RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Modelling population genetic screening in rare neurodegenerative diseases
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.07.03.23292187
DO 10.1101/2023.07.03.23292187
A1 Spargo, Thomas P
A1 Iacoangeli, Alfredo
A1 Ryten, Mina
A1 Forzano, Francesca
A1 Pearce, Neil
A1 Al-Chalabi, Ammar
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/03/2023.07.03.23292187.abstract
AB Importance Genomic sequencing enables rapid identification of a breadth of genetic variants. For clinical purposes, sequencing for small genetic variations is considered a solved problem, while challenges remain for structural variants given the lower sensitivity and specificity. Interest has recently risen among governing bodies in developing protocols for population-wide genetic screening. However, usefulness is constrained when the probability of being affected by a rare disease remains low despite a positive genetic test. This is a common scenario in neurodegenerative disorders. The problem is recognised among statisticians and statistical geneticists but less well understood by clinicians and researchers who will act on these results, and by the general public who might access screening services directly without the appropriate support for interpretation.Observations We explore the probability of subsequent disease following genetic screening of several of variants, both single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and larger repeat expansions, for two neurological conditions, Huntington’s disease (HD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), comparing with screening for phenylketonuria which is well established. The risk following a positive screening test was 0.5% for C9orf72 in ALS and 0.4% for HTT in HD, when testing repeat expansions for which the test had sub-optimal performance (sensitivity=99% and specificit =90%), and 12.7% for phenylketonuria and 10.9% for ALS SOD1, when testing pathogenic SNVs (sensitivity=99.96% and specificity=99.95%). Subsequent screening confirmation via PCR for C9orf72 led to a 2% risk of developing ALS as a result of the reduced penetrance (44%).Conclusions and Relevance We show that risk following a positive screening test result can be strikingly low for rare neurological diseases. Accordingly, to maximise the utility of screening, it is vital to prioritise protocols of very high sensitivity and specificity, careful selection of markers for screening, giving regard to clinical interpretability, actionability, high penetrance, and secondary testing to confirm positive findings.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementAAC is an NIHR Senior Investigator. This is an EU Joint Programme-Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND) project. The project is supported through the following funding organizations under the aegis of JPND (United Kingdom, Medical Research Council MR/L501529/1 and MR/R024804/1; Economic and Social Research Council ES/L008238/1) and through the Motor Neurone Disease Association. This study represents independent research part funded by the NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. The work leading up to this publication was funded by the European Community's Horizon 2020 Programme (H2020-PHC-2014-two-stage; grant 633413). This work was part funded by my Name'5 Doddie Foundation, and Alan Davidson Foundation. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, King's College London, or the Department of Health and Social Care. AI is funded by South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, MND Scotland, Motor Neurone Disease Association, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Spastic Paraplegia Foundation, Rosetrees Trust, Darby Rimmer MND Foundation, the Medical Research Council (UKRI) and Alzheimer's Research UK.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData sharing not applicable