Biomedical subjects

David L Veenstra

Publications and source records attributed to David L Veenstra.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2025

A meta-analysis of diagnostic yield and clinical utility of genome and exome sequencing in pediatric rare and undiagnosed genetic diseases.

PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate the diagnostic yield and clinical utility of genome sequencing (GS) and exome sequencing (ES; genome-wide sequencing [GWS]) in pediatric patients with rare and undiagnosed genetic diseases. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies published between 2011 and 2023. To address study heterogeneity, comparative analyses included within-cohort studies using random-effects models. RESULTS: We identified 108 studies including 24,631 probands with diverse clinical indications. The pooled diagnostic yield among within-cohort studies (N = 13) for GWS was 34.2% (95% CI: 27.6-41.5; I2: 86%) vs 18.1% (95% CI: 13.1-24.6; I2: 89%) for non-GWS, with 2.4-times odds of diagnosis (95% CI: 1.40-4.04; P < .05). The pooled diagnostic yield among within-cohort studies (N = 3) for GS was 30.6% (95% CI: 18.6-45.9; I2: 79%) vs 23.2% (95% CI: 18.5-28.7; I2: 58%) for ES, with 1.7-times the odds of diagnosis (95% CI: 0.94-2.92; P = .13). In first-line testing, the diagnostic yield tended to be higher for GS than for ES across clinical subgroups. The pooled clinical utility among patients with a positive diagnosis was 58.7% (95% CI: 47.3-69.2; I2: 81%) for GS and 54.5% (95% CI: 40.7-67.6; I2: 87%) for ES. CONCLUSION: GS appears to have a higher diagnostic yield than ES, with similar clinical utility per positive diagnosis.

Child↗

PubMed2025

Genomic sequencing in diverse and underserved pediatric populations: Parent perspectives on understanding, uncertainty, psychosocial impact, and personal utility of results.

PURPOSE: Limited evidence evaluates parents' perceptions of their child's clinical genome-scale sequencing (GS) results, particularly among individuals from medically underserved groups. Five Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium studies performed GS in children with suspected genetic conditions with high proportions of individuals from underserved groups to address this evidence gap. METHODS: Parents completed surveys of perceived understanding, personal utility, and test-related distress after GS result disclosure. We assessed outcomes' associations with child- and parent-related factors: child age; type of GS finding; and parent health literacy, numeracy, and education. RESULTS: A total of 1763 parents completed surveys; 83% met "underserved" criteria based on race, ethnicity, and risk factors for barriers to access. We observed high perceived understanding and personal utility and low test-related distress. Outcomes were associated with the type of GS finding; parents of children with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic finding endorsed higher personal utility and more test-related distress than those whose children had a variant of uncertain significance or normal finding. Personal utility was higher in parents who met the criteria for "underserved." CONCLUSION: Our findings shed light on correlates of parents' cognitive and emotional responses to their child's GS findings and emphasize the need for tailored support in disclosure discussions.

Humans↗

PubMed2024

Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for Lynch Syndrome and polygenic risk scores to inform colorectal cancer screening.

PURPOSE: Genomic screening to identify individuals with Lynch Syndrome (LS) and those with a high polygenic risk score (PRS) promises to personalize colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Understanding its clinical and economic impact is needed to inform screening guidelines and reimbursement policies. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate individuals over a lifetime. We compared LS+PRS genomic screening with standard of care (SOC) for a cohort of US adults at age 30. The Markov model included health states of no CRC, CRC stages (A-D), and death. We estimated incidence, mortality, and discounted economic outcomes of the population under different interventions. RESULTS: Screening 1000 individuals for LS+PRS resulted in 1.36 fewer CRC cases and 0.65 fewer deaths compared with SOC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $124,415 per quality-adjusted life year; screening had a 69% probability of being cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/quality-adjusted life year . Setting the PRS threshold at the 90th percentile of the LS+PRS screening program to define individuals at high risk was most likely to be cost-effective compared with 95th, 85th, and 80th percentiles. CONCLUSION: Population-level LS+PRS screening is marginally cost-effective, and a threshold of 90th percentile is more likely to be cost-effective than other thresholds.

Humans↗