Biomedical subjects

Salma Shickh

Publications and source records attributed to Salma Shickh.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2025

Opportunistic screening for broad range of medically relevant secondary findings: Laboratory benefits and burdens.

PURPOSE: Exome and genome sequencing enable opportunistic screening for secondary findings (SFs). We report on exome analysis for a broad range of medically relevant SFs in the setting of the Incidental Genomics randomized clinical trial (NCT03597165). METHODS: Participants had exome sequencing and were randomized to receive only primary cancer findings (control) or cancer findings and a choice of SFs (intervention). RESULTS: Across 279 participants, there were 4441 unique variants in SF genes: 5.0% (221) were reportable pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants, and 81.4% (3615) were nonreportable variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Intervention arm participants had on average 2.6 (SD 1.66, range 0-9) pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants and 29.5 VUS (SD 13.2, range 2-74). SFs for monogenic disease risk were reported in 35.3% (49/139) of participants (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics non-cancer subset in 1.4%) and carrier status in 89.3% (117/131). In the intervention arm, variant filtration was 7.7 times longer per case (95% CI 5.3 to 11.3, P < .0001), variant classification was 13.3 times longer (95% CI 10.6 to 16.5, P < .0001), and report preparation was 3.3 times longer (95% CI 2.6 to 4.1, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Although the yield of reportable SFs was high, this was accompanied by many nonreportable VUS and increased efforts for exome analysis.

Humans↗

PubMed2025

The Clinician-reported Genetic Testing Utility InDEx for Neonatal Intensive Care (C-GUIDE NICU): Quantifying genome-wide sequencing utility in the NICU.

PURPOSE: Use of genomic sequencing (GS) in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) has increased with improved diagnostic yield. However, uncertainty persists regarding when and for whom GS is most useful. Because a standardized approach to assessing utility is lacking, we developed a novel version of the Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE) to quantify the utility of GS in NICUs. METHODS: Informed by a scoping review, we developed a draft C-GUIDE NICU tool to quantify utility, which underwent iterative revisions through feedback from clinician interviews and questionnaires on item relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness. We finalized the expert-informed C-GUIDE NICU using an international Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: Scoping review (n = 25 articles) and interviews (n = 21) revealed key themes of utility. Guided by qualitative feedback and item scoring, C-GUIDE was iteratively reduced to include 21, 18, and 14 items. The Delphi consensus process with 22 experts achieved item consensus and stability, yielding a final 10-item tool. CONCLUSION: Using a rigorous process, we developed a consensus-based standardized method for capturing the clinical utility of GS in NICUs. C-GUIDE NICU can be used by clinicians, researchers, and payers to assess GS value to patient care and will be available for licensed use following reliability and validity testing.

Humans↗

PubMed2024

Opportunistic genomic screening has clinical utility: An interventional cohort study.

PURPOSE: Practice is shifting toward genome-first approaches, such as opportunistic screening for secondary findings (SFs). Analysis of SFs could be extended beyond medically actionable results to include non-medically actionable monogenic disease risks, carrier status, pharmacogenomic variants, and risk variants for common complex disease. However, evidence on the clinical utility of returning these results is lacking. We assessed the outcomes of opportunistic screening for a broad spectrum of SFs by evaluating the yield, impact on clinical management, and consistency between SFs and participants' clinical features and family history. METHODS: Adult cancer patients had exome sequencing with the option to learn multiple categories of SFs. Outcomes data were collected through chart review and participant-reported measures up to one year after return of results. RESULTS: All participants (n = 139, 85.6% female, average 54.6 years old) who elected to learn SFs had ≥1 variant reported (100% [139/139]). The yield of reportable findings was highest for pharmacogenomic variants (97.8% [135/138] of participants), followed by common disease risk variants (89.4% [118/132]), carrier status (89.3% [117/131]), and variants related to Mendelian (27.2% [34/125]), medically actionable (15.2% [21/138]), and early-onset neurodegenerative (2.6% [3/117]) disease risks. SFs from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics list (v3.2, noncancer genes) were reported in 1.4% (2/138) of participants. SFs across all categories demonstrated clinical utility by prompting management changes in 28.1% (39/139) of participants. Moreover, a considerable proportion of participants had suggestive clinical features (49.0% (24/49)]) or family history (21.8% (27/124)) potentially related to their SFs. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate there are potential benefits from opportunistic screening for a broad range of SFs.

Humans↗