Wilson Brenda J, Miller Fiona Alice, Rousseau François
School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 5Z3, Canada.
Institute of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street Suite 425, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6, Canada.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Dec;92:4-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.018. Epub 2017 Sep 1.
Next generation genomic sequencing (NGS) technologies-whole genome and whole exome sequencing-are now cheap enough to be within the grasp of many health care organizations. To many, NGS is symbolic of cutting edge health care, offering the promise of "precision" and "personalized" medicine. Historically, research and clinical application has been a two-way street in clinical genetics: research often driven directly by the desire to understand and try to solve immediate clinical problems affecting real, identifiable patients and families, accompanied by a low threshold of willingness to apply research-driven interventions without resort to formal empirical evaluations. However, NGS technologies are not simple substitutes for older technologies and need careful evaluation for use as screening, diagnostic, or prognostic tools. We have concerns across three areas. First, at the moment, analytic validity is unknown because technical platforms are not yet stable, laboratory quality assurance programs are in their infancy, and data interpretation capabilities are badly underdeveloped. Second, clinical validity of genomic findings for patient populations without pre-existing high genetic risk is doubtful, as most clinical experience with NGS technologies relates to patients with a high prior likelihood of a genetic etiology. Finally, we are concerned that proponents argue not only for clinically driven approaches to assessing a patient's genome, but also for seeking out variants associated with unrelated conditions or susceptibilities-so-called "secondary targets"-this is screening on a genomic scale. We argue that clinical uses of genomic sequencing should remain limited to specialist and research settings, that screening for secondary findings in clinical testing should be limited to the maximum extent possible, and that the benefits, harms, and economic implications of their routine use be systematically evaluated. All stakeholders have a responsibility to ensure that patients receive effective, safe health care, in an economically sustainable health care system. There should be no exception for genome-based interventions.
新一代基因组测序(NGS)技术——全基因组测序和全外显子组测序——如今价格已足够低廉,许多医疗保健机构都能够承受。对许多人来说,NGS象征着前沿医疗保健,有望实现“精准”和“个性化”医疗。从历史上看,研究与临床应用在临床遗传学领域一直是双向的:研究往往直接源于想要理解并试图解决影响真实、可识别患者及其家庭的紧迫临床问题,而且在应用研究驱动的干预措施时,无需进行正式实证评估的意愿门槛较低。然而,NGS技术并非旧技术的简单替代品,作为筛查、诊断或预后工具使用时需要仔细评估。我们在三个方面存在担忧。首先,目前分析有效性尚不清楚,因为技术平台尚不稳定,实验室质量保证计划尚处于起步阶段,数据解读能力严重不足。其次,对于没有预先存在高遗传风险的患者群体,基因组检测结果的临床有效性存疑,因为大多数关于NGS技术的临床经验都与先前具有高遗传病因可能性的患者有关。最后,我们担心支持者不仅主张采用临床驱动的方法来评估患者的基因组,还主张寻找与不相关病症或易感性相关的变异——即所谓的“次要靶点”——这是在基因组层面上的筛查。我们认为,基因组测序的临床应用应仅限于专科和研究环境,临床检测中对次要发现的筛查应尽可能受到限制,并且应系统评估其常规使用的益处、危害和经济影响。所有利益相关者都有责任确保患者在经济上可持续的医疗保健系统中获得有效、安全的医疗服务。基于基因组的干预措施不应例外。