLUSION: Our results depict Italian GT consumers as health-oriented, focused on prevention, who do not have a pessimistic perception of their condition but do not like to "bet" on their health, and probably their intention (and belief) is to acquire genetic information in order to reduce uncertainty and increase their decision-making "power" related to their health. Taken together, all these results contribute to describe the population of GT users in European countries, to regulate the provision of GT results and to entail the communication of genetic risk information based on a consumers' personal profile.

CYP2C19 Allele Frequencies in Over 2.2 Million Direct-to-Consumer Genetics Research Participants and the Potential Implication for Prescriptions in a Large Health System.

Understanding the prevalence of clinically relevant pharmacogenetic variants using large unselected populations is critical for gauging the potential clinical impact of widespread preemptive pharmacogenetic testing. To this end, we assessed the frequencies and ethnic distribution of the three most common CYP2C19 alleles (*2, *3, and *17) in 2.29 million direct-to-consumer genetics research participants (23andMe, Sunnyvale, CA). The overall frequencies of *2, *3, and *17 were 15.2%, 0.3%, and 20.4%, respectively, but varied by ethnicity. The most common variant diplotypes were *1/*17 at 26% and *1/*2 at 19.4%. The less common *2/*17, *17/*17, and *2/*2 genotypes occurred at 6.0%, 4.4%, and 2.5%, respectively. Overall, 58.3% of participants had at least one increased-function or no-function CYP2C19 allele. To better understand how this high frequency might impact a real patient population, we examined the prescription rates (Rx) of high-pharmacogenetic-risk medications metabolized by CYP2C19 using the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) health system's anonymized database of over 1.25 million patients. Between 2012 and 2019, a total of 151,068 UCSF patients (15.8%) representing 5 self-reported ethnicities were prescribed one or more high-pharmacogenetic-risk CYP2C19 medications: proton pump inhibitors (145,243 Rx), three selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants (54,463 Rx), clopidogrel (14,376 Rx), and voriconazole (2,303 Rx).

Impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing on Australian clinical genetics services.

The increasing popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) is thought to be creating a burden on clinical genetic services worldwide. However, no Australian studies have collected recent evidence regarding this impact. We surveyed Australian clinical genetics services about DTCGT-related referrals over the past 10 years. Eleven publicly-funded services reported over 100 DTCGT-related referrals. Most (83%) involved general practitioners seeking interpretation of DTCGT results. More than 30% involved imputed risk estimates from third-party software tools. Services reported low validation rates for DTCGT results (<10%), and variable procedures for managing DTCGT referrals, with most (8/11) lacking specific procedures. Our study helps quantify the impact of DTCGT on clinical genetics services, and highlights the impact of imputed risk estimates.

Direct-to-Consumer Nutrigenetics Testing: An Overview.

At present, specialized companies offering genetic testing services without the involvement of clinicians are growing; this development is a direct consequence of the significant decrease in genotyping and sequencing costs. Online companies offer predictions about the risk of developing complex diseases during one's life course, and they offer suggestions for personal lifestyle. Several companies have been created that provide nutrigenetics services; these companies suggest dietary indications-a central issue in the prevention and etiopathogenesis of specific diseases-based on one's personal genetic background. Dietary patterns are defined on the basis of a limited set of genetic markers. In this article, we analyze the online nutrigenetics services offered by 45 companies worldwide, to obtain an overall picture of the costs, the types of nutritional traits considered and the level of scientific precision of the services proposed. Our analysis clearly highlights the need for specific guidelines, in order to ensure a set of minimum quality standards for the nutrigenetics services offered to the customer.

Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools: A Mixed-Methods Study of Consumer Motivation and Behavior.

In an effort to meet ethical obligations and/or participant expectations, researchers may consider offering "raw" or uninterpreted genetic data for result return. It is therefore important to understand the motivations, behaviors, and perspectives of individuals who might choose to access raw data before such return becomes routine. In the direct-to-consumer (DTC) context, where raw data are often made available to customers, the use of third-party interpretation tools has raised concerns about genotype accuracy, data privacy, reliability of interpretation, and consumption of limited health care resources. However, relatively little is known about why individuals access raw data or what they do with the information received from third-party interpretation. Accordingly, we conducted a survey on raw data access and third-party tool usage among 1,137 DTC customers recruited through social media. Most survey respondents (89%) reported downloading their raw data. Among downloaders, 94% used at least one tool, most commonly Promethease (63%) or GEDmatch (84%). More than half (56%) used both health-related and non-health-related tools and differed significantly from those who used only one tool type in terms of demographics, participation in research, DTC tests ordered, and testing motivations. Exploratory interviews were conducted with 10 respondents and illustrated how social networking, initial lack of interesting findings, and general curiosity contributed to use of multiple tool types. These results suggest that even when initially motivated by ancestry and genealogy, consumers frequently also pursue health information in a largely unregulated and expanding suite of third-party tools, raising both challenges and opportunities for the professional genetics community.

Australians' perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study - Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians' experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or wellness sought advice from complementary/alternative health practitioners (eg naturopaths) and integrative GPs, and 60% reported they had changed their diet. As awareness of personal genomic testing increases, publicly funded clinical genetics services may be less inclined to discuss results from personal genomic testing. Genetic counsellors could play an important role in providing this support, both pre-test and post-test, through opportunities for private practice but independent from testing companies.

Trends and Gaps in Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests From 2007 to 2014.

INTRODUCTION: Direct-to-consumer genetic tests for inherited disease risks have gained recent approvals from the Food and Drug Administration, and interest in these tests has continued to grow. Broad use of these tests coupled with planning and discussion with health providers regarding genetic risks and potential protective behavior changes have been proposed as preventive tools to reduce health disparities and improve equity in health outcomes. However, awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic testing has historically demonstrated differences by education, income, and race; these disparities could jeopardize potential benefits by limiting access and use. METHODS: The national survey data from the Health Information National Trends Survey was analyzed to understand how overall awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and disparities in awareness across sociodemographic groups have changed since 2007. RESULTS: The findings showed persistent disparities, as well as a widening gap in awareness between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites (OR2007 =1.52, OR2014 =0.58, pchange =0.0056), despite overall increases in awareness over time. CONCLUSIONS: Given these findings, policies regulating direct-to-consumer genetic tests should prioritize equitable distribution of benefits by including provisions that counteract prevailing disparities in awareness.

Consumer use and response to online third-party raw DNA interpretation services.

BACKGROUND: With the availability of raw DNA generated from direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing companies, there has been a proliferation of third-party online services that are available to interpret the raw data for both genealogy and/or health purposes. This study examines the current landscape and downstream clinical implications of consumer use of third-party services. METHODS: Study participants were recruited online from social media platforms. A total of 321 survey respondents reported using third-party services for raw DNA interpretation. RESULTS: Participants were highly motivated to explore raw DNA for ancestral information (67%), individual health implications (62%), or both (40%). Participants primarily used one of seven companies to interpret raw DNA; 73% used more than one. Company choice was driven by the type of results offered (51%), price (45%), and online reviews (31%). Approximately 30% of participants shared results with a medical provider and 21% shared with more than one. Outcomes of sharing ranged from disinterest/discounting of the information to diagnosis of genetic conditions. Participants were highly satisfied with their decision to analyze raw DNA (M = 4.54/5), yet challenges in understanding interpretation results were reported irrespective of satisfaction ratings. CONCLUSION: Consumers face challenges in understanding the results and may seek out clinical assistance in interpreting their raw DNA results.

Rural-urban and racial-ethnic differences in awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Access to direct-to-consumer genetic testing services has increased in recent years. However, disparities in knowledge and awareness of these services are not well documented. We examined awareness of genetic testing services by rural/urban and racial/ethnic status. METHODS: Analyses were conducted using pooled cross-sectional data from 4 waves (2011-2014) of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Descriptive statistics compared sample characteristics and information sources by rural/urban residence. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between geography, racial/ethnic status, and awareness of genetic testing, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Of 13,749 respondents, 16.7% resided in rural areas, 13.8% were Hispanic, and 10.1% were non-Hispanic black. Rural residents were less likely than urban residents to report awareness of genetic testing (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63-0.87). Compared with non-Hispanic whites, racial/ethnic minorities were less likely to be aware of genetic testing: Hispanic (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.56-0.82); and non-Hispanic black (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.61-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Rural-urban and racial-ethnic differences exist in awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. These differences may translate into disparities in the uptake of genetic testing, health behavior change, and disease prevention through precision and personalized medicine.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Orphan Drug Development.

Since the introduction of the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) in 1983, orphan drug approvals in the United States have jumped from <100 per decade to over 200 per year. This growth is widely attributed to the financial incentives the ODA gives to companies that develop these medicines, and it is likely to continue for a unique reason: partnerships between pharmaceutical firms and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies. This emerging trend is the subject of this article, which begins by considering how rare-disease drugs are regulated and the rising interest in nonclinical genetic testing. It then outlines how DTC companies analyze DNA and how their techniques benefit researchers and drug developers. Then, after an overview of the current partnerships between DTCs and drug developers, it examines concerns about privacy and cost brought up by these partnerships. The article concludes by contrasting the enormous positive potential of DTC-pharma relationships and their concomitant dangers, especially to consumer privacy and cost to the healthcare system.

Utilization of Genetic Counseling after Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study.

Direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (DTC-PGT) results lead some individuals to seek genetic counseling (GC), but little is known about these consumers and why they seek GC services. We analyzed survey data pre- and post-PGT from 1026 23andMe and Pathway Genomics customers. Participants were mostly white (91%), female (60%), and of high socioeconomic status (80% college educated, 43% household income of ≥$100,000). After receiving PGT results, 43 participants (4%) made or planned to schedule an appointment with a genetic counselor; 390 (38%) would have used in-person GC had it been available. Compared to non-seekers, GC seekers were younger (mean age of 38 vs 46 years), more frequently had children <18 (26% vs 16%), and were more likely to report previous GC (37% vs 7%) and genetic testing (30% vs 15%). In logistic regression analysis, seeking GC was associated with previous GC use (OR = 6.5, CI = 3.1-13.8), feeling motivated to pursue DTC-PGT for health reasons (OR = 4.3, CI = 1.8-10.1), fair or poor self-reported health (OR = 3.1, CI = 1.1-8.3), and self-reported uncertainty about the results (OR = 1.8, CI = 1.1-2.7). These findings can help GC providers anticipate who might seek GC services and plan for clinical discussions of DTC-PGT results.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: where and how does genetic counseling fit?

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for disease ranges from well-validated diagnostic and predictive tests to 'research' results conferring increased risks. While being targeted at public curious about their health, they are also marketed for use in reproductive decision-making or management of disease. By virtue of being 'direct-to-consumer' much of this testing bypasses traditional healthcare systems. We argue that direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies should make genetic counseling available, pre- as well as post-test. While we do not advocate that mandatory genetic counseling should gate-keep access to direct-to-consumer genetic testing, if the testing process has the potential to cause psychological distress, then companies have a responsibility to provide support and should not rely on traditional healthcare systems to pick up the pieces. A video abstract is available for this article via this link .

Awareness, attitudes and perspectives of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Greece: a survey of potential consumers.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) is now offered by numerous companies. The present survey aimed to explore awareness, interest, reasons to take and refuse DTCGT, and understanding of results amongst 725 higher education students in Greece. A third of the responders were aware of DTCGT and interest was dependent on cost. More than 60% of the participants would undergo DTCGT to learn more about their health, to warn their children, so that their doctor can monitor their health and change their lifestyle. Nevertheless, they would prefer to consult their doctor first and expressed concerned about their personal data. After receiving results from a hypothetical DTC genetic test predicting higher risk for colon cancer, 59.5% of the responders thought that they could understand the results but 46.1% believed that the results have diagnostic value. In total, 83.6% of the participants would ask their doctor to explain the results and 70.4% would discuss results with their family. In conclusion, the majority of higher education students in Greece appreciate the benefits of genetic testing but with the involvement of their doctor. A physician's participation in the process and informing the public about the true value of genetic testing, are crucial to avoid misinterpretation of DTCGT results.