Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Genetics Professionals’ Opinions of Whole-Genome Sequencing in the Newborn Period

  • PROFESSIONAL ISSUES
  • Published:
Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract

Newborn screening (NBS) programs have been successful in identifying infants with rare, treatable, congenital conditions. While current programs rely largely on biochemical analysis, some predict that in the future, genome sequencing may be used as an adjunct. The purpose of this exploratory pilot study was to begin to characterize genetics professionals’ opinions of the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in NBS. We surveyed members of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) via an electronic survey distributed through email. The survey included questions about results disclosure, the current NBS paradigm, and the current criteria for adding a condition to the screening panel. The response rate was 7.3 % (n = 113/1549). The majority of respondents (85 %, n = 96/113) felt that WGS should not be currently used in NBS, and that if it were used, it should not be mandatory (86.5 %, n = 96/111). However, 75.7 % (n = 84/111) foresee it as a future use of WGS. Respondents felt that accurate interpretation of results (86.5 %, n = 83/96), a more extensive consent process (72.6 %, n = 69/95), pre- (79.2 %, n = 76/96) and post-test (91.6 %, n = 87/95) counseling, and comparable costs (70.8 %, n = 68/96) and turn-around-times (64.6 %, n = 62/96) to current NBS would be important for using WGS in NBS. Participants were in favor of disclosing most types of results at some point in the lifetime. However, the majority (87.3 %, n = 96/110) also indicated that parents should be able to choose what results are disclosed. Overall, respondents foresee NBS as a future use of WGS, but indicated that WGS should not occur within the framework of traditional NBS. They agreed with the current criteria for including a condition on the recommended uniform screening panel (RUSP). Further discussion about these criteria is needed in order to better understand how they could be utilized if WGS is incorporated into NBS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACMG. (2013a). Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification. Genetics in Medicine, 8, 664–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • ACMG. (2013b). Mission Statement. Retrieved 19 November 2013, from https://www.acmg.net/ACMG/About_ACMG/Mission_Statement/ACMG/About_ACMG/Mission_Statement.aspx?hkey=473005e6-49fb-4604-84fc-31db71a6a368

  • ACMG. (2014). ACMG Updates Recommendation on “Opt Out” for Genome Sequencing Return of Results. Retrieved 1st July 2014, from https://www.acmg.net/docs/Release_ACMGUpdatesRecommendations_final.pdf

  • Andermann, A., Blancquaert, I., Beauchamp, S., & Dery, V. (2008). Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 4, 317–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCO. (2003). American society of clinical oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 12, 2397–2406.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASHG/ACMG. (1995). Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. American society of human genetics board of directors, American college of medical genetics board of directors. American Journal of Human Genetics, 5, 1233–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baars, M. J., Henneman, L., & Ten Kate, L. P. (2005). Deficiency of knowledge of genetics and genetic tests among general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians: a global problem. Genetics in Medicine, 9, 605–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J. S., Khoury, M. J., & Evans, J. P. (2011). Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine, 6, 499–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, B. A., Zayac, C., Gordon, E. S., Wawak, L., Pyeritz, R. E., & Gollust, S. E. (2012). Incorporating direct-to-consumer genomic information into patient care: attitudes and experiences of primary care physicians. Personalized Medicine, 7, 683–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bick, D., & Dimmock, D. (2011). Whole exome and whole genome sequencing. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 6, 594–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bombard, Y., Miller, F. A., Hayeems, R. Z., Wilson, B. J., Carroll, J. C., Paynter, M., et al. (2012). Health-care providers’ views on pursuing reproductive benefit through newborn screening: the case of sickle cell disorders. European Journal of Human Genetics, 5, 498–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bombard, Y., Miller, F. A., Hayeems, R. Z., Barg, C., Cressman, C., Carroll, J. C., et al. (2014). Public views on participating in newborn screening using genome sequencing. European Journal of Human Genetics. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calonge, N., Green, N. S., Rinaldo, P., Lloyd-Puryear, M., Dougherty, D., Boyle, C., et al. (2010). Committee report: method for evaluating conditions nominated for population-based screening of newborns and children. Genetics in Medicine, 3, 153–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CDC. (2012). CDC grand rounds: newborn screening and improved outcomes. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 21, 390–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K., Davis, J., Pai, S. Y., Bonilla, F. A., Puck, J. M., & Apkon, M. (2011). A Markov model to analyze cost-effectiveness of screening for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). Molecular Genetics and Metabolism, 3, 383–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, E. W. (2010). Currents in contemporary ethics. State run newborn screening in the genomic era, or how to avoid drowning when drinking from a fire hose. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 3, 697–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooksey, J. A., Forte, G., Benkendorf, J., & Blitzer, M. G. (2005). The state of the medical geneticist workforce: findings of the 2003 survey of American board of medical genetics certified geneticists. Genetics in Medicine, 6, 439–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, J., Coyle, F., Levy-Fisch, J., Roberts, P., Terry, S., & Legge, M. (2013). Screening criteria: the need to deal with new developments and ethical issues in newborn metabolic screening. Journal of Community Genetics, 1, 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, A. J., & Sharp, R. R. (2012). The ethical hazards and programmatic challenges of genomic newborn screening. JAMA, 5, 461–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, A. J., Dodson, D. S., Davis, M. M., & Tarini, B. A. (2013). Parents’ interest in whole-genome sequencing of newborns. Genetics in Medicine, 16, 78–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Berry, G. T., Biesecker, L. G., Dimmock, D. P., Evans, J. P., et al. (2012). Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 405–410.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Grody, W. W., Kalia, S. S., Korf, B. R., Martin, C. L., et al. (2013). ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 7, 565–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HHS. (2009). “GINA” The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008: Information for Researchers and Health Care Professionals.

  • Jamal, S. M., Yu, J. H., Chong, J. X., Dent, K. M., Conta, J. H., Tabor, H. K., et al. (2013). Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: analysis and implications. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 5, 935–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoppers, B. M., Senecal, K., Borry, P., & Avard, D. (2014). Whole-genome sequencing in newborn screening programs. Sci Transl Med, 229, 229 cm222.

  • Landau, Y. E., Lichter-Konecki, U., & Levy, H. L. (2014). Genomics in newborn screening. The Journal of Pediatrics, 1, 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, P. A. (2010). An overview of newborn screening. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 7, 622–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, H. L. (2014). Newborn screening: the genomic challenge. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine, 2, 81–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mandl, K. D., Feit, S., Larson, C., & Kohane, I. S. (2002). Newborn screening program practices in the United States: notification, research, and consent. Pediatrics, 2, 269–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NIH. (2012). Genomic Sequencing and Newborn Screening Disorders Request for Applications: Department of Health and Human Services.

  • NSGC. (1997). Position Statements: Genetic Testing of Minors for Adult-Onset Conditions.

  • Sharp, R. R. (2011). Downsizing genomic medicine: approaching the ethical complexity of whole-genome sequencing by starting small. Genetics in Medicine, 3, 191–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarini, B. A., & Goldenberg, A. J. (2012). Ethical issues with newborn screening in the genomics Era. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 13, 381–393.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wetterstrand, K.A. (2011). DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Large-Scale Genome Sequencing Program Available at: www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts.

  • Wilson, J. M. G., & Jungner, G. (1968). Principles and practice of screening for disease. France: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zytkovicz, T. H., Fitzgerald, E. F., Marsden, D., Larson, C. A., Shih, V. E., Johnson, D. M., et al. (2001). Tandem mass spectrometric analysis for amino, organic, and fatty acid disorders in newborn dried blood spots: a two-year summary from the New England newborn screening program. Clinical Chemistry, 11, 1945–1955.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by a grant from the National Society of Genetic Counselors Public Health Special Interest Group.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Genetic Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Elizabeth Ulm, Joel Charrow & Catherine Wicklund

  2. Maine-Dartmouth Family Medicine Residency, Augusta, ME, USA

    W. Gregory Feero

  3. University of Illinois Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Richard Dineen

  4. Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Joel Charrow

  5. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave., MLC 7016, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA

    Elizabeth Ulm

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Ulm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. Gregory Feero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard Dineen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joel Charrow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catherine Wicklund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Ulm.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 37 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ulm, E., Feero, W.G., Dineen, R. et al. Genetics Professionals’ Opinions of Whole-Genome Sequencing in the Newborn Period. J Genet Counsel 24, 452–463 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9779-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9779-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation