A systematic review of real-world applications of genome sequencing for newborn screening

Abstract

Aim: With the costs of genomic sequencing falling quickly and an ever-increasing number of clinical laboratories equipped with new-generation sequencing machines, healthcare systems around the world are getting ready to enter the era of genomic newborn screening (NBS). However, the adoption of Genomic Sequencing (GS), encompassing whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS), in NBS programs raises a number of clinical, ethical, and legal questions as well as organizational and economic challenges. This systematic review is part of a feasibility study to assess the introduction of WGS for NBS in Lombardy region with the specific aim of gathering evidence from existing pilots in the field whose results have been published. Methods: Three different sources were identified for the selection of articles in order to obtain a various and unbiased set of publications. 33 articles were retained for analysis to answer the following questions: 1. Clinical: Does genomic sequencing demonstrate clinical utility in the context of NBS? What are the limitations of these kind of programs? 2. Societal: What are the social, ethical and psychological implications of using GS for NBS? 3. Governance: What are the legal, economic, and organizational challenges for GS-based NBS programs? Results: There is a general consensus in the literature on the key principles that should guide the adoption of GS in NBS, such as the inclusion of actionable genes only, the need for informed consent from the parents, the right of the newborn to an open future, which means the exclusion of late-onset diseases even when those are considered treatable. However, there are still several differences in how these principles are detailed and applied. Conclusion: Real-world evidence from a handful of pilot projects (namely BabySeq and NC-Nexus, both carried out in the USA) have been published recently; however, this evidence is not yet sufficient to put an end to the broad and animated debate on the use of GS for NBS. Ethical, legal, and social issues still constitute great challenges and major barriers to wide and uniform adoption of GS in NBS. On the clinical side, a number of issues remain unaddressed, such as the benefits and limitations of the different approaches (targeted sequencing, GS only versus GS+standard NBS), the genes/diseases to include and the frequency of incidental findings, identification of carrier status, and variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Further pilots and consultations with involved stakeholders will be necessary before GS-based NBS can be accepted and systematically implemented in national healthcare programs.