A site to transform Pubmed publications into these bibliographic reference formats: ADS, BibTeX, EndNote, ISI used by the Web of Knowledge, RIS, MEDLINE, Microsoft's Word 2007 XML.

W David Dotson - Top 30 Publications

BRCA Genetic Testing and Receipt of Preventive Interventions Among Women Aged 18-64 Years with Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Areas - United States, 2009-2014.

Genetic testing for breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) and breast cancer 2 (BRCA2) gene mutations can identify women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. These testing results can be used to select preventive interventions and guide treatment. Differences between nonmetropolitan and metropolitan populations in rates of BRCA testing and receipt of preventive interventions after testing have not previously been examined.

Utilization of genetic tests: analysis of gene-specific billing in Medicare claims data.

We examined the utilization of precision medicine tests among Medicare beneficiaries through analysis of gene-specific tier 1 and 2 billing codes developed by the American Medical Association in 2012.

A knowledge base for tracking the impact of genomics on population health.

We created an online knowledge base (the Public Health Genomics Knowledge Base (PHGKB)) to provide systematically curated and updated information that bridges population-based research on genomics with clinical and public health applications.

Clinical utility of genetic and genomic services: context matters.

Genomics in Public Health: Perspective from the Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The national effort to use genomic knowledge to save lives is gaining momentum, as illustrated by the inclusion of genomics in key public health initiatives, including Healthy People 2020, and the recent launch of the precision medicine initiative. The Office of Public Health Genomics (OPHG) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) partners with state public health departments and others to advance the translation of genome-based discoveries into disease prevention and population health. To do this, OPHG has adopted an "identify, inform, and integrate" model: identify evidence-based genomic applications ready for implementation, inform stakeholders about these applications, and integrate these applications into public health at the local, state, and national level. This paper addresses current and future work at OPHG for integrating genomics into public health programs.

Clinical utility of gene-expression profiling in women with early breast cancer: an overview of systematic reviews.

This overview systematically evaluates the clinical utility of using Oncotype DX and MammaPrint gene-expression profiling tests to direct treatment decisions in women with breast cancer. The findings are intended to inform an updated recommendation from the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group.

Evidence synthesis and guideline development in genomic medicine: current status and future prospects.

With the accelerated implementation of genomic medicine, health-care providers will depend heavily on professional guidelines and recommendations. Because genomics affects many diseases across the life span, no single professional group covers the entirety of this rapidly developing field.

Horizon scanning for translational genomic research beyond bench to bedside.

The dizzying pace of genomic discoveries is leading to an increasing number of clinical applications. In this report, we provide a method for horizon scanning and 1 year data on translational research beyond bench to bedside to assess the validity, utility, implementation, and outcomes of such applications.

Knowledge integration at the center of genomic medicine.

Three articles in this issue of Genetics in Medicine describe examples of "knowledge integration," involving methods for generating and synthesizing rapidly emerging information on health-related genomic technologies and engaging stakeholders around the evidence. Knowledge integration, the central process in translating genomic research, involves three closely related, iterative components: knowledge management, knowledge synthesis, and knowledge translation. Knowledge management is the ongoing process of obtaining, organizing, and displaying evolving evidence. For example, horizon scanning and "infoveillance" use emerging technologies to scan databases, registries, publications, and cyberspace for information on genomic applications. Knowledge synthesis is the process of conducting systematic reviews using a priori rules of evidence. For example, methods including meta-analysis, decision analysis, and modeling can be used to combine information from basic, clinical, and population research. Knowledge translation refers to stakeholder engagement and brokering to influence policy, guidelines and recommendations, as well as the research agenda to close knowledge gaps. The ultrarapid production of information requires adequate public and private resources for knowledge integration to support the evidence-based development of genomic medicine.

Beyond base pairs to bedside: a population perspective on how genomics can improve health.

A decade after the sequencing of the human genome, the National Human Genome Research Institute announced a strategic plan for genomic medicine. It calls for evaluating the structure and biology of genomes, understanding the biology of disease, advancing the science of medicine, and improving the effectiveness of health care. Fulfilling the promise of genomics urgently requires a population perspective to complement the bench-to-bedside model of translation. A population approach should assess the contribution of genomics to health in the context of social and environmental determinants of disease; evaluate genomic applications that may improve health care; design strategies for integrating genomics into practice; address ethical, legal, and social issues; and measure the population health impact of new technologies.

Is there a need for PGxceptionalism?

Horizon scanning for new genomic tests.

The development of health-related genomic tests is decentralized and dynamic, involving government, academic, and commercial entities. Consequently, it is not easy to determine which tests are in development, currently available, or discontinued. We developed and assessed the usefulness of a systematic approach to identifying new genomic tests on the Internet.

Use of genomic profiling to assess risk for cardiovascular disease and identify individualized prevention strategies--a targeted evidence-based review.

To address the key question of whether using available "cardiogenomic profiles" leads to improved health outcomes (e.g., reduction in rates of myocardial infarction and stroke) and whether these profiles help in making medical or personal decisions.

PLoS currents: evidence on genomic tests - At the crossroads of translation.

Evidence on Genomic Tests is an open access publication option for communicating high-quality, scientific information that is needed to evaluate health applications of genomic research. By using Google's knol platform, we aim to reduce conventional barriers to sharing, updating, and accessing the results of knowledge synthesis and to increase the benefits to authors and users alike.

Tumor gene expression profiling in women with breast cancer. Test category: prognostic.

Differences in the expression of specific genes within breast tumors have been associated with risk of recurrence after treatment. Most women with Stage I or II node-negative breast cancer (especially when estrogen-receptor positive and treated with tamoxifen) remain disease-free at 10 years. Information on risk of recurrence could help identify women most likely to benefit from chemotherapy. Several clinically available gene expression profiles (GEP) provide "recurrence risk scores" that are intended to supplement information used by clinicians and patients in treatment decision-making.

Outcomes of interest in evidence-based evaluations of genetic tests.

Genetic tests are increasingly available for use in traditional clinical practice settings and through direct-to-consumer marketing. The need for evidence-based information and guidance on their appropriate use has never been more apparent. The independent Working Group of the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Initiative commissions evidence-based reviews and develops recommendations to inform decision making surrounding the implementation of genetic tests and other applications of genomic technologies into clinical practice. A critical component of this analysis involves the identification and appropriate weighting of relevant health outcomes from genetic testing. Impacts of testing on morbidity and mortality are central considerations although research to document such outcomes can be challenging to conduct. In considering the broader impacts of genetic tests on the individual, familial and societal levels, psychosocial outcomes often take on increasing importance, and their systematic evaluation is a challenge for traditional methods of evidence-based review. Incorporating these types of outcomes in evidence-based processes is possible, however, and necessary to extract balanced and complete (or as complete as available data will allow) information on potential benefits and on potential harms. The framework used by the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group in considering, categorizing, and weighting health-related outcomes as applied to genomic technologies is presented here.

Can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan? An evidence-based review.

This evidence-based review addresses the question of whether testing for UGT1A1 mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan leads to improvement in outcomes (e.g., irinotecan toxicity, response to treatment, morbidity, and mortality), when compared with no testing. No studies were identified that addressed this question directly. The quality of evidence on the analytic validity of current UGT1A1 genetic testing methods is adequate (scale: convincing, adequate, inadequate), with available data indicating that both analytic sensitivity and specificity for the common genotypes are high. For clinical validity, the quality of evidence is adequate for studies reporting concentration of the active form of irinotecan (SN-38), presence of severe diarrhea, and presence of severe neutropenia stratified by UGT1A1 common genotypes. The strongest association for a clinical endpoint is for severe neutropenia. Patients homozygous for the *28 allele are 3.5 times more likely to develop severe neutropenia compared with individuals with the wild genotype (risk ratio 3.51; 95% confidence interval 2.03-6.07). The proposed clinical utility of UGT1A1 genotyping would be derived from a reduction in drug-related adverse reactions (benefits) while at the same time avoiding declines in tumor response rate and increases in morbidity/mortality (harms). At least three treatment options for reducing this increased risk have been suggested: modification of the irinotecan regime (e.g., reduce initial dose), use of other drugs, and/or pretreatment with colony-stimulating factors. However, we found no prospective studies that examined these options, particularly whether a reduced dose of irinotecan results in a reduced rate of adverse drug events. This is a major gap in knowledge. Although the quality of evidence on clinical utility is inadequate, two of three reviewed studies (and one published since our initial selection of studies for review) found that individuals homozygous for the *28 allele had improved survival. Three reviewed studies found statistically significant higher tumor response rates among individuals homozygous for the *28 allele. We found little or no direct evidence to assess the benefits and harms of modifying irinotecan regimens for patients with colorectal cancer based on their UGT1A1 genotype; however, results of our preliminary modeling of prevalence, acceptance, and effectiveness indicate that reducing the dose would need to be highly effective to have benefits outweigh harms. An alternative is to increase irinotecan dose among wild-type individuals to improve tumor response with minimal increases in adverse drug events. Given the large number of colorectal cancer cases diagnosed each year, a randomized controlled trial of the effects of irinotecan dose modifications in patients with colorectal cancer based on their UGT1A1 genotype is feasible and could clarify the tradeoffs between possible reductions in severe neutropenia and improved tumor response and/or survival in patients with various UGT1A1 genotypes.

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group.

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative, established by the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supports the development and implementation of a rigorous, evidence-based process for evaluating genetic tests and other genomic applications for clinical and public health practice in the United States. An independent, non-federal EGAPP Working Group (EWG), a multidisciplinary expert panel selects topics, oversees the systematic review of evidence, and makes recommendations based on that evidence. This article describes the EGAPP processes and details the specific methods and approaches used by the EWG.