The False-negative Phenotype

The Future of Newborn Genomic Testing

Genome sequencing (GS) provides exciting opportunities to rapidly identify a diagnosis in critically ill newborns and children with rare genetic conditions. Nevertheless, there are reasons to remain cautious about the use of GS. Studies to date have been mostly in highly selected populations of babies with unusual clinical presentations. GS leads to diagnoses in many such infants. More rarely, it leads to beneficial changes in management. Parents and physicians whose babies meet these criteria and for whom GS is performed both find these results useful. The concern is this: we do not know how useful such testing will be in the general population. We can speculate that a number of problems will arise as the use of GS expands. First, the percentage of cases in which a valid molecular diagnosis is made will likely go down. The number of ambiguous results or false positives will rise. Genetic counseling will become more complex and challenging. We do not know the relative cost-effectiveness of whole genome, whole exome, or targeted panels in different populations. We do not know the relative contribution of a molecular diagnosis to the decision to withdraw life support. We will have to carefully evaluate the use of such testing in order to understand whether it truly improves outcome and survival or reduces symptoms in babies who are tested. Each of these concerns will require careful study of both the technology and the ethical issues to allow us to harness the potential of these new technologies while avoiding foreseeable problems. Studies are underway to see how the tests are used in general populations. These studies should generate important information to guide clinicians and policymakers. As part of informed consent, doctors should explain to parents that genetic results are not always straightforward. Sometimes, they confirm a diagnosis that was already suspected. Sometimes, they rule out a possible diagnosis. Sometimes, the results are ambiguous and difficult to interpret. Anticipatory discussions should try to give parents a realistic understanding of the likely impact of a genetic diagnosis. Diagnostic genomic testing for newborns is a science that is still in its infancy. More research is essential in order to establish how to personalize this promising but sometimes problematic tool.

Next generation sequencing in neonatology: what does it mean for the next generation?

Rapid whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES), sometimes referred to as "next generation sequencing" (NGS) are now recommended by some experts as a first-line diagnostic test to diagnose infants with suspected monogenic conditions. Estimates of how often NGS leads to diagnoses or changes in management vary widely depending on the population being studied and the indications for testing. Finding a genetic variant that is classified as pathogenic may not necessarily equate with being able to predict the resultant phenotype or to give a reliable prognosis. Molecular diagnoses do not usually lead to changes in clinical management but they often end a family's diagnostic Odyssey and allow informed decisions about future reproductive choices. The likelihood that NGS will be beneficial for patients and families in the NICU remains uncertain. The goal of this paper is to highlight the implications of these ambiguities in interpreting the results of NGS. To do that, we will first review the types of cases that are admitted to NICUs and show why, at least in theory, NGS is unlikely to be useful for most NICU patients and families and may even be harmful for some, although it can help families in some cases. We then present a number of real cases in which NGS results were obtained and show that they often lead to unforeseen and unpredictable consequences. Finally, we will suggest ways to communicate with families about NGS testing and results in order to help them understand the meaning of NGS results and the uncertainty that surrounds them.

The full spectrum of ethical issues in pediatric genome-wide sequencing: a systematic qualitative review

Background

The use of genome-wide sequencing in pediatric medicine and research is growing exponentially. While this has many potential benefits, the normative and empirical literature has highlighted various ethical issues. There have not been, however, any systematic reviews of these issues. The aim of this systematic review is to determine systematically the spectrum of ethical issues that is raised for stakeholders in in pediatric genome-wide sequencing.

Methods

A systematic review in PubMed and Google Books (publications in English or German between 2004 and 2021) was conducted. Further references were identified via reference screening. Data were analyzed and synthesized using qualitative content analysis. Ethical issues were defined as arising when a relevant normative principle is not adequately considered or when two principles come into conflict.

Results

Our literature search retrieved 3175 publications of which 143 were included in the analysis. Together these mentioned 106 ethical issues in pediatric genome-wide sequencing, categorized into five themes along the pediatric genome-wide sequencing lifecycle. Most ethical issues identified in relation to genome-wide sequencing typically reflect ethical issues that arise in general genetic testing, but they are often amplified by the increased quantity of data obtained, and associated uncertainties. The most frequently discussed ethical aspects concern the issue of unsolicited findings.

Conclusion

Concentration of the debate on unsolicited findings risks overlooking other ethical challenges. An overarching difficulty presents the terminological confusion: both with regard to both the test procedure/ the scope of analysis, as well as with the topic of unsolicited findings. It is important that the genetics and ethics communities together with other medical professions involved work jointly on specific case related guidelines to grant the maximum benefit for the care of the children, while preventing patient harm and disproportionate overload of clinicians and the healthcare system by the wealth of available options and economic incentives to increase testing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-021-02830-w.