The Ethical Complexity of Using Whole-Exome Sequencing to Detect Adult-Onset Conditions in the Prenatal and Pediatric Settings
The clinical relevance of whole-exome sequencing (WES) is unquestionable. In the prenatal setting, the standard testing process of reflexing from karyotype to microarray to single-gene disorders may take several weeks, leaving a family in prolonged turmoil and often without answers in time to make a decision about the pregnancy. WES provides a powerful amount of data more quickly and with a higher yield of diagnostic results, allowing a timelier plan for medical management and decision-making. However, while results that pertain specifically to the testing indication can be isolated, the potential for incidental findings or results that are unrelated to the original testing indication is significant. In 2013, ACMG published recommendations for reporting incidental or secondary findings, providing a list of 57 clinically actionable genes for which reporting should be obligatory. These recommendations were updated in 2015 to include the option to opt out of receiving all secondary findings. The list includes childhood-onset conditions, for which medical management would be immediately impacted. However, the list also includes adult-onset conditions such as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. Historically, decisions regarding genetic testing for these conditions have been left up to the individual until they reach the age of consent. While the 2015 recommendations are an improvement over the 2013 recommendations insofar as they allow an option to opt out of receiving secondary findings, the recommendations continue to have potentially troubling ethical consequences.
KeywordsExome sequencing Prenatal diagnosis Secondary findings Incidental findings Genetic testing Children Pediatric genetic testing Adult-onset conditions Right not to know Right to an open future
- American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Board of Directors. ACMG policy statement: points to consider in the clinical application of genomic sequencing. 2012. http://www.acmg.net/StaticContent/PPG/Clinical_Application_of_Genomic_Sequencing.pdf. Accessed 7 Aug 2017.
- Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
- Committee on Bioethics, Committee on Genetics, and The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Social, Ethical, and Legal Issues Committee. Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Pediatrics. 2013;131:620–2.Google Scholar
- Feinberg J. The child’s right to an open future. In: Aiken W, LaFollette H, editors. Whose child? Children’s rights, parental authority, and state power. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield; 1980. p. 124–53.Google Scholar
- Kohlmann W, Gruber SB. GeneReviews: lynch syndrome. 2004. https://wwwncbinlmnihgov/books/NBK1211/. Accessed 21 Aug 2017.
- Miller DT, et al. Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet. 2010;86:749–64.Google Scholar
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines: genetic/familial high risk-assessment: breast and ovarian. Version 22017. 2016a. https://wwwnccnorg/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screeningpdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2017.
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines: genetic/familial high risk-assessment: colorectal. Version 22016. 2016b. https://wwwnccnorg/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_colonpdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2017.
- National Society of Genetic Counselors. NSGC position statement: prenatal testing for adult-onset conditions. 2014. http://wwwnsgcorg/p/bl/et/blogaid=259. Accessed 7 Aug 2017.
- National Society of Genetic Counselors. NSGC position statement: genetic testing of minors for adult-onset conditions. 2017. http://wwwnsgcorg/p/bl/et/blogid=47&blogaid=860. Accessed 7 Aug 2017.
- Petrucelli N, et al. GeneReviews: BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. 1998. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1247/. Accessed 21 Aug 2017.
- Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Anticipate and communicate: ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts. 2013. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/FINALAnticipateCommunicate_PCSBI_0.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2017.
- Scheuner MT. Reporting genomic secondary findings: ACMG members weigh in. Genet Med. 2015;17(1):27–35.Google Scholar
- Shaffer LG. American College of Medical Genetics guideline on the cytogenetic evaluation of the individual with developmental delay or mental retardation. Genet Med. 2005;7(9):650–4.Google Scholar
- Shevell M, et al. Practice parameter: evaluation of the child with global developmental delay: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and The Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2003;60:367–80.Google Scholar
- The American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors and The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Board of Directors. Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am J Hum Genet. 1995;57:1233–41.Google Scholar
- Wilfond B, Friedman Ross L. From genetics to genomics: ethics, policy, and parental decision-making. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34(6):639–47.Google Scholar
- Xue Y, et al. Solving the molecular diagnostic testing conundrum for Mendelian disorders in the era of next-generation sequencing: single-gene, gene panel, or exome/genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2015;17(6):444–51.Google Scholar
- Yang Y, et al. Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of Mendelian disorders. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(16):1502–11.Google Scholar