Returning a Genomic Result for an Adult-Onset Condition to the Parents of a Newborn: Insights From the BabySeq Project

We discuss a case in which a genetic finding for an actionable, adult-onset–only condition was detected in a newborn as part of a genomic sequencing study, highlighting the ethical issues surrounding the return of such finding in a newborn to the parents. The return of information from genomic sequencing in children, especially in early life, brings up complex issues around parental autonomy, the child’s future autonomy, the best interest standard, and the best interests of the family. These issues are particularly important in considering the return of genomic results for adult-onset–only conditions in children. The BabySeq Project is a randomized trial used to explore the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of newborns who are healthy or sick. We discuss a case in which a variant in a gene for an actionable, adult-onset–only condition was detected, highlighting the ethical issues surrounding the return of such finding in a newborn to the newborn’s parents.

[1]  M. Menzel,et al.  Genetic Testing and Screening of Children , 2021, The International Library of Bioethics.

[2]  Tiina K. Urv,et al.  Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health , 2017, Pediatrics.

[3]  Matthew S. Lebo,et al.  A curated gene list for reporting results of newborn genomic sequencing , 2017, Genetics in Medicine.

[4]  W. Chung,et al.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  Richard T. Barfield,et al.  Reclassification of genetic-based risk predictions as GWAS data accumulate , 2016, Genome Medicine.

[6]  R. Green,et al.  Disclosing Secondary Findings from Pediatric Sequencing to Families: Considering the “Benefit to Families” , 2015, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[7]  Jonathan S Berg,et al.  Points to Consider: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Implications of Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents. , 2015, American journal of human genetics.

[8]  Daniel Groll.  Four Models of Family Interests , 2014, Pediatrics.

[9]  H. Blum,et al.  Clinical Interpretation and Implications of Whole Genome Sequencing , 2014 .

[10]  Leslie G Biesecker,et al.  Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Euan A Ashley,et al.  Clinical interpretation and implications of whole-genome sequencing. , 2014, JAMA.

[12]  L. Ross.  Predictive Genetic Testing of Children and the Role of the Best Interest Standard: Currents in Contemporary Bioethics , 2013, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[13]  B. Knoppers,et al.  Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[14]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[15]  Robert C. Green,et al.  Ethics and Genomic Incidental Findings , 2013, Science.

[16]  Susan M Wolf,et al.  Patient Autonomy and Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics , 2013, Science.

[17]  R. Sharp,et al.  Ethical and Policy Issues in Genetic Testing and Screening of Children , 2016, Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines & Policies.

[18]  R. Altman,et al.  Pharmacogenomics Knowledge for Personalized Medicine , 2012, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[19]  J. Lupski,et al.  Human genome sequencing in health and disease. , 2012, Annual review of medicine.

[20]  Christian Gilissen,et al.  Unlocking Mendelian disease using exome sequencing , 2011, Genome Biology.

[21]  Michael R Stratton,et al.  Genomics and the continuum of cancer care. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  L. Garraway,et al.  Clinical implications of the cancer genome. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  Giovanni Parmigiani,et al.  Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[24]  J. Hopper,et al.  Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case Series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. , 2003, American journal of human genetics.

[25]  M. Hayden,et al.  Risk reversals in predictive testing for Huntington disease. , 1997, American journal of human genetics.

[26]  Robert C. Green,et al.  Clinical Genome Sequencing , 2013 .

[27]  A. Butte,et al.  Translational Bioinformatics for Genomic Medicine , 2013 .

[28]  Андрей Соколов,et al.  Тестовый доступ к двум журналам на платформе издательства American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) , 2012 .

[29]  Huntington F. Willard,et al.  Genomic and personalized medicine , 2009 .

[30]  Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors. , 1995, American journal of human genetics.

[31]  M. Hayden,et al.  Opinion: predictive testing for Huntington disease in childhood: challenges and implications. , 1990, American journal of human genetics.