None of the techniques you describe are reliant on WGS. I wholeheartedly agree that sequcning has revolutionized medicine, but WGS isn't there yet.
NIPT uses low-coverage sequencing to identify aneuploidies for chromosomes 13,18,21 and some larger microdeletion syndromes - this is not WGS.
Cell free cancer screening is panel based and assays specific, known driver mutations.
Rare disease diagnostics can be WGS based (and some of the rapid 48h WGS studies of NICU babies are compelling from a technical standpoint) but most diagnoses identified via WGS can also be found via WES + chromosomal microarray.
Targeted cancer therapeutic target identification is panel based for most patients, as WGS doesn't identify too many targets for FDA-approved therapies that a panel + IHC + FISH + fusion testing won't.
NIPT uses low-coverage sequencing to identify aneuploidies for chromosomes 13,18,21 and some larger microdeletion syndromes - this is not WGS.
Cell free cancer screening is panel based and assays specific, known driver mutations.
Rare disease diagnostics can be WGS based (and some of the rapid 48h WGS studies of NICU babies are compelling from a technical standpoint) but most diagnoses identified via WGS can also be found via WES + chromosomal microarray.
Targeted cancer therapeutic target identification is panel based for most patients, as WGS doesn't identify too many targets for FDA-approved therapies that a panel + IHC + FISH + fusion testing won't.