Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionGenomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing.Methods and analysisWe will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT03597165.

Sequence analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragments that circulate in the blood of pregnant women, along with the translation of this method into screening for fetal chromosome abnormalities, is a success story of modern genomic medicine. In less than a decade, prenatal cfDNA testing has gone from small, proof-of-principle studies to a global transformation of prenatal care. As of late 2017, a total of 4 million to 6 million pregnant women had had DNA from their plasma analyzed to screen for fetal aneuploidy.1 The exponential growth of the test has been a function of the role of the biotechnology industry in its development and marketing. Here we review what has been learned from the wide-scale implementation of this testing, how it has changed prenatal clinical care, and what ethical concerns have arisen, and we speculate about what lies ahead.

Many scientists and doctors hope that affordable genome sequencing will lead to more personalized medical care and improve public health in ways that will benefit children, families, and society more broadly. One hope in particular is that all newborns could be sequenced at birth, thereby setting the stage for a lifetime of medical care and self‐directed preventive actions tailored to each child's genome. Indeed, commentators often suggest that universal genome sequencing is inevitable. Such optimism can come with the presumption that discussing the potential limits, cost, and downsides of widespread application of genomic technologies is pointless, excessively pessimistic, or overly cautious. We disagree. Given the pragmatic challenges associated with determining what sequencing data mean for the health of individuals, the economic costs associated with interpreting and acting on such data, and the psychosocial costs of predicting one's own or one's child's future life plans based on uncertain testing results, we think this hope and optimism deserve to be tempered. In the analysis that follows, we distinguish between two reasons for using sequencing: to diagnose individual infants who have been identified as sick and to screen populations of infants who appear to be healthy. We also distinguish among three contexts in which sequencing for either diagnosis or screening could be deployed: in clinical medicine, in public health programs, and as a direct‐to‐consumer service. Each of these contexts comes with different professional norms, policy considerations, and public expectations. Finally, we distinguish between two main types of genome sequencing: targeted sequencing, where only specific genes are sequenced or analyzed, and whole‐exome or whole‐genome sequencing, where all the DNA or all the coding segments of all genes are sequenced and analyzed. In a symptomatic newborn, targeted or genome‐wide sequencing can help guide other tests for diagnosis or for specific treatment that is urgently needed. Clinicians use the infant's symptoms (or phenotype) to interrogate the sequencing data. These same complexities and uncertainties, however, limit the usefulness of genome‐wide sequencing as a population screening tool. While we recognize considerable benefit in using targeted sequencing to screen for or detect specific conditions that meet the criteria for inclusion in newborn screening panels, use of genome‐wide sequencing as a sole screening tool for newborns is at best premature. We conclude that sequencing technology can be beneficially used in newborns when that use is nuanced and attentive to context.

Corporations selling DNA-profiling technology are aiding human-rights abuses. Governments, legislators, researchers, reviewers and publishers must act. Corporations selling DNA-profiling technology are aiding human-rights abuses. Governments, legislators, researchers, reviewers and publishers must act. Police patrolling in a night food market near the Id Kah Mosque in Kashgar in China's Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region

[...]ACMG convened a working group to offer recommendations on handling incidental findings in clinical sequencing. [...]they do not recommend considering patient preferences in reporting results.

Purpose: The debate surrounding the return of results from high-throughput genomic interrogation encompasses many important issues including ethics, law, economics, and social policy. As well, the debate is also informed by the molecular, genetic, and clinical foundations of the emerging field of clinical genomics, which is based on this new technology. This article outlines the main biomedical considerations of sequencing technologies and demonstrates some of the early clinical experiences with the technology to enable the debate to stay focused on real-world practicalities. Methods: These experiences are based on early data from the ClinSeq project, which is a project to pilot the use of massively parallel sequencing in a clinical research context with a major aim to develop modes of returning results to individual subjects. Results: The study has enrolled >900 subjects and generated exome sequence data on 572 subjects. These data are beginning to be interpreted and returned to the subjects, which provides examples of the potential usefulness and pitfalls of clinical genomics. Conclusion: There are numerous genetic results that can be readily derived from a genome including rare, high-penetrance traits, and carrier states. However, much work needs to be done to develop the tools and resources for genomic interpretation. The main lesson learned is that a genome sequence may be better considered as a health-care resource, rather than a test, one that can be interpreted and used over the lifetime of the patient. Genet Med 2012:14(4):393–398

We asked five experts their opinions on issues that arise from new clinical tests that are based on next-generation sequencing. Crucial gaps in infrastructure need to be addressed for the results of these tests to be optimally handled. We are entering an era in which the cost of clinical whole-genome and targeted sequencing tests is no longer prohibitive to their application. However, currently the infrastructure is not in place to support both the patient and the physicians that encounter the resultant data. Here, we ask five experts to give their opinions on whether clinical data should be treated differently from other medical data, given the potential use of these tests, and on the areas that must be developed to improve patient outcome.

Purpose Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using genome sequencing also reveals maternal copy-number variations (CNVs). Those CNVs can be clinically actionable or harmful to the fetus if inherited. CNVs in the DMD gene potentially causing dystrophinopathies are among the most commonly observed maternal CNVs. We present our experience with maternal DMD gene CNVs detected by NIPS. Methods We analyzed the data of maternal CNVs detected in the DMD gene revealed by NIPS. Results Of 26,123 NIPS analyses, 16 maternal CNVs in the DMD gene were detected (1/1632 pregnant women). Variant classification regarding pathogenicity and phenotypic severity was based on public databases, segregation analysis in the family, and prediction of the effect on the reading frame. Ten CNVs were classified as pathogenic, four as benign, and two remained unclassified. Conclusion NIPS leverages CNV screening in the general population of pregnant women. We implemented a strategy for the interpretation and the return of maternal CNVs in the DMD gene detected by NIPS.

Recent technological advances have radically changed genetic testing from an expensive and burdensome undertaking to a rapid and less costly option for many purposes. The utility of “next-generation” sequencing has been found to establish the diagnosis for hundreds of genetic disorders, to assess pharmacogenomic variants, and to identify treatable targets within malignant neoplasms. The ready availability of genomic information has led to the question of whether there would be clinical benefit of sequencing the genome of individuals who are not seeking a diagnosis, that is, genomic screening in generally healthy people, to provide anticipatory insights for their health care. Little research has been conducted in this area. We examine the considerable unresolved scientific and ethical issues encountered when considering whole-genome sequencing of healthy people.