Literature DB >> 25348082

Genetics professionals' opinions of whole-genome sequencing in the newborn period.

Elizabeth Ulm1, W Gregory Feero, Richard Dineen, Joel Charrow, Catherine Wicklund.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25348082     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-014-9779-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  29 in total

1.  Health-care providers' views on pursuing reproductive benefit through newborn screening: the case of sickle cell disorders.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Fiona A Miller; Robin Z Hayeems; Brenda J Wilson; June C Carroll; Martha Paynter; Julian Little; Judith Allanson; Jessica P Bytautas; Pranesh Chakraborty
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  The state of the medical geneticist workforce: findings of the 2003 survey of American Board of Medical Genetics certified geneticists.

Authors:  Judith A Cooksey; Gaetano Forte; Judith Benkendorf; Miriam G Blitzer
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 3.  Genomics in newborn screening.

Authors:  Yuval E Landau; Uta Lichter-Konecki; Harvey L Levy
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2013-08-27       Impact factor: 4.406

4.  Newborn screening program practices in the United States: notification, research, and consent.

Authors:  Kenneth D Mandl; Shlomit Feit; Cecilia Larson; Isaac S Kohane
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  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.

Authors:  T H Zytkovicz; E F Fitzgerald; D Marsden; C A Larson; V E Shih; D M Johnson; A W Strauss; A M Comeau; R B Eaton; G F Grady
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 8.327

6.  Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: analysis and implications.

Authors:  Seema M Jamal; Joon-Ho Yu; Jessica X Chong; Karin M Dent; Jessie H Conta; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.802

7.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-04-11       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing.

Authors:  Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Gerard T Berry; Leslie G Biesecker; David P Dimmock; James P Evans; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri R Hegde; Sarah Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Ian Krantz; Amy L McGuire; David T Miller; Michael F Murray; Robert L Nussbaum; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; Howard J Jacob
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Screening criteria: the need to deal with new developments and ethical issues in newborn metabolic screening.

Authors:  John Forman; Fiona Coyle; Jill Levy-Fisch; Pat Roberts; Sharon Terry; Michael Legge
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2012-10-07
View more
  7 in total

1.  Whole-Genome Sequencing in Newborn Screening-Attitudes and Opinions of Bulgarian Pediatricians and Geneticists.

Authors:  Georgi Iskrov; Stefan Ivanov; Stephen Wrenn; Rumen Stefanov
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2017-11-20

2.  Preferences for the provision of whole genome sequencing services among young adults.

Authors:  Christopher H Wade; Kailyn R Elliott
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Genomic newborn screening: public health policy considerations and recommendations.

Authors:  Jan M Friedman; Martina C Cornel; Aaron J Goldenberg; Karla J Lister; Karine Sénécal; Danya F Vears
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 3.063

4.  Parental Guidance Suggested: Engaging Parents as Partners in Research Studies of Genomic Screening for a Pediatric Population.

Authors:  Sabrina N Powell; Grace Byfield; Ashley Bennetone; Annabelle M Frantz; Langston K Harrison; Erin R James-Crook; Heather Osborne; Thomas H Owens; Jonathan L Shaw; Julianne O'Daniel; Laura V Milko
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 5.  GENE TARGET: A framework for evaluating Mendelian neurodevelopmental disorders for gene therapy.

Authors:  Maya Chopra; Meera E Modi; Kira A Dies; Nancy L Chamberlin; Elizabeth D Buttermore; Stephanie Jo Brewster; Lisa Prock; Mustafa Sahin
Journal:  Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 5.849

Review 6.  Malignant hyperthermia: a review.

Authors:  Henry Rosenberg; Neil Pollock; Anja Schiemann; Terasa Bulger; Kathryn Stowell
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 4.123

7.  Principles of Genomic Newborn Screening Programs: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lilian Downie; Jane Halliday; Sharon Lewis; David J Amor
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-07-01
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.