Search

Background: It is critical to understand the wide-ranging clinical and non-clinical effects of genome sequencing (GS) for parents in the NICU context. We assessed parents’ experiences with GS as a first-line diagnostic tool for infants with suspected genetic conditions in the NICU. Methods: Parents of newborns (N = 62) suspected of having a genetic condition were recruited across five hospitals in the southeast United States as part of the SouthSeq study. Semi-structured interviews (N = 78) were conducted after parents received their child’s sequencing result (positive, negative, or variants of unknown significance). Thematic analysis was performed on all interviews. Results: Key themes included that (1) GS in infancy is important for reproductive decision making, preparing for the child’s future care, ending the diagnostic odyssey, and sharing results with care providers; (2) the timing of disclosure was acceptable for most parents, although many reported the NICU environment was overwhelming; and (3) parents deny that receiving GS results during infancy exacerbated parent–infant bonding, and reported variable impact on their feelings of guilt. Conclusion: Parents reported that GS during the neonatal period was useful because it provided a “backbone” for their child’s care. Parents did not consistently endorse negative impacts like interference with parent–infant bonding.

PURPOSE: SouthSeq is a translational research study that performed genome sequencing (GS) for infants with symptoms suggestive of a genetic disorder. Recruitment targeted racial/ethnic minorities and rural, medically underserved areas in the Southeastern US that are historically under-represented in genomic medicine research. METHODS: GS and analysis were performed for 367 infants to detect disease-causal variation concurrent with standard of care evaluation and testing. RESULTS: Definitive diagnostic (DD) or likely diagnostic (LD) genetic findings were identified in 30% of infants and 14% harbored an uncertain result. Only 43% of DD/LD findings were identified via concurrent clinical genetic testing suggesting that GS testing is better for obtaining early genetic diagnosis. We also identified phenotypes that correlate with the likelihood of receiving a DD/LD finding, such as craniofacial, ophthalmologic, auditory, skin, and hair abnormalities. We did not observe any differences in diagnostic rates between racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: We describe one of the largest-to-date GS cohorts of ill infants, enriched for African American and rural patients. Our results demonstrate the utility of GS as it provides early in life detection of clinically relevant genetic variation not identified via current clinical genetic testing, particularly for infants exhibiting certain phenotypic features.