FDA resists regulatory role in gene tests.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Advisory Committees↗
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “Joint Task Force on Genetic Testing”
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
As concern grows over screening.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BRCA1 Protein↗
Genetic testing for susceptibility to adult-onset cancer. The process and content of informed consent.
OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance on informed consent to clinicians offering cancer susceptibility testing. PARTICIPANTS: The Task Force on Informed Consent is part of the Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium (CGSC), whose members were recipients of National Institutes of Health grants to assess the implications of cancer susceptibility testing. The 10 task force members represent a range of relevant backgrounds, including various medical specialties, social science, genetic counseling, and consumer advocacy. EVIDENCE: The CGSC held 3 public meetings from 1994 to 1996. At its first meeting, the task force jointly established a list of topics. The cochairs (G.G. and J.R.B) then developed an outline and assigned each topic to an appropriate writer and reviewer. Writers summarized the literature on their topics and drafted recommendations, which were then revised by the reviewers. The cochairs compiled and edited the entire manuscript. All members were involved in writing this report. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The first draft was distributed to task force members, after which a meeting was held to discuss its content and organization. Consensus was reached by voting. A subsequent draft was presented to the entire CGSC at its third meeting, and comments were incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: The task force recommends that informed consent for cancer susceptibility testing be an ongoing process of education and counseling in which (1) providers elicit participant, family, and community values and disclose their own, (2) decision making is shared, (3) the style of information disclosure is individualized, and (4) specific content areas are discussed.
Adaptation, Psychological↗
ASCO/SSO review of current role of risk-reducing surgery in common hereditary cancer syndromes.
Although the etiology of solid cancers is multifactorial, with environmental and genetic factors playing a variable role, a significant portion of the burden of cancer is accounted for by a heritable component. Increasingly, the heritable component of cancer predispositions has been linked to mutations in specific genes, and clinical interventions have been formulated for mutation carriers within affected families. The primary interventions for mutations carriers for highly penetrant syndromes such as multiple endocrine neoplasias, familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer, and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes are primarily surgical. For that reason, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) have undertaken an educational effort within the oncology community. A joint ASCO/SSO Task Force was charged with presenting an educational symposium on the surgical management of hereditary cancer syndromes at the annual ASCO and SSO meetings, resulting in an educational position article on this topic. Both the content of the symposium and the article were developed as a consensus statement by the Task Force, with the intent of summarizing the current standard of care. This article is divided into four sections addressing breast, colorectal, ovarian and endometrial cancers, and multiple endocrine neoplasia. For each, a brief introduction on the genetics and natural history of the disease is provided, followed by a detailed description of modern surgical approaches, including a description of the clinical and genetic indications and timing of prophylactic surgery, and the efficacy of prophylactic surgery when known. Although a number of recent reviews have addressed the role of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, including the richly illustrated Cancer Genetics and Cancer Predisposition Testing curriculum by the ASCO Cancer Genetics Working Group (available through http://www.asco.org), this article focuses on the issues surrounding the why, how, and when of surgical prophylaxis for inherited forms of cancer. This is a complex process, which requires a clear understanding of the natural history of the disease and variance of penetrance, a realistic appreciation of the potential benefit and risk of a risk-reducing procedure in a potentially otherwise healthy individual, the long-term sequelae of such surgical intervention, as well as the individual patient and family's perception of surgical risk and anticipated benefit.
Female↗
Reproductive health and blurred professional boundaries.
We recognize that many of the issues raised are not simple. Our proposal calls for the same thoughtful deliberation applied in other settings to be brought to bear on reproductive health care. Some have already tried alternative approaches. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, a university hospital neonatologist and the district attorney have collaborated to create an alternative to sentencing program for women who are arrested for drug-related crimes and found to be both pregnant and drug addicted. Rather than proceed with criminal sanctions, these women are offered entry into a drug treatment program that is geared to families with young children and run by the pediatrics department. Here, the physician and the district attorney collaboratively responded in ways congruent with the professional integrity of each. In another example in Portland, Oregon, physicians, drug treatment providers, and child protective social service representatives cooperatively defeated a legislative proposal to mandatorily test and report pregnant women for illicit drug use and, instead, formed a task force to jointly develop state policy regarding the issue. Drug use, HIV infection, child abuse, and poverty are all cause for alarm. Yet it is critical that our frustration about these difficult problems not be translated into blaming individuals for "deviance," or into short-term inadequate responses. In developing policy we should consider the impact on the legal and ethical rights and obligations of both patient and physician. For every course, we should evaluate both immediate and long-term efficacy, the consequences for the doctor-patient relationship, and the consequences for medical integrity. In the midst of the present regulatory and fiscal turmoil affecting health care, we urge physicians to be careful and deliberate in the policies they embrace and the actions they take.
Confidentiality↗
Evaluation of a particle swarm algorithm for biomechanical optimization.
Optimization is frequently employed in biomechanics research to solve system identification problems, predict human movement, or estimate muscle or other internal forces that cannot be measured directly. Unfortunately, biomechanical optimization problems often possess multiple local minima, making it difficult to find the best solution. Furthermore, convergence in gradient-based algorithms can be affected by scaling to account for design variables with different length scales or units. In this study we evaluate a recently-developed version of the particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to address these problems. The algorithm's global search capabilities were investigated using a suite of difficult analytical test problems, while its scale-independent nature was proven mathematically and verified using a biomechanical test problem. For comparison, all test problems were also solved with three off-the-shelf optimization algorithms--a global genetic algorithm (GA) and multistart gradient-based sequential quadratic programming (SQP) and quasi-Newton (BFGS) algorithms. For the analytical test problems, only the PSO algorithm was successful on the majority of the problems. When compared to previously published results for the same problems, PSO was more robust than a global simulated annealing algorithm but less robust than a different, more complex genetic algorithm. For the biomechanical test problem, only the PSO algorithm was insensitive to design variable scaling, with the GA algorithm being mildly sensitive and the SQP and BFGS algorithms being highly sensitive. The proposed PSO algorithm provides a new off-the-shelf global optimization option for difficult biomechanical problems, especially those utilizing design variables with different length scales or units.
Algorithms↗