Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews


Print Page Follow BioNews on Twitter BioNews RSS feed

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook







The myth of the genomic revolution

06 February 2012

By Dr Stuart Hogarth and Professor Paul Martin

Dr Stuart Hogarth is a member of the Global Biopolitics Research Group in the Department of Political Economy at King’s College London. Paul Martin is Professor in Science and Technology Studies at the University of Nottingham.

Appeared in BioNews 643
'Building on our inheritance: Genomic technology in healthcare' is the latest in a long line of reports that have sought to assess the potential of genomic medicine and to outline how policy can best support its development.

The report, published by the Department of Health's Human Genomics Strategy Group, is focused on the use of different forms of testing to stratify disease as a means of guiding clinical care. In the longer term the report advocates the routine use of whole genome sequencing as the bedrock for nearly all areas of biomedicine.

There is much to be welcomed in the report. It rightly points to the broad range of tests which are now beginning to find their way into clinical practice and it illustrates how some of these are already benefiting patient care. The report makes important points about the need for a framework for evaluating new tests before they enter routine clinical practice and identifies key areas where translation of basic science into clinically useful technologies and practices might occur.

However, in its enthusiasm for continuing heavy investment in genomics, it may be in danger of overselling what it claims will be 'a revolution in healthcare' (p14). The report describes genomic medicine as a 'major step-change in medical practice', but history suggests that diagnostic innovation is incremental and additive, not revolutionary. There is no reason to suppose that this is about to change. Whilst molecular diagnostics are having a growing impact in medical practice, the scale and pace of change thus far does not suggest a fundamental transformation is underway. The example of testing for the human papilloma virus (HPV) in cervical cancer screening (cited in chapter three) perfectly illustrates that point. In the USA it has not replaced cytology-based screening, it is used as an additional screen or to investigate borderline cytology results (incidentally, HPV testing is presented as a recent advance but it has been a standard of care in the USA for over a decade) (1).

Another instance of overselling in the report's vision statement (chapter one) is a serious overstatement of the current utility of testing for risk of common, complex disease. The truth is that few strongly predictive genetic markers for common complex disease have been found and, for the most part, at the moment we can do no more than tell people that they are at slightly higher than average risk or slightly lower than average risk - information which makes little difference to the kind of disease prevention strategies we should all be following (healthy diet, moderate alcohol intake, regular exercise etc.).

The report's overenthusiasm creates a fundamental tension between the authors' call for more systematic and rigorous evaluation of the evidence supporting the use of new diagnostic tests and their argument for the adoption of routine genome sequencing. The report suggests that once an individual has their genome sequenced, then that data will be used to guide 'every clinical decision' about the person, even if that data has only 'a small relevance' to a given clinical decision (p54). The assumption is that the incremental benefit of using genomic data in a variety of clinical contexts over the course of an individual's life will justify the cost of sequencing. This argument flies in the face of the report's detailed case for a rigorous and robust framework for introducing new diagnostic tests into the NHS. Rather than assuming that we should apply genomic data in any and every clinical situation, what we need are rigorous, well-powered studies which investigate the utility of specific testing applications in particular diseases or clinical contexts. These kinds of trials are expensive and there is little likelihood that the private sector will pay for them, so the onus will fall on government to support those efforts that bring maximum benefit to public health. We have to assume that, as with trials of pharmaceuticals, there will be a high failure rate and that progress will be slow.

There is no doubt that genomics will have a growing impact on healthcare; the scale and pace of that impact remains a matter of conjecture. We can predict with confidence that genome sequencing will continue to become cheaper and faster, but this rapid technological progress should not blind us to the complexity of diagnostic innovation and the challenge of establishing clinical utility for new tests. No matter how cheap genomic data becomes, cost cannot be allowed to trump clinical relevance.

 

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

28 August 2012 - by James Brooks 
I'll brook no cynicism, the Olympics was a dazzling display of what makes Britain great. Which is to say: marketing, PR and weapons-grade hype... [Read More]
15 May 2012 - by Nishat Hyder 
The genetic cause of blonde hair may be different in populations in Europe and Oceania, researchers have found. A single mutation in the TYRP1 gene, which is not associated with blonde hair in Europeans, was found in around one-quarter of Solomon Islanders and is believed to be major determinant for the pigmentation... [Read More]
12 March 2012 - by Dr Rebecca Hill 
Genome sequencing for all, the abuse of stored genetic data and red tape halting research are just some of the issues the NHS will have to deal with this year, according to Sir John Burn, professor of clinical genetics at the University of Newcastle, chair of the British Society for Human Genetics (BSHG)... [Read More]
27 February 2012 - by Maria Botcharova 
Is medicine magic? No, of course not. The active ingredients in the medicines we take are simply chemical compounds which interact with our bodies to produce a net effect. And yet, when we take a pill and our headache promptly disappears, it can all feel a bit miraculous to someone who doesn't know the chemical mechanisms... [Read More]

31 January 2012 - by Dr Linda Wijlaars 
Genomic medicine will be at the forefront of the NHS, according to a report released last week by the Human Genomics Strategy Group (HGSG). The report highlights the UK's achievements in genomic technology to date and makes six recommendations to ensure future benefit of genomic innovation within the NHS... [Read More]
09 January 2012 - by Rachel Lyons 
Personalised healthcare could be one step closer this year, as doctors from the prestigious US Mayo Clinic embark on a project to sequence the full genetic code of thousands of people... [Read More]
31 October 2011 - by Dr Rebecca Robey 
The NHS must take steps to prepare for a revolution in genetics-based medicine, according to a new report by the independent think tank, the Foundation for Genomics and Public Health (the PHG Foundation). The Foundation says that rapid advances in technology will soon make it possible for individuals to have their entire genome analysed affordably, and this will have a major impact on many aspects of healthcare... [Read More]
19 September 2011 - by Dr Rebecca Hill 
The first interpretation of a family's health risks using whole genome data has been carried out by US researchers. The team, from the Stanford University School of Medicine, looked at the DNA sequences of both parents and two children in this, the second reported study of a four-person family of genomes... [Read More]
28 March 2011 - by Seil Collins 
A report published by the PHG Foundation argues there needs to be fairer access to genetics in mainstream medicine. It concludes that the UK's current approach to diffusing specialist genomic knowledge and applications into mainstream medical practice is not effective.... [Read More]

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to or  to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions

 


 

- click here to enquire about using this story.

Printer Friendly Page

Published by the Progress Educational Trust

Advertise your products and services HERE - click for further details

Become a Friend of PET HERE and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation

Good Fundraising Code

Find out more about the Progress Educational Trust by downloading our brochure HERE