Regulatory agencies in UK and US have yet to address dangers inherent in customer misunderstanding of DTC medical laboratory genetic test results
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) medical laboratory genetic tests are gaining popularity across the globe. But recent research out of the United Kingdom questions the reliability of these tests. The study, according to The Guardian, found that “Over the counter genetic tests in the UK that assess the risk of cancer or heart problems fail to identify 89% of those in danger of getting killer diseases.”
According the PGS website, “each PGS in the catalog is consistently annotated with relevant metadata; including scoring files (variants, effect alleles/weights), annotations of how the PGS was developed and applied, and evaluations of their predictive performance.”
However, the researchers told The Guardian, “Polygenic risk scores performed poorly in population screening, individual risk prediction, and population risk stratification. Strong claims about the effect of polygenic risk scores on healthcare seem to be disproportionate to their performance.”
“Strong claims have been made about the potential of polygenic risk scores in medicine, but our study shows that this is not justified,” Aroon Hingorani, PhD (above), Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at UCL and lead author of the study, told The Guardian. “We found that, when held to the same standards as employed for other tests in medicine, polygenic risk scores performed poorly for prediction and screening across a range of common diseases.” Consumer misunderstanding of DTC medical laboratory genetic tests is a real danger. (Photo copyright: University College London.)
Polygenic Scores Not Beneficial to Cancer Screening
To complete their study, the UCL researchers compared PGS genetic risk data to conventional clinical laboratory testing methods and discovered some troubling results. They include:
On average, only 11% of individuals who developed a disease had been identified by the tests.
A 5% false positive rate where people were informed that they would get a disease within 10 years but did not.
PGS only identified 10% of people who later developed breast cancer.
The researchers state in their BMJ Medicine paper that polygenic risk scores are not the same as testing for certain gene mutations, which could be critical in screening for some cancers. They also wrote that discovering genetic variants associated with the risk for disease is still crucial for drug development.
“It has been suggested that polygenic risk scores could be introduced early on to help prevent breast cancer and heart disease but, in the examples we looked at, we found that the scores contributed little, if any, health benefit while adding cost and complexity,” research physician and epidemiologist Sir Nicholas Wald, FRS, FRCP, FMedSci, Professor of Preventive Medicine at UCL Institute of Health Informatics and co-author of the study, told the Jersey Evening Post.
“Our results build on evidence that indicates that polygenic risk scores do not have a role in public health screening programs,” Wald added.
“This research study rightly highlights that for many health conditions genetic risk scores alone may have limited usefulness, because other factors such as deprivation, lifestyles, and environment are also important,” clinical epidemiologist Raghib Ali, MD, CEO, Chief Investigator and Chief Medical Officer, Our Future Health UK, told The Guardian.
Our Future Health is a collaboration between public, non-profit, and private sectors to create the UK’s largest health research program. The researchers in this endeavor intend to recruit over five million volunteers and use polygenic risk scores to develop innovative ways to prevent, detect, and treat disease. This program is funded by the UK’s National Health System (NHS).
“[Our] research program will be developing integrated risk scores that will take in all the important risk factors,” Ali explained. “We hope these integrated risk scores can identify people more likely to develop diseases, but this is a relatively new area of science and there are still unanswered questions around it.”
Danger of Misunderstanding DTC Genetic Tests
Here in the US, there have been news stories in recent years about the unreliability of certain genetic tests. Dark Daily covered these stories in previous ebriefs. News stories about the unreliability of genetic tests, particularly those marketed directly to consumers, reveal the problems that existing regulatory schemes have yet to address.
In “Consumer Reports Identifies ‘Potential Pitfalls’ of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests,” we covered CR’s findings that though clinical laboratory and pathology professionals understand the difference between a doctor-ordered genetic health risk (GHR) test and a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic test, the typical genetic test customer may not. And that, misunderstanding the results of a DTC at-home genetic test can lead to confusion, loss of privacy, and potential harm.
Scientific American also covered the dangers of DTC testing in “The Problem with Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests,” in which the author notes that “despite caveats in ads and on packages, users can fail to understand their limitations,” and that “consumer-grade products are easily misconstrued as appropriate medical tests and create false reassurances in patients who could be at legitimate risk.”
Most clinical laboratory managers and pathologists are probably not surprised that the research performed at UCL shows that there are still issues surrounding genetic tests, particularly those marketed directly to consumers. While direct-to-consumer DNA tests can have some benefits, at this time, they are not always the best option for individuals seeking information about their personal risk for hereditary diseases.
Speedy DNA sequencing and on-the-spot digital imaging may change the future of anatomic pathology procedures during surgery
Researchers at the Center for Molecular Medicine (CMM) at UMC Utrecht, a leading international university medical center in the Netherlands, have paired artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning with DNA sequencing to develop a diagnostic tool cancer surgeons can use during surgeries to determine in minutes—while the patient is still on the operating table—whether they have fully removed all the cancerous tissue.
The method, “involves a computer scanning segments of a tumor’s DNA and alighting on certain chemical modifications that can yield a detailed diagnosis of the type and even subtype of the brain tumor,” according to The New York Times, which added, “That diagnosis, generated during the early stages of an hours-long surgery, can help surgeons decide how aggressively to operate, … In the future, the method may also help steer doctors toward treatments tailored for a specific subtype of tumor.”
This technology has the potential to reduce the need for frozen sections, should additional development and studies confirm that it accurately and reliably shows surgeons that all cancerous cells were fully removed. Many anatomic pathologists would welcome such a development because of the time pressure and stress associated with this procedure. Pathologists know that the patient is still in surgery and the surgeons are waiting for the results of the frozen section. Most pathologists would consider fewer frozen sections—with better patient outcomes—to be an improvement in patient care.
“It’s imperative that the tumor subtype is known at the time of surgery,” Jeroen de Ridder, PhD (above), associate professor in the Center for Molecular Medicine at UMC Utrecht and one of the study leaders, told The New York Times. “What we have now uniquely enabled is to allow this very fine-grained, robust, detailed diagnosis to be performed already during the surgery. It can figure out itself what it’s looking at and make a robust classification,” he added. How this discovery affects the role of anatomic pathologists and pathology laboratories during cancer surgeries remains to be seen. (Photo copyright: UMC Utrecht.)
Rapid DNA Sequencing Impacts Brain Tumor Surgeries
The UMC Utrecht scientists employed Oxford Nanopore’s “real-time DNA sequencing technology to address the challenges posed by central nervous system (CNS) tumors, one of the most lethal type of tumor, especially among children,” according to an Oxford Nanopore news release.
The researchers called their new machine learning AI application the “Sturgeon.”
According to The New York Times, “The new method uses a faster genetic sequencing technique and applies it only to a small slice of the cellular genome, allowing it to return results before a surgeon has started operating on the edges of a tumor.”
Jeroen de Ridder, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Molecular Medicine at UMC Utrecht, told The New York Times that Sturgeon is “powerful enough to deliver a diagnosis with sparse genetic data, akin to someone recognizing an image based on only 1% of its pixels, and from an unknown portion of the image.” Ridder is also a principal investigator at the Oncode Institute, an independent research center in the Netherlands.
The researchers tested Sturgeon during 25 live brain surgeries and compared the results to an anatomic pathologist’s standard method of microscope tissue examination. “The new approach delivered 18 correct diagnoses and failed to reach the needed confidence threshold in the other seven cases. It turned around its diagnoses in less than 90 minutes, the study reported—short enough for it to inform decisions during an operation,” The New York Times reported.
But there were issues. Where the minute samples contain healthy brain tissue, identifying an adequate number of tumor markers could become problematic. Under those conditions, surgeons can ask an anatomic pathologist to “flag the [tissue samples] with the most tumor for sequencing, said PhD candidate Marc Pagès-Gallego, a bioinformatician at UMC Utrecht and a co-author of the study,” The New York Times noted.
“Implementation itself is less straightforward than often suggested,” Sebastian Brandner, MD, a professor of neuropathology at University College London, told The Times. “Sequencing and classifying tumor cells often still required significant expertise in bioinformatics as well as workers who are able to run, troubleshoot, and repair the technology,” he added.
“Brain tumors are also the most well-suited to being classified by the chemical modifications that the new method analyzes; not all cancers can be diagnosed that way,” The Times pointed out.
Thus, the research continues. The new method is being applied to other surgical samples as well. The study authors said other facilities are utilizing the method on their own surgical tissue samples, “suggesting that it can work in other people’s hands.” But more work is needed, The Times reported.
UMC Utrecht Researchers Receive Hanarth Grant
To expand their research into the Sturgeon’s capabilities, the UMC Utrecht research team recently received funds from the Hanarth Fonds, which was founded in 2018 to “promote and enhance the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve the diagnosis, treatment, and outcome of patients with cancer,” according to the organization’s website.
The researchers will investigate ways the Sturgeon AI algorithm can be used to identify tumors of the central nervous system during surgery, a UMC Utrecht news release states. These type of tumors, according to the researchers, are difficult to examine without surgery.
“This poses a challenge for neurosurgeons. They have to operate on a tumor without knowing what type of tumor it is. As a result, there is a chance that the patient will need another operation,” said de Ridder in the news release.
The Sturgeon application solves this problem. It identifies the “exact type of tumor during surgery. This allows the appropriate surgical strategy to be applied immediately,” the news release notes.
The Hanarth funds will enable Jeroen and his team to develop a variant of the Sturgeon that uses “cerebrospinal fluid instead of (part of) the tumor. This will allow the type of tumor to be determined already before surgery. The main challenge is that cerebrospinal fluid contains a mixture of tumor and normal DNA. AI models will be trained to take this into account.”
The UMC Utrecht scientists’ breakthrough is another example of how organizations and research groups are working to shorten time to answer, compared to standard anatomic pathology methods. They are combining developing technologies in ways that achieve these goals.
Already-existing clinical laboratory blood test may be new standard for detecting Alzheimer’s biomarkers
In Sweden, an independent study of an existing blood test for Alzheimer’s disease—called ALZpath—determined that this diagnostic assay appears to be “just as good as, if not surpass, lumbar punctures and expensive brain scans at detecting signs of Alzheimer’s in the brain,” according to a report published by The Guardian.
Alzheimer’s disease is one of the worst forms of dementia and it affects more than six million people annually according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Clinical laboratory testing to diagnose the illness traditionally involves painful, invasive spinal taps and brain scans. For that reason, researchers from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden wanted to evaluate the performance of the ALZpath test when compared to these other diagnostic procedures.
Motivated to seek a less costly, less painful, Alzheimer’s biomarker for clinical laboratory testing, neuroscientist Nicholas Ashton, PhD, Assistant Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, led a team of scientists that looked at other common biomarkers used to identify changes in the brain of Alzheimer’s patients. That led them to tau protein-based blood tests and specifically to the ALZpath blood test for Alzheimer’s disease developed by ALZpath, Inc., of Carlsbad, Calif.
In their JAMA article, they wrote, “the pTau217 immunoassay showed similar accuracies to cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in identifying abnormal amyloid β (Aβ) and tau pathologies.”
In an earlier article published in medRxiv, Ashton et al wrote, “Phosphorylated tau (pTau) is a specific blood biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, with pTau217 considered to have the most utility. However, availability of pTau217 tests for research and clinical use has been limited.”
Thus, the discovery of an existing pTau217 assay (ALZpath) that is accessible and affordable is a boon to Alzheimer’s patients and to the doctors who treat them.
“The ALZpath pTau217 assay showed high diagnostic accuracy in identifying elevated amyloid (AUC, 0.92-0.96; 95%CI 0.89-0.99) and tau (AUC, 0.93-0.97; 95%CI 0.84-0.99) in the brain across all cohorts. These accuracies were significantly higher than other plasma biomarker combinations and equivalent to CSF [cerebrospinal fluid] biomarkers,” an ALZpath press release noted.
“This is an instrumental finding in blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s, paving the way for the clinical use of the ALZpath pTau217 assay,” stated Henrik Zetterberg, MD, PhD (above), Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg and co-author of the study. “This robust assay is already used in multiple labs around the globe.” Clinical laboratories may soon be receiving doctors’ orders for pTau217 blood tests for Alzheimer’s patients. (Photo copyright: University of Gothenburg.)
Study Details
Ashton’s team conducted a cohort study that “examined data from three single-center observational cohorts.” The cohorts included:
“Participants included individuals with and without cognitive impairment grouped by amyloid and tau (AT) status using PET or CSF biomarkers. Data were analyzed from February to June 2023,” the researchers wrote.
These trials from the US, Canada, and Spain featured 786 participants and featured “either a lumbar puncture or an amyloid PET scan to identify signs of amyloid and tau proteins—hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease,” The Guardian reported, adding that results of the University of Gothenburg’s study showed that the ALZpath pTau217 blood test “was superior to brain atrophy assessments, in identifying signs of Alzheimer’s.”
“80% of individuals could be definitively diagnosed on a blood test without any other investigation,” Ashton told The Guardian.
Diagnosis Needed to Receive Alzheimer’s Disease Treatments
“If you’re going to receive [the new drugs], you need to prove that you have amyloid in the brain,” Ashton told The Guardian. “It’s just impossible to do spinal taps and brain scans on everyone that would need it worldwide. So, this is where the blood test [has] a huge potential.”
Even countries where such drugs were not yet available (like the UK) would benefit, Ashton said, because the test, “Could potentially say that this is not Alzheimer’s disease and it could be another type of dementia, which would help to direct the patient’s management and treatment routine.”
However, Ashton himself noted the limitations of the new findings—specifically that there is no success shown yet in Alzheimer’s drugs being taken by symptom-free individuals.
“If you do have amyloid in the brain at 50 years of age, the blood test will be positive,” he said. “But what we recommend, and what the guidelines recommend with these blood tests, is that these are to help clinicians—so someone must have had some objective concern that they have Alzheimer’s disease, or [that] their memory is declining,” he told The Guardian.
Experts on the Study Findings
“Blood tests could be used to screen everyone over 50-years old every few years, in much the same way as they are now screened for high cholesterol,” David Curtis, MD, PhD, Honorary Professor in the Genetics, Evolution and Environment department at University College London, told The Guardian.
“Results from these tests could be clear enough to not require further follow-up investigations for some people living with Alzheimer’s disease, which could speed up the diagnosis pathway significantly in future,” Richard Oakley, PhD, Associate Director of Research and Innovation at the Alzheimer’s Society, UK, told The Guardian.
Though Oakley found the findings promising, he pointed out what should come next. “We still need to see more research across different communities to understand how effective these blood tests are across everyone who lives with Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.
“Expanding access to this highly accurate Alzheimer’s disease biomarker is crucial for wider evaluation and implementation of AD blood tests,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Neurology.
“ALZpath makers are in discussions with labs in the UK to launch it for clinical use this year, and one of the co-authors, Henrik Zetterberg, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, is making the assay available for research use as part of the ‘biomarker factory’ at UCL,” The Guardian reported.
In the US, to be prescribed any of the available Alzheimer’s medications, a doctor must diagnose that the patient has amyloid in the brain. A pTau217 diagnostic blood test could be used to make such a diagnosis. Currently, however, the test is only available “for research studies through select partner labs,” Time reported.
“But later this month, doctors in the US will be able to order the test for use with patients. (Some laboratory-developed tests performed by certain certified labs don’t require clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration.),” Time added.
It may be that the University of Gothenburg study will encourage Alzheimer’s doctors in the UK and around the world to consider ordering pTau217 diagnostic blood tests from clinical laboratories, rather than prescribing spinal taps and brains scans for their Alzheimer’s patients.
Clinical laboratory managers should note that this company’s new diagnostic offering involving screening embryos for specific genetic conditions is not without controversy
Is the world ready for whole genome sequencing (WGS) of preimplantation embryos to help couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments know if their embryos have potential genetic health problems? Orchid Health, a clinical preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) laboratory that conducts genetic screening in San Francisco, believes the answer is yes! But the cost is high, and the process is not without controversy.
According to an article in Science, Orchid’s service—a sequencings of the whole human genome of preimplantation embryos at $2,500 per embryo tested—“will look not just for single-gene mutations that cause disorders such as cystic fibrosis, but also more extensively for medleys of common and rare gene variants known to predispose people to neurodevelopmental disorders, severe obesity, and certain psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia.”
However, Science also noted that some genomics researchers “claim the company inappropriately uses their data to generate some of its risk estimates,” adding that the “Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC), an international group of more than 800 researchers working to decode the genetic and molecular underpinnings of mental health conditions, says Orchid’s new test relies on data [PGC] produced over the past decade, and that the company has violated restrictions against the data’s use for embryo screening.”
There are some who assert that a whole genome sequence of an embryo—given today’s state of genetic technology and knowledge—could generate information that cannot be interpreted accurately in ways that help parents and doctors make informed prenatal testing decisions. At the same time, criticisms expressed by the PGC raise reasonable points.
Perhaps this is a sign of the times. Orchid Health is the latest genetic testing company that is looking to get ahead of genetic testing competitors with its diagnostics offerings. Meanwhile, knowledgeable and credible experts question the appropriateness of this testing, given the genetic knowledge that exists today.
“This is a major advance in the amount of information parents can have,” Orchid’s founder and CEO Noor Siddiqui (above) told CNBC. “The way that you can use that information is really up to you, but it gives a lot more control and confidence into a process that, for all of history, has just been totally left to chance.” Should Orchid Health’s analysis prove useful, pediatricians could order further clinical laboratory prenatal testing to confirm and diagnose potential genetic diseases for parents. (Photo copyright: General Assembly.)
Orchid Receives World-class Support
Regardless of the pushback from some genetic researchers, Orchid has attracted several world-class geneticists and genetics investors to its board of advisors. They include:
Jacques Cohen, PhD, embryologist, co-founder and former director for genetics laboratory Reprogenetics LLC (now CooperGenomics).
Anne Wojcicki, co-founder and CEO of direct-to-consumer genetic testing company 23andMe.
and others.
The WGS test, according to Orchid, detects genetic errors in embryos that are linked to severe illnesses before a pregnancy even begins. And by sequencing 99% of an embryo’s DNA, the test can spot potential health risks that could affect a future baby.
According to its website, the PGT lab company uses the WGS data to identify both monogenic (single-gene) and polygenic (multiple-gene) diseases, including:
Orchid is not without its critics. Knowledgeable, credible experts have questioned the appropriateness of this type of genetic testing. They fear it could become a modern-day form of eugenics.
Andrew McQuillin, PhD, Professor of Molecular Psychiatry at University College London, has concerns about Orchid’s preimplantation genetic testing. He maintains that it is difficult to control how such data is used, and that even the most accurate sequencing techniques do not predict disease risk very well.
“[Polygenic risk scores are] useful in the research context, but at the individual level, they’re not actually terribly useful to predict who’s going to develop schizophrenia or not,” McQuillin told Science. “We can come up with guidance on how these things should be used. The difficulty is that official guidance like that doesn’t feature anywhere in the marketing from these companies.”
McQuillin also stated that researchers must have an extensive discussion regarding the implications of this type of embryo screening.
“We need to take a look at whether this is really something we should be doing. It’s the type of thing that, if it becomes widespread, in 40 years’ time, we will ask, ‘What on Earth have we done?’” McQuillin emphasized.
Redefining Reproduction
It takes about three weeks for couples to receive their report back from Orchid after completing the whole genome sequence of a preimplantation embryo. A board-certified genetic counselor then consults with the parents to help them understand the results.
Founder and CEO Noor Siddiqui hopes Orchid will be able to scale up its operations and introduce more automation to the testing process to the cost per embryo.
“We want to make this something that’s accessible to everyone,” she told CNBC.
“I think this has the potential to totally redefine reproduction,” she added. “I just think that’s really exciting to be able to make people more confident about one of the most important decisions of their life, and to give them a little bit more control.”
Clinical laboratories have long been involved in prenatal screening to gain insight into risk levels associated with certain genetic disorders. Even some of that testing comes with controversy and ambiguous findings. Whether Orchid Health’s PGT process delivers accurate, reliable diagnostic insights regarding preimplantation embryos remains to be seen.
As 3D printing technology gains acceptance with pharmaceutical companies, clinical laboratories could see increased demand for pharmacogenomic testing
Will physicians someday “print” prescription drugs for patients in-office? It sounds like science fiction, but research being conducted at the University College London (UCL) indicates the capability may be closer than we think, and it could bring about a new type of collaboration between clinical laboratories, ordering physicians, and pharmacies.
UCL’s new 3D technique, which it calls “volumetric 3D printing,” is intended to enable the pharmaceutical industry to tailor drug dosage, shape/size, and release to an individual patient’s needs and preference. A key element of precision medicine.
According to GlobalData Healthcare, 3D printing also can “significantly reduce cost, wastes, and economic burden as printers only deposit the exact amount of raw materials required.”
3D printing may enable pharmaceutical companies to address gender and racial disparities in prescription drug manufacturing through a developing technology that could have implications for clinical laboratory testing. Fred Parietti, PhD (above), co-founder and CEO of Multiply Labs, a technology company that develops robotics for precision medicine pharmaceuticals, told 3D Natives, “Currently, medications are developed especially for white adult men, which means that all women and children have an excessive prescription for their bodies. This fact underlines the importance of the advent of personalized medicines, as well as highlighting the individuality of each patient, since the error in the dosage of certain active ingredients can even lead to the malfunctioning of some treatments.” (Photo copyright: Multiply Labs.)
.
Increased Demand for Pharmacogenomic Testing
Though 3D printing of prescription drugs is not directly in the clinical laboratory/pathology space, it is noteworthy because it shows how technological advancements are progressing that actualize the ability to deliver precision medicine care to individual patients.
In turn, this could increase physician/patient demand for pharmacogenomic tests performed by clinical laboratories. The test results would be used by treating physicians to determine proper dosages for their individual patients prior to ordering 3D-printed drugs.
Being able to provide medication tailored to patients’ specific needs could bring about a revolution in pharmaceutical manufacturing. If 3D printed prescription drugs become mainstream, the demands could affect the clinical laboratory and pathology industries as well.
How Far Are We from Mass Production of 3D Printed Drugs?
The first and only 3D printed pharmaceutical drug on the American market is Spritam (levetiracetam) an anti-epileptic drug developed by Aprecia Pharmaceuticals, according to Medical Device Network. It received FDA clearance under the name Keppra in 1999.
Headquartered in Blue Ash, Ohio, Aprecia’s patented ZipDose manufacturing process allows 3D-printed pills to hold a larger dosage and dissolve rapidly. They currently have the only FDA process-validated 3D printing platform for commercial-scale drug production. They are leading the way on this new 3D technology and others are following suit.
FabRx, a start-up 3D printing company developed by academic researchers in 2014 at the University College London, released its first pharmaceutical 3D printer for personalized medicine called M3DIMAKER according to LabioTech.eu. The system is “controlled by specialized software, allowing the selection of the required dose by the pharmacist according to the prescription given by the clinician,” the company’s website notes.
The technology also allows for additional customization of pills, including the application of Braille for visually impaired patients, and printing of Polypills, which combine more than one drug into a single pill.
Other company’s developing 3D printing of pharmaceuticals, according to LabioTech.eu, include:
Germany’s Merck: currently in clinical trials of 3D printing medication with the goal of reaching large scale production.
China’s Triastek: which holds “41 patents that account for more than 20% of global 3D printing pharmaceuticals applications.”
We are still far away from large scale production of drugs using 3D printing, but that doesn’t mean it should not be on clinical laboratory leaders’ radar.
The rise of 3D printing technology for precision medicine could lead to big changes in the pharmaceutical world and alter how patients, providers, and clinical laboratories interact. It also could increase demand for pharmacogenomic testing to determine the best dosage for individual patients. This breakthrough shows how one line of technology research and development may, as it reaches clinical use, engage clinical laboratories.
