Tweet
A recent study published in JAMA Network Open evaluated the potential of gene panel sequencing as a primary screening method for newborns. Traditionally, Newborn Screening (NBS) has been conducted worldwide using biochemical testing methods. With the advancements in genetic sequencing, there's potential for a more comprehensive assessment of monogenic disorders in newborns.
The study, in collaboration with eight NBS centers and BGI Genomics, assessed gene panel sequencing alongside traditional methods on a large population scale. The data suggests that gene panel sequencing can benefit about one out of every 500 newborns when used as a primary screening tool.
Study Details
The research encompassed 29,601 newborns from eight screening centers in China, studied between February 21 and December 31, 2021. Infants with positive results received a follow-up by July 5, 2022. Both biochemical screening tests and a targeted gene panel sequencing test for 128 conditions were employed. Out of these conditions, 43 could be detected by both testing methods, while the remaining 85 were only identifiable through the gene panel.
Key Results
1. Genetic sequencing detected 813 infants (2.7% of the total) as positive. Half of these cases (402 infants) resulted in a diagnosis.
2. The gene panel identified 59 infants who went undetected through biochemical tests. This includes 20 infants affected by disorders detectable by both methods and 39 by the gene panel alone.
3. Of the 445 infants diagnosed with disorders detectable by both methods, 82 were undetected by genetic screening but identified by biochemical methods. In contrast, 20 were spotted only by the genetic method.
4. For the specific case of G6PD deficiency, all 328 diagnosed infants were identified by genetic testing. However, 10 male patients slipped through biochemical screening and were only later confirmed in subsequent tests.
Implications for Newborn Screening
Integrating genetic sequencing with traditional biochemical methods can enhance the accuracy of NBS, reducing false positives. The study indicated that the accuracy of genetic testing was generally higher than biochemical methods, except in a few specific scenarios. Fewer false positives mean reduced anxiety for parents and fewer unnecessary follow-up appointments.
While these results are promising, further research is necessary. The team emphasized the importance of additional studies across different populations and healthcare frameworks. This will help refine and optimize NBS procedures for future generations.