A Public Dialogue to Inform the Use of Wider Genomic Testing When Used as Part of Newborn Screening to Identify Cystic Fibrosis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Cystic fibrosis (CF) has been included within the UK national newborn screening programme since 2007. The approach uses measures of immunoreactive trypsin (IRT) in dried blood spot samples obtained at day 5 of life. Samples which reveal IRT results >99.5th centile go on to be tested for a limited panel of CF mutations. While the programme works well and achieves a high level of sensitivity and specificity, it relies upon repeat testing in some cases and identifies probable carriers, both potentially provoking parental anxiety. In addition, the limited CF mutation panel may not fully reflect the ethnic diversity within the UK population. The use of wider genomic screening, made possible by next-generation sequencing to replace more limited panels, can be used to avoid these shortcomings. However, the way in which this approach is employed can either be designed to maximise specificity by limiting reporting to combinations of known pathogenic mutations or can maximise sensitivity by also reporting combinations of pathogenic mutations together with variants of uncertain significance. The latter approach also increases the number of Cystic Fibrosis Screen-Positive Inconclusive Diagnosis (CFSPID) designations reported, resulting in uncertainty for parents. To help consider the design of the programme, a dialogue was commissioned by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) to elicit the views of members of the public without direct experience of CF, to determine if there was a preference for maximising the sensitivity or the specificity of CF screening. The participants initially expressed a clear preference to maximise sensitivity and avoid missing CF cases, but after time to reflect and consider the implications of their choice, a number changed their views so as to tolerate some missed cases if this resulted in greater certainty of outcome; this became the majority view. It is proposed that it may be a generalisable finding that the public, when facing whole-population screening programmes, may require significant time and information to inform and make their choices and may attach great importance to clarity and certainty of outcome in the screening process.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.