在早期检查项目中扩大新生儿基因组筛查的可行性和临床应用

IF 50 1区 医学 Q1 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Heidi L. Cope, Elizabeth R. Jalazo, Jonathan S. Berg, Jennifer A. Sullivan, Katerina S. Kucera, Scott M. Shone, Hannah E. Frawley, Angela Y. Gwaltney, Ana N. Forsythe, Brooke A. Migliore, Becca Wright, Rebecca R. Moultrie, Laura V. Milko, Rebekah S. Zimmerman, Paul Kruszka, Sharon F. Suchy, Amber Begtrup, Katherine G. Langley, Kristin G. Monaghan, Christina Kraczkowski, Adam J. Guenzel, Kirsty McWalter, Kathleen S. Hruska, Donald B. Bailey, Anne C. Wheeler, Melissa Raspa, Cynthia M. Powell, Holly L. Peay
{"title":"在早期检查项目中扩大新生儿基因组筛查的可行性和临床应用","authors":"Heidi L. Cope, Elizabeth R. Jalazo, Jonathan S. Berg, Jennifer A. Sullivan, Katerina S. Kucera, Scott M. Shone, Hannah E. Frawley, Angela Y. Gwaltney, Ana N. Forsythe, Brooke A. Migliore, Becca Wright, Rebecca R. Moultrie, Laura V. Milko, Rebekah S. Zimmerman, Paul Kruszka, Sharon F. Suchy, Amber Begtrup, Katherine G. Langley, Kristin G. Monaghan, Christina Kraczkowski, Adam J. Guenzel, Kirsty McWalter, Kathleen S. Hruska, Donald B. Bailey, Anne C. Wheeler, Melissa Raspa, Cynthia M. Powell, Holly L. Peay","doi":"10.1038/s41591-025-03945-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Although genomic sequencing presents groundbreaking newborn screening (NBS) opportunities, critical feasibility and utility questions remain. Here we present initial results from the Early Check program—an observational study assessing the feasibility and clinical utility of genomic NBS in North Carolina. Recruitment was statewide through mailed letters with electronic consent. Genome sequencing with analysis of 169 high actionability genes (plus 29 optional lower actionability genes) was performed using residual NBS dried blood spots. In 8 months, 1,979 newborns were screened, with 50 (2.5%) screen positives. Negative results were returned electronically, positive results by genetic counselors. Twenty-eight results (55%) were true positives, all received anticipatory guidance, surveillance and management recommendations, and referral to specialists as appropriate. We report technical feasibility and preliminary clinical utility finding, along with interpretation and follow-up challenges that hinder public health implementation. We propose standardized terminology to facilitate cross-study comparisons and accurate characterization of genomic NBS outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":19037,"journal":{"name":"Nature Medicine","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":50.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility and clinical utility of expanded genomic newborn screening in the Early Check program\",\"authors\":\"Heidi L. Cope, Elizabeth R. Jalazo, Jonathan S. Berg, Jennifer A. Sullivan, Katerina S. Kucera, Scott M. Shone, Hannah E. Frawley, Angela Y. Gwaltney, Ana N. Forsythe, Brooke A. Migliore, Becca Wright, Rebecca R. Moultrie, Laura V. Milko, Rebekah S. Zimmerman, Paul Kruszka, Sharon F. Suchy, Amber Begtrup, Katherine G. Langley, Kristin G. Monaghan, Christina Kraczkowski, Adam J. Guenzel, Kirsty McWalter, Kathleen S. Hruska, Donald B. Bailey, Anne C. Wheeler, Melissa Raspa, Cynthia M. Powell, Holly L. Peay\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41591-025-03945-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Although genomic sequencing presents groundbreaking newborn screening (NBS) opportunities, critical feasibility and utility questions remain. Here we present initial results from the Early Check program—an observational study assessing the feasibility and clinical utility of genomic NBS in North Carolina. Recruitment was statewide through mailed letters with electronic consent. Genome sequencing with analysis of 169 high actionability genes (plus 29 optional lower actionability genes) was performed using residual NBS dried blood spots. In 8 months, 1,979 newborns were screened, with 50 (2.5%) screen positives. Negative results were returned electronically, positive results by genetic counselors. Twenty-eight results (55%) were true positives, all received anticipatory guidance, surveillance and management recommendations, and referral to specialists as appropriate. We report technical feasibility and preliminary clinical utility finding, along with interpretation and follow-up challenges that hinder public health implementation. We propose standardized terminology to facilitate cross-study comparisons and accurate characterization of genomic NBS outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Medicine\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":50.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03945-8\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03945-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管基因组测序提供了突破性的新生儿筛查(NBS)机会,但关键的可行性和实用性问题仍然存在。在这里,我们介绍了早期检查项目的初步结果,这是一项观察性研究,评估了基因组NBS在北卡罗来纳州的可行性和临床应用。招募在全州范围内通过邮寄信件和电子同意进行。利用残留的NBS干血点对169个高可操作性基因(外加29个可选的低可操作性基因)进行基因组测序分析。在8个月内,对1,979名新生儿进行了筛查,其中50名(2.5%)筛查阳性。阴性结果通过电子方式返回,阳性结果由遗传咨询师返回。28例(55%)结果为真阳性,所有患者均获得了预期指导、监测和管理建议,并酌情转诊给专家。我们报告技术可行性和初步临床效用发现,以及阻碍公共卫生实施的解释和后续挑战。我们提出标准化的术语,以促进交叉研究比较和准确表征基因组NBS结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Feasibility and clinical utility of expanded genomic newborn screening in the Early Check program

Feasibility and clinical utility of expanded genomic newborn screening in the Early Check program

Although genomic sequencing presents groundbreaking newborn screening (NBS) opportunities, critical feasibility and utility questions remain. Here we present initial results from the Early Check program—an observational study assessing the feasibility and clinical utility of genomic NBS in North Carolina. Recruitment was statewide through mailed letters with electronic consent. Genome sequencing with analysis of 169 high actionability genes (plus 29 optional lower actionability genes) was performed using residual NBS dried blood spots. In 8 months, 1,979 newborns were screened, with 50 (2.5%) screen positives. Negative results were returned electronically, positive results by genetic counselors. Twenty-eight results (55%) were true positives, all received anticipatory guidance, surveillance and management recommendations, and referral to specialists as appropriate. We report technical feasibility and preliminary clinical utility finding, along with interpretation and follow-up challenges that hinder public health implementation. We propose standardized terminology to facilitate cross-study comparisons and accurate characterization of genomic NBS outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Medicine
Nature Medicine 医学-生化与分子生物学
CiteScore
100.90
自引率
0.70%
发文量
525
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Nature Medicine is a monthly journal publishing original peer-reviewed research in all areas of medicine. The publication focuses on originality, timeliness, interdisciplinary interest, and the impact on improving human health. In addition to research articles, Nature Medicine also publishes commissioned content such as News, Reviews, and Perspectives. This content aims to provide context for the latest advances in translational and clinical research, reaching a wide audience of M.D. and Ph.D. readers. All editorial decisions for the journal are made by a team of full-time professional editors. Nature Medicine consider all types of clinical research, including: -Case-reports and small case series -Clinical trials, whether phase 1, 2, 3 or 4 -Observational studies -Meta-analyses -Biomarker studies -Public and global health studies Nature Medicine is also committed to facilitating communication between translational and clinical researchers. As such, we consider “hybrid” studies with preclinical and translational findings reported alongside data from clinical studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信