4 years ago

Clinical genomic sequencing as a routine technology for case finding and diagnosis in unselected patient populations should not proceed without formal comparative evaluation of health outcomes and system impacts

Next generation genomic sequencing (NGS) technologies - whole genome and whole exome sequencing - are now cheap enough to be within the grasp of many healthcare organizations. To many, NGS is symbolic of cutting edge healthcare, offering the promise of ‘precision’ and ‘personalized’ medicine. Historically, research and clinical application has been a two way street in clinical genetics: research often driven directly by the desire to understand and try to solve immediate clinical problems affecting real, identifiable patients and families, accompanied by a low threshold of willingness to apply research-driven interventions without resort to formal empirical evaluations. However, NGS technologies are not simple substitutes for older technologies, and need careful evaluation for use as screening, diagnostic, or prognostic tools. We have concerns across three areas. Firstly, at the moment, analytic validity is unknown because technical platforms are not yet stable, laboratory quality assurance programs are in their infancy, and data interpretation capabilities are badly under-developed. Secondly, clinical validity of genomic findings for patient populations without pre-existing high genetic risk is doubtful, as most clinical experience with NGS technologies relates to patients with a high prior likelihood of a genetic aetiology. Finally, we are concerned that proponents argue not only for clinically-driven approaches to assessing a patient’s genome, but also for seeking out variants associated with unrelated conditions or susceptibilities - so-called “secondary targets” - this is screening on a genomic scale We argue that clinical uses of genomic sequencing should remain limited to specialist and research settings, that screening for secondary findings in clinical testing should be limited to the maximum extent possible, and that the benefits, harms, and economic implications of their routine use be systematically evaluated. All stakeholders have a responsibility to ensure that patients receive effective, safe health care, in an economically sustainable health care system. There should be no exception for genome-based interventions.

Publisher URL: www.sciencedirect.com/science

DOI: S0895435617309708

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.