Prenatal Whole Genome Sequencing: An Argument for Professional Self-Regulation

Implementing Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing: Should Parents Have Access to Any and All Fetal Genetic Information?

Prenatal genetic testing is becoming available for an increasingly broad set of diseases, and it is only a matter of time before parents can choose to test for hundreds, if not thousands, of genetic conditions in their fetuses. Should access to certain kinds of fetal genetic information be limited, and if so, on what basis? We evaluate a range of considerations including reproductive autonomy, parental rights, disability rights, and the rights and interests of the fetus as a potential future child. We conclude that parents should be able to access information that could be useful during pregnancy, but that testing for non-medical information should be limited. Next, we argue that the government lacks a compelling state interest in regulating prenatal genetic testing and propose that regulation should occur through medical professional organizations. Finally, we present a framework for determining what testing physicians should recommend, offer neutrally, or not offer at all.

The fetus in the age of the genome

Due to a number of recent achievements, the field of prenatal medicine is now on the verge of a profound transformation into prenatal genomic medicine. This transformation is expected to not only substantially expand the spectrum of prenatal diagnostic and screening possibilities, but finally also to advance fetal care and the prenatal management of certain fetal diseases and malformations. It will come along with new and profound challenges for the normative framework and clinical care pathways in prenatal (and reproductive) medicine. To adequately address the potential ethically challenging aspects without discarding the obvious benefits, several agents are required to engage in different debates. The permissibility of the sequencing of the whole fetal exome or genome will have to be examined from a philosophical and legal point of view, in particular with regard to conflicts with potential rights of future children. A second requirement is a societal debate on the question of priority setting and justice in relation to prenatal genomic testing. Third, a professional-ethical debate and positioning on the goal of prenatal genomic testing and a consequential re-structuring of clinical care pathways seems to be important. In all these efforts, it might be helpful to envisage the unborn rather not as a fetus, not as a separate moral subject and a second "patient", but in its unique physical connection with the pregnant woman, and to accept the moral quandaries implicitly given in this situation.

Die Rechte zukünftiger Kinder im Kontext pränataler Diagnostik

Das Gendiagnostikgesetz (GenDG) verbietet seit 2010 die pränatale Diagnostik spätmanifestierender Erkrankungen (§ 15(2) GenDG). In seiner Begründung bezog sich der Gesetzgeber in Analogie zu internationalen Empfehlungen für den pädiatrischen Bereich vor allem auf das Recht des heranwachsenden Kindes bzw. des späteren Erwachsenen auf Nichtwissen. Mit diesem gesetzlichen Verbot hat Deutschland einen viel diskutierten Sonderweg in der Regulierung genetischer Pränataldiagnostik eingeschlagen. Seither jedoch hat sich nicht nur die Perspektive auf prädiktive Testungen im Kindesalter verändert. In zunehmendem Maße generieren auf das gesamte Genom abzielende Diagnostikangebote auch andere vorgeburtlich genetische Informationen, die – in ähnlicher Weise wie diejenigen zu spätmanifestierenden Erkrankungen eine potenzielle Gefahr für das Recht auf Nichtwissen der späteren Person darstellen. Es soll daher im Rahmen dieses Beitrages überprüft werden, inwiefern das deutsche Diagnostikverbot und dessen Bezug auf das Recht auf Nichtwissen des späteren Kindes eine tragfähige Basis zur Regulierung gendiagnostischer Untersuchungen in der Pränatalmedizin insgesamt darstellt bzw. zukünftig darstellen kann.

Untersucht wird der Argumentationsgang des Diagnostikverbotes im Hinblick auf spätmanifestierende Erkrankungen vor dem Hintergrund der Entwicklungen in der prädiktiven (genomischen) Diagnostik. Eine Analyse des normativen Begründungsrahmens zeigt, dass nach wie vor deutlicher Klärungsbedarf hinsichtlich der philosophisch-ethischen Fundierung wie auch hinsichtlich der Interpretation eines Rechts auf Nichtwissen eines (zukünftigen) Kindes im Kontext von genetischer Diagnostik besteht. Darüber hinaus müssen auch Interessen des (zukünftigen) Kindes an eventuell möglich werdender pränataler Behandlung oder Prävention von Erkrankungen in die Abwägung miteinbezogen werden.

Um zukünftigen Herausforderungen genomischer Pränataldiagnostik und -therapie begegnen zu können, müsste dringend geklärt werden, inwiefern Rechte zukünftiger Personen tatsächlich in der speziellen Situation der Schwangerschaft relevant sein können und mit welchen Pflichten diese für den Gesetzgeber, aber insbesondere auch für zukünftige Eltern und Ärzte einhergehen. Der Menschenrechtsdiskurs könnte hierfür eine tragfähige Basis und hilfreiche Strategien liefern.

Clinical application of medical exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical application of medical exome sequencing (MES) for prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases related to fetal structural anomalies detected by prenatal ultrasound examination.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 105 fetuses with structural anomalies were negative results in both Quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). Then trio-based MES was further used for identifying the potential monogenic diseases in these fetuses. Coding regions and known pathogenic non-coding regions of over 4000 disease-related genes were interrogated, and variants were classified following the guidelines of American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG).

RESULTS

The 105 fetuses with structural anomalies were categorized into 12 phenotypic groups. A definitive diagnosis was achieved in 19% (20/105) of the cases, with the identification of 21 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 14 genes. The proportion of patients with diagnostic genetic variants varied between the phenotypic groups, with the highest diagnostic yield in the cardiovascular abnormalities (44%), followed by the skeletal and limb abnormalities (38%) and brain structural abnormalities (25%). In addition, 12 fetuses were detected variants of unknown significance (VOUS), while the relevance of phenotypes and variants would further evaluated.

CONCLUSION

MES can identify the underlying genetic cause in fetal structural anomalies. It can further assist the management of pregnancy and genetic counseling. It was demonstrated the importance of translating prenatal MES into clinical practice.

Just choice: a Danielsian analysis of the aims and scope of prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities

Developments in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) and cell-free fetal DNA analysis raise the possibility that antenatal services may soon be able to support couples in non-invasively testing for, and diagnosing, an unprecedented range of genetic disorders and traits coded within their unborn child's genome. Inevitably, this has prompted debate within the bioethics literature about what screening options should be offered to couples for the purpose of reproductive choice. In relation to this problem, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) and American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) tentatively recommend that any expansion of this type of screening, as facilitated by NIPT, should be limited to serious congenital and childhood disorders. In support of this recommendation, the ESHG and ASHG cite considerations of distribution justice. Notably, however, an account of justice in the organization and provision of this type of screening which might substantiate this recommendation has yet to be developed. This paper attempts to redress this oversight through an investigation of Norman Daniels' theory of Just health: meeting health needs fairly. In line with this aim, the paper examines what special moral importance (for Just health) screening for the purpose of reproductive choice might have where concerning serious congenital and childhood disorders in particular. The paper concludes that screening for reproductive choice where concerning serious congenital and childhood disorders may be important for providing women with fair opportunity to protect their health (by either having or not having an affected child).

Knowledge Gaps and Emerging Research Areas in Intrauterine Growth Restriction-Associated Brain Injury

Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) is a complex global healthcare issue. Concerted research and clinical efforts have improved our knowledge of the neurodevelopmental sequelae of IUGR which has raised the profile of this complex problem. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of therapies to prevent the substantial rates of fetal demise or the constellation of permanent neurological deficits that arise from IUGR. The purpose of this article is to highlight the clinical and translational gaps in our knowledge that hamper our collective efforts to improve the neurological sequelae of IUGR. Also, we draw attention to cutting-edge tools and techniques that can provide novel insights into this disorder, and technologies that offer the potential for better drug design and delivery. We cover topics including: how we can improve our use of crib-side monitoring options, what we still need to know about inflammation in IUGR, the necessity for more human post-mortem studies, lessons from improved integrated histology-imaging analyses regarding the cell-specific nature of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) signals, options to improve risk stratification with genomic analysis, and treatments mediated by nanoparticle delivery which are designed to modify specific cell functions.