Cynthia Marion Powell

Dr. Cynthia Marion Powell

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 May 2016 in Genetics in Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JBJonathan S. Berg
Jonathan S. Berg
AFAnn Katherine M. Foreman
Ann Katherine M. Foreman
JOJulianne O'Daniel
Julianne O'Daniel
JBJessica K. Booker
Jessica K. Booker
LBLacey Boshe
Lacey Boshe
JEJames P. Evans
James P. Evans
As genome-scale sequencing is increasingly applied in clinical scenarios, a wide variety of genomic findings will be discovered as secondary or incidental findings, and there is debate about how they should be handled. The clinical actionability of such findings varies, necessitating standardized frameworks for a priori decision making about their analysis. We established a semiquantitative metric to assess five elements of actionability: severity and likelihood of the disease outcome, efficacy and burden of intervention, and knowledge base, with a total score from 0 to 15. The semiquantitative metric was applied to a list of putative actionable conditions, the list of genes recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) for return when deleterious variants are discovered as secondary/incidental findings, and a random sample of 1,000 genes. Scores from the list of putative actionable conditions (median = 12) and the ACMG list (median = 11) were both statistically different than the randomly selected genes (median = 7) (P < 0.0001, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test). Gene-disease pairs having a score of 11 or higher represent the top quintile of actionability. The semiquantitative metric effectively assesses clinical actionability, promotes transparency, and may facilitate assessments of clinical actionability by various groups and in diverse contexts.Genet Med 18 5, 467-475.

13 June 2008 in American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DSDemetra S. Stamm
Demetra S. Stamm
AAArthur S. Aylsworth
Arthur S. Aylsworth
JSJeffrey M. Stajich
Jeffrey M. Stajich
SKStephen G. Kahler
Stephen G. Kahler
LTLeigh B. Thorne
Leigh B. Thorne
CPCynthia Marion Powell
Cynthia Marion Powell

17 July 2019 in BMC Pediatrics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DBDonald Bailey
Donald Bailey
LGLisa M. Gehtland
Lisa M. Gehtland
MLMegan A. Lewis
Megan A. Lewis
HPHolly Landrum Peay
Holly Landrum Peay
MRMelissa Raspa
Melissa Raspa
SZScott J. Zimmerman
Scott J. Zimmerman
Newborn screening (NBS) occupies a unique space at the intersection of translational science and public health. As the only truly population-based public health program in the United States, NBS offers the promise of making the successes of translational medicine available to every infant with a rare disorder that is difficult to diagnose clinically, but for which strong evidence indicates that presymptomatic treatment will substantially improve outcomes. Realistic NBS policy requires data, but rare disorders face a special challenge: Screening cannot be done without supportive data, but adequate data cannot be collected in the absence of large-scale screening. The magnitude and scale of research to provide this expanse of data require working with public health programs, but most do not have the resources or mandate to conduct research. To address this gap, we have established Early Check, a research program in partnership with a state NBS program. Early Check provides the infrastructure needed to identify conditions for which there have been significant advances in treatment potential, but require a large-scale, population-based study to test benefits and risks, demonstrate feasibility, and inform NBS policy. Our goal is to prove the benefits of a program that can, when compared with current models, accelerate understanding of diseases and treatments, reduce the time needed to consider inclusion of appropriate conditions in the standard NBS panel, and accelerate future research on new NBS conditions, including clinical trials for investigational interventions. Clinicaltrials.gov registration # NCT03655223 . Registered on August 31, 2018.

28 June 2018 in Trials
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
LMLaura Vogel Milko
Laura Vogel Milko
CRChristine Rini
Christine Rini
MLMegan A. Lewis
Megan A. Lewis
RBRita M. Butterfield
Rita M. Butterfield
FLFENG-CHANG LIN
FENG-CHANG LIN
CPCynthia Marion Powell
Cynthia Marion Powell
Using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in newborn screening (NBS) could expand the number of genetic conditions detected pre-symptomatically, simultaneously challenging current precedents, raising ethical concerns, and extending the role of parental decision-making in NBS. The NC NEXUS (Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening) study seeks to assess the technical possibilities and limitations of NGS-NBS, devise and evaluate a framework to convey various types of genetic information, and develop best practices for incorporating NGS-NBS into clinical care. The study is enrolling both a healthy cohort and a cohort diagnosed with known disorders identified through recent routine NBS. It uses a novel age-based metric to categorize a priori the large amount of data generated by NGS-NBS and interactive online decision aids to guide parental decision-making. Primary outcomes include: (1) assessment of NGS-NBS sensitivity, (2) decision regret, and (3) parental decision-making about NGS-NBS, and, for parents randomized to have the option of requesting them, additional findings (diagnosed and healthy cohorts). Secondary outcomes assess parents' reactions to the study and to decision-making. Participants are parents and children in a well-child cohort recruited from a prenatal clinic and a diagnosed cohort recruited from pediatric clinics that treat children with disorders diagnosed through traditional NBS (goal of 200 children in each cohort). In phase 1, all parent participants use an online decision aid to decide whether to accept NGS-NBS for their child and provide consent for NGS-NBS. In phase 2, parents who consent to NGS-NBS are randomized to a decision arm or control arm (2:1 allocation) and learn their child's NGS-NBS results, which include conditions from standard (non-NGS) NBS plus other highly actionable childhood-onset conditions. Parents in the decision arm use a second decision aid to make decisions about additional results from their child's sequencing. In phase 3, decision arm participants learn additional results they have requested. Online questionnaires are administered at up to five time points. NC NEXUS will use a rigorous interdisciplinary approach designed to collect rich data to inform policy, practice, and future research. clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02826694 . Registered on 11 July, 2016.

5 October 2015 in Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JBJonathan S. Berg
Jonathan S. Berg
CPCynthia Marion Powell
Cynthia Marion Powell
Since newborn screening (NBS) began in the 1960s, technological advances have enabled its expansion to include an increasing number of disorders. Recent developments now make it possible to sequence an infant’s genome relatively quickly and economically. Clinical application of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing is expanding at a rapid pace but presents many challenges. Its utility in NBS has yet to be demonstrated and its application in the pediatric population requires examination, not only for potential clinical benefits, but also for the unique ethical challenges it presents.

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KKKaterina Kucera
Katerina Kucera
JTJennifer Taylor
Jennifer Taylor
VRVeronica R. Robles
Veronica R. Robles
KCKristin Clinard
Kristin Clinard
BMBrooke Migliore
Brooke Migliore
LGLisa M. Gehtland
Lisa M. Gehtland
Prior to statewide newborn screening (NBS) for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in North Carolina, U.S.A., we offered voluntary screening through the Early Check (EC) research study. Here, we describe the EC experience from October 2018 through December 2020. We enrolled a total of 12,065 newborns and identified one newborn with 0 copies of SMN1 and two copies of SMN2, consistent with severe early onset of SMA. We also detected one false positive result, likely stemming from an unrelated blood disorder associated with a low white blood cell count. We evaluated the timing of NBS for babies enrolled prenatally (n = 932) and postnatally (n = 11,133) and reasons for delays in screening and reporting. Although prenatal enrollment led to faster return of results (median = 13 days after birth), results for babies enrolled postnatally were still available within a timeframe (median = 21 days after birth) that allowed the opportunity to receive essential treatment early in life. We evaluated an SMA q-PCR screening method at two separate time points, confirming the robustness of the assay. The pilot project provided important information about SMA screening in anticipation of forthcoming statewide expansion as part of regular NBS.