The rapid development of genomic sequencing technologies has decreased the cost of genetic analysis to the extent that it seems plausible that genome-scale sequencing could have widespread availability in pediatric care. Genomic sequencing provides a powerful diagnostic modality for patients who manifest symptoms of monogenic disease and an opportunity to detect health conditions before their development. However, many technical, clinical, ethical, and societal challenges should be addressed before such technology is widely deployed in pediatric practice. This article provides an overview of the Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health Consortium, which is investigating the application of genome-scale sequencing in newborns for both diagnosis and screening.

Despite the increased utilization of genome and exome sequencing, little is known about the actual content and process of informed consent for sequencing. We addressed this by interviewing 29 genetic counselors and research coordinators experienced in obtaining informed consent for sequencing in research and clinical settings. Interviews focused on the process and content of informed consent; patients/participants’ common questions, concerns and misperceptions; and challenges to obtaining informed consent. Content analysis of transcribed interviews revealed that the main challenges to obtaining consent related to the broad scope and uncertainty of results, and patient/ participants’ unrealistic expectations about the likely number and utility of results. Interviewees modified their approach to sessions according to contextual issues surrounding the indication for testing, type of patient, and timing of testing. With experience, most interviewees structured sessions to place less emphasis on standard elements in the consent form and technological aspects of sequencing. They instead focused on addressing misperceptions and helping patients/participants develop realistic expectations about the types and implications of possible results, including secondary findings. These findings suggest that informed consent sessions should focus on key issues that may be misunderstood by patients/participants. Future research should address the extent to which various stakeholders agree on key elements of informed consent.

Purpose As genome-scale sequencing is increasingly applied in clinical scenarios, a wide variety of genomic findings will be discovered as secondary or incidental findings, and there is debate about how they should be handled. The clinical actionability of such findings varies, thus necessitating standardized frameworks for a priori decision-making about their analysis. Methods We established a semi-quantitative metric to assess five elements of actionability: severity and likelihood of the disease outcome, efficacy and burden of intervention, and knowledge base, with a total score from 0–15. Results The semi-quantitative metric was applied to a list of putative actionable conditions, the list of genes recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) for return when deleterious variants are discovered as secondary/incidental findings, and a random sample of 1000 genes. Scores from the list of putative actionable conditions (median = 12) and the ACMG list (median = 11) were both statistically different than the randomly selected genes (median = 7) (two-tailed Mann-Whitney test P<0.0001). Conclusion Gene-disease pairs having a score of 11 or higher represent the top quintile of actionability. The semi-quantitative metric effectively assesses clinical actionability, promotes transparency, and may facilitate assessments of clinical actionability by various groups and in diverse contexts.

This paper summarizes the current controversies surrounding the identification and disclosure of “incidental” or “secondary” findings from genomic sequencing and the implications for genetic counseling practice. The rapid expansion of clinical sequencing has influenced the ascertainment and return of incidental findings, while empiric data to inform best practices are still being generated. Using the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next Generation Exome Sequencing (NCGENES) research project as an example, we discuss the implications of different models of consent and their impact on patient decisions.

Objective-To assess the performance of a standardized age-based metric for scoring clinical actionability to evaluate conditions for inclusion in newborn screening (NBS), and compare it with the results from other contemporary methods. Study design-The North Carolina Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening (NC NEXUS) study developed an age-based, semi-quantitative metric (ASQM) to assess the clinical actionability of gene-disease pairs and classify them with respect to age of onset or timing of interventions. This categorization was compared with the gold standard Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) and other methods to evaluate gene-disease pairs for newborn genomic sequencing. Results-We assessed 822 gene-disease pairs, enriched for pediatric onset of disease and suspected actionability. Of these, 466 were classified as having childhood onset and high actionability, analogous to conditions selected for the RUSP core panel. Another 245 were classified as having childhood onset and low to no actionability, 25 were classified as having adult onset and high actionability, 19 were classified as having adult onset and low to no actionability, and 67 were excluded due to controversial evidence and/or prenatal onset.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

PurposeClinical genome sequencing (GS) produces uncertain diagnostic results, raising concerns about how to communicate the inherent complexities in ways that reduce potential misunderstandings and harms. This study investigates clinicians’ communications and patient/participant responses to uncertain diagnostic results arising from a clinical exome sequencing research study, contributing empirical data to the debate surrounding disclosure of uncertain genomic information.MethodsWe investigated the communication and impact of uncertain diagnostic results using ethnographic observations of result disclosures with 21 adults and 11 parents of child patients, followed by 2 semi-structured interviews with these same participants.ResultsParticipants understood their uncertain results in ways that were congruent with clinical geneticists’ communications. They followed recommendations for further consultation, although family testing to resolve uncertainty was not always done. Participants were prepared for learning an uncertain result and grasped the key concept that it should not be used to guide health care or other decisions. They did not express regret for having learned the uncertain result; most regarded it as potentially valuable in the future.ConclusionThis study suggests that uncertain diagnostic results from GS can be relayed to patients in ways they can understand and consistent with providers’ interpretations, without causing undue harm.

This study describes how parents of a child referred for genetic services searched the Internet for information, summarizes how they interpreted and evaluated the information they obtained, and identifies barriers that they encountered. Audio-taped interviews were conducted with 100 ethnically diverse families referred to a pediatric genetics clinic. After transcription, coded text was entered into a software program (QSR N6) for searching and data retrieval. Matrices were created to systematically categorize and compare families’ Internet use. Eighty-three percent of families obtained Internet information about the diagnosis, the clinic visit, and/or treatment and services. Those not conducting searches lacked access, Internet experience, or a diagnostic term and had lower incomes and less education, regardless of ethnicity. Families sought information in preparation for the clinic visit but barriers to obtaining and interpreting relevant information were common. Parents’ Internet searching experiences illustrate common barriers to obtaining and understanding genetic information. Identifying them can help genetic counselors facilitate parents’ searches for relevant information.