Implementing Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing: Should Parents Have Access to Any and All Fetal Genetic Information?

Prenatal genetic testing is becoming available for an increasingly broad set of diseases, and it is only a matter of time before parents can choose to test for hundreds, if not thousands, of genetic conditions in their fetuses. Should access to certain kinds of fetal genetic information be limited, and if so, on what basis? We evaluate a range of considerations including reproductive autonomy, parental rights, disability rights, and the rights and interests of the fetus as a potential future child. We conclude that parents should be able to access information that could be useful during pregnancy, but that testing for non-medical information should be limited. Next, we argue that the government lacks a compelling state interest in regulating prenatal genetic testing and propose that regulation should occur through medical professional organizations. Finally, we present a framework for determining what testing physicians should recommend, offer neutrally, or not offer at all.

Making the most of uncertainty: Treasuring exceptions in prenatal diagnosis

Throughout the 20th century, human genetics research was driven by the identification of new variants. As pioneering geneticist William Bateson put it, novel variants were "exceptions" to "treasure". With the rise of human chromosomal analysis in the postwar period, the identification of genetic variants became increasingly significant to clinical and prenatal diagnosis. Human geneticists had long sought a broader sampling of human genetic variation, from a largely "normal" population. The expansion of prenatal diagnosis in the late 20th century offered a new resource for identifying novel genetic variants. In the prenatal diagnostic setting however, many of the exceptions to be treasured were of uncertain clinical significance, which raised anxiety among parents. In the early 1990s, providers reported that specific uncertain results from chorionic villus sampling (CVS) facilitated prenatal diagnoses that were not previously possible. Based on this, some prenatal diagnostic providers began to embrace uncertainty, when properly managed to reduce anxiety, rather than prevent it. The potential to produce uncertainty in prenatal diagnosis grew with whole genome microarray in the 2000s. Rather than outcomes to avoid, or accept as inevitable, providers presented uncertain results as starting points for research to improve the scope prenatal diagnosis, and bring future certainty.

Rapid prenatal diagnosis of common numerical chromosomal abnormalities by high-resolution melting analysis of segmental duplications

BACKGROUND

Rapid aneuploidy detection (RAD) methods constitute important complements to karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis. We evaluated the effectiveness of a method called high-resolution melting analysis of segmental duplications (SD-HRM) to serve as an alternative RAD method in prenatal diagnosis of common numerical chromosomal abnormalities (NCAs).

METHODS

We designed eight primary SD-HRM assays for the detection of chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X, and Y; 50 chorionic villus, 1105 amniotic fluid, and 395 cord blood samples were examined using these eight assays. For diagnosing samples that could not be diagnosed using primary assays, additional assays were designed for each target chromosome.

RESULTS

The success rate of eight primary SD-HRM assays ranged from 99.7% to 100%. For the distinguishable analyses, these eight assays attained high diagnostic sensitivities (100%) and specificities (99.9-100%). We differentiated 53 cases of NCAs from 1550 clinical samples; subsequent reference tests revealed that these assays attained 100% clinical sensitivity and specificity. The mosaic ratio of a 45,X/46,XX sample was also precisely calculated.

CONCLUSIONS

The SD-HRM method was able to effectively detect common NCAs in 1550 prenatal samples. We propose that SD-HRM could serve as an effective alternative option to the currently used prenatal RAD methods.

The 'thousand-dollar genome': an ethical exploration

Sequencing an individual's complete genome is expected to be possible for a relatively low sum 'one thousand dollars' within a few years. Sequencing refers to determining the order of base pairs that make up the genome. The result is a library of three billion letter combinations. Cheap whole-genome sequencing is of greatest importance to medical scientific research. Comparing individual complete genomes will lead to a better understanding of the contribution genetic variation makes to health and disease. As knowledge increases, the 'thousand-dollar genome' will also become increasingly important to healthcare. The applications that come within reach raise a number of ethical questions. This monitoring report addresses the issue.

Chromosomal microarray analysis as a first-line test in pregnancies with a priori low risk for the detection of submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities

In this study, we aimed to explore the utility of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in groups of pregnancies with a priori low risk for detection of submicroscopic chromosome abnormalities, usually not considered an indication for testing, in order to assess whether CMA improves the detection rate of prenatal chromosomal aberrations. A total of 3000 prenatal samples were processed in parallel using both whole-genome CMA and conventional karyotyping. The indications for prenatal testing included: advanced maternal age, maternal serum screening test abnormality, abnormal ultrasound findings, known abnormal fetal karyotype, parental anxiety, family history of a genetic condition and cell culture failure. The use of CMA resulted in an increased detection rate regardless of the indication for analysis. This was evident in high risk groups (abnormal ultrasound findings and abnormal fetal karyotype), in which the percentage of detection was 5.8% (7/120), and also in low risk groups, such as advanced maternal age (6/1118, 0.5%), and parental anxiety (11/1674, 0.7%). A total of 24 (0.8%) fetal conditions would have remained undiagnosed if only a standard karyotype had been performed. Importantly, 17 (0.6%) of such findings would have otherwise been overlooked if CMA was offered only to high risk pregnancies.The results of this study suggest that more widespread CMA testing of fetuses would result in a higher detection of clinically relevant chromosome abnormalities, even in low risk pregnancies. Our findings provide substantial evidence for the introduction of CMA as a first-line diagnostic test for all pregnant women undergoing invasive prenatal testing, regardless of risk factors.

Antenatal diagnosis and management of life-limiting conditions

Whereas structural fetal abnormalities are relatively frequent occurrences, many of these do not impact measurably on future life and/or are amenable to postnatal therapy. A small minority are considered to be potentially lethal or life-limiting. Examples include specific skeletal dysplasias, urinary tract abnormalities - typically those which lead to anhydramnios and pulmonary hypoplasia, some disorders of the central nervous system and trisomies 13 and 18. Without seeking to compile an exhaustive list of such conditions, we discuss the principles and new considerations in relation to antenatal diagnosis and perinatal management of such disorders.

Prenatal microarray analysis as second-tier diagnostic test: single-center prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the usefulness of chromosome microarrays as a second-tier test in prenatal genetic testing.

METHODS

We prospectively analyzed 75 high-risk pregnancies undergoing invasive prenatal genetic testing in which the karyotype either was normal or had findings other than a common non-mosaic autosomal aneuploidy.

RESULTS

Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) was performed successfully in all cases. Pathological copy-number variations (CNVs) explaining the phenotypes were found in 11 cases (14.7%). Four cases were detected with an unbalanced translocation. In three of these cases, subsequent genetic analysis demonstrated that a parent was an unknown carrier of a balanced translocation. Among the 67 cases with normal karyo-types, submicroscopic rearrangements with pathological significance were detected in five (7.5%) and CNVs of unclear significance were detected in one (1.5%). CMA was able to discriminate correctly between true mosaicism and confined or pseudomosaicism in all six mosaic cases.

CONCLUSION

CMA is a valuable second-tier test in high-risk pregnancies for which identification or further delineation of genetic aberrations is important. Its higher resolution results in a higher detection rate of aberrant cases, with a clear clinical benefit for estimation of risk of recurrence.

Prenatal BACs-on-Beads™: the prospective experience of five prenatal diagnosis laboratories

OBJECTIVE

We previously reported on the validation of Prenatal BACs-on-Beads™ on retrospectively selected and prospective prenatal samples. This bead-based multiplex assay detects chromosome 13, 18, 21 and X/Y aneuploidies and the nine most frequent microdeletion syndromes. We demonstrated that Prenatal BACs-on-Beads(TM) is a new-generation, prenatal screening tool. Here, we describe the experience of five European prenatal diagnosis laboratories concerning the ongoing use of Prenatal BACs-on-Beads™ .

METHODS

Some 1653 samples were analyzed. All results were confirmed by conventional karyotyping or another appropriate technique. All indications for invasive prenatal diagnosis were included. Amniotic fluid and chorionic villus samples were analyzed in equivalent proportions.

RESULTS

The failure rate was 3.3% and the overall abnormality detection rate was ~1/10. Eighty-five percent of the detected abnormalities were common aneuploidies. Eleven microdeletions and duplications were identified, thus giving an overall yield for microdeletion and microduplication detection of 1/145. Compared with QF-PCR, Prenatal BACs-on-Beads™ provides an additional detection rate of ~1/250 for low-risk pregnancies. The false positive and negative rates were both <1%.

CONCLUSION

When associated with conventional karyotyping, the Prenatal BACs-on-Beads™ assay combines a short turnaround time (typical of rapid aneuploidy detection tests) with valuable detection of the most frequent microdeletion syndromes that cannot be detected in cytogenetic analyses.

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and prenatal diagnosis

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) is a recent technique for the relative quantitation of up to 40 to 45 nucleic acid targets. Due to its relative simplicity, low cost, and availability of laboratory-developed and more than 300 commercially-developed assays, MLPA has become more widely used for both research and diagnostic applications. The MLPA platform is now extensively applied for postnatal diagnosis of genetic disorders and has recently been used for prenatal diagnosis. The published uses of MLPA for prenatal diagnosis include detection of aneuploidies, common microdeletion syndromes and subtelomeric copy-number changes, identification of marker chromosomes, and detection of familial copy-number changes in single genes. This review describes the technique of MLPA in detail and offers considerations for the interpretation of results in the clinical diagnostic setting. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dual testing with QF-PCR and karyotype analysis for prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities. Evaluation of 13,500 cases with consideration of using QF-PCR as a stand-alone test according to referral indications

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the results obtained from Quantitative Fluorescent (QF)-PCR and conventional karyotype analysis to determine the advantages and disadvantages of dual testing in prenatal diagnosis.

METHODS

From 1 June 2006 to 1 June 2010, dual testing by QF-PCR and karyotype analysis was performed in 13,500 prenatal samples. The rates of concordant results between the two methods were evaluated and the rates of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities undetected by QF-PCR were assessed.

RESULTS

Abnormal karyotype was found in 320 out of 13,500 cases (2.37%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-2.63%). From these, QF-PCR did not detect the abnormality in 70 cases (0.52%, 95% CI 0.4-0.64%), whereas 34 had a high/unknown risk of adverse outcome (0.25%, 95% CI 0.17-0.33%). By selectively applying dual testing only at cases with ultrasound findings and/or genetic history, 13 cases of high/unknown risk would have been missed (0.1%, 95% CI 0.05-0.15%).

CONCLUSION

Selective dual testing is expected to achieve a serious beneficial economical outcome and reduce parental anxiety produced by ambiguous cytogenetic findings. However, the percentage of 0.1% undetected clinically significant abnormalities cannot be ignored. A suggestion would include the offering of a choice to the pregnant women, undergoing prenatal screening, by informing them about different approaches and various complications.

The introduction of arrays in prenatal diagnosis: a special challenge

Genome-wide arrays are rapidly replacing conventional karyotyping in postnatal cytogenetic diagnostics and there is a growing request for arrays in the prenatal setting. Several studies have documented 1-3% additional abnormal findings in prenatal diagnosis with arrays compared to conventional karyotyping. A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that 5.2% extra diagnoses can be expected in fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities. However, no consensus exists as to whether the use of genome-wide arrays should be restricted to pregnancies with ultrasound abnormalities, performed in all women undergoing invasive prenatal testing or offered to all pregnant women. Moreover, the interpretation of array results in the prenatal situation is challenging due to the large numbers of copy number variants with no major phenotypic effect. This also raises the question of what, or what not to report, for example, how to deal with unsolicited findings. These issues were discussed at a working group meeting that preceded the European Society of Human Genetics 2011 Conference in Amsterdam. This article is the result of this meeting and explores the introduction of genome-wide arrays into routine prenatal diagnosis. We aim to give some general recommendations on how to develop practical guidelines that can be implemented in the local setting and that are consistent with the emerging international consensus.

Arrays in postnatal and prenatal diagnosis: An exploration of the ethics of consent

The introduction of genome-wide arrays in postnatal and prenatal diagnosis raises challenging ethical issues. Here, we explore questions with regard to the ethics of consent. One important issue is whether informed consent for genome-wide array-based testing is in fact feasible, given the wide range of possible outcomes and related options. The proposed alternative of "generic consent" will have to be studied in practice. From an ethical point of view, the question is whether consent would still be sufficiently "informed" in a generic approach. Another issue that has not yet been given much attention is how far parents, or pregnant women and their partners, should be allowed to determine the range of possible outcomes that will or will not be reported back to them. The scope and limits of parents' and prospective parents' right to know or not to know are far from clear. The complex normative issues on the content and weight of these rights can only be answered by taking full account of the rights and interests of all the parties involved: prospective and actual parents, children, and relatives. This paper is the result of a working group meeting preceding the European Society of Human Genetics 2011 Conference, where these issues were addressed.

Microarray application in prenatal diagnosis: a position statement from the cytogenetics working group of the Italian Society of Human Genetics (SIGU), November 2011

A precise guideline establishing chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) applications and platforms in the prenatal setting does not exist. The controversial question is whether CMA technologies can or should soon replace standard karyotyping in prenatal diagnostic practice. A review of the recent literature and survey of the knowledge and experience of all members of the Italian Society of Human Genetics (SIGU) Committee were carried out in order to propose recommendations for the use of CMA in prenatal testing. The analysis of datasets reported in the medical literature showed a considerable 6.4% incidence of pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs) in the group of pregnancies with sonographically detected fetal abnormalities and normal karyotype. The reported CNVs are likely to have a relevant role in terms of nosology for the fetus and in the assessment of reproductive risk for the couple. Estimation of the frequency of copy number variations of uncertain significance (VOUS) varied depending on the different CMA platforms used, ranging from 0-4%, obtained using targeted arrays, to 9-12%, obtained using high-resolution whole genome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays. CMA analysis can be considered a second-tier diagnostic test to be used after standard karyotyping in selected groups of pregnancies, namely those with single (apparently isolated) or multiple ultrasound fetal abnormalities, those with chromosomal rearrangements, even if apparently balanced, and those with supernumerary marker chromosomes.

Advances in prenatal screening: the ethical dimension

Prenatal screening strategies are undergoing rapid changes owing to the introduction of new testing techniques. The overall tendency is towards broadening the scope of prenatal testing through increasingly sensitive ultrasound scans and genome-wide molecular tests. In addition, non-invasive prenatal diagnosis is likely to be introduced in the near future. These developments raise important ethical questions concerning meaningful reproductive choice, the autonomy rights of future children, equity of access and the proportionality of testing.

Genetic screening

Current approaches to genetic screening include newborn screening to identify infants who would benefit from early treatment, reproductive genetic screening to assist reproductive decision making, and family history assessment to identify individuals who would benefit from additional prevention measures. Although the traditional goal of screening is to identify early disease or risk in order to implement preventive therapy, genetic screening has always included an atypical element-information relevant to reproductive decisions. New technologies offer increasingly comprehensive identification of genetic conditions and susceptibilities. Tests based on these technologies are generating a different approach to screening that seeks to inform individuals about all of their genetic traits and susceptibilities for purposes that incorporate rapid diagnosis, family planning, and expediting of research, as well as the traditional screening goal of improving prevention. Use of these tests in population screening will increase the challenges already encountered in genetic screening programs, including false-positive and ambiguous test results, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings. Whether this approach is desirable requires further empiric research, but it also requires careful deliberation on the part of all concerned, including genomic researchers, clinicians, public health officials, health care payers, and especially those who will be the recipients of this novel screening approach.

Rapid aneuploidy detection or karyotyping? Ethical reflection

No consensus exists whether women at increased risk for trisomy 21, 13, and 18 should be offered stand-alone rapid aneuploidy detection (RAD) or karyotyping. In this paper, the ethical implications of a fast, relatively cheap and targeted RAD are examined. The advantages of RAD seem less robust than its proponents suggest. Fast test results only give a short-term psychological benefit. The cost advantage of RAD is apparent, but must be weighed against consequences like missed abnormalities, which are evaluated differently by professionals and pregnant women. Since pre-test information about RAD will have to include telling women about karyotyping as a possible alternative, the advantage of RAD in terms of the quantity of information that needs to be given may also be smaller than suggested. We conclude that none of the supposed arguments in favour of RAD is decisive in itself. Whether the case for RAD may still be regarded as convincing when taking these arguments together seems to depend on one's implicit view of what prenatal screening is about. Are we basically dealing with a test for trisomy 21 and a few conditions more? Or are there good grounds for also testing for the wider range of abnormalities that karyotyping can detect? As professionals and pregnant women may have different views about this, we suggest that the best approach is to offer women a choice between RAD and karyotyping. This approach is most in line with the general aim of prenatal screening: providing opportunities for autonomous reproductive choice.

Assessment of QF-PCR as the first approach in prenatal diagnosis

Quantitative fluorescent PCR (QF-PCR) has been used by many laboratories for prenatal diagnosis of the most common aneuploidies. QF-PCR is rapid, cost-effective, and suitable for automation and can detect most abnormalities diagnosed by conventional karyotyping. Whether QF-PCR should be used alone in most of the samples and in which karyotyping should also be offered is currently a topic of debate. We evaluated and compared the results obtained from 7679 prenatal samples in which conventional karyotype and QF-PCR had been performed, including 1243 chorionic villi and 6436 amniotic fluid samples. Concordant QF-PCR and karyotype results were obtained in 98.75% of the samples. An abnormal karyotype associated with adverse clinical outcome undetected by QF-PCR was found in 0.05% of samples. Therefore, QF-PCR can be used alone in a large number of samples studied in a prenatal laboratory, thereby reducing both the workload in cytogenetic laboratories and parental anxiety when awaiting results.

Applications of array comparative genomic hybridization in obstetrics

Current prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis uses mostly G-banded karyotyping of fetal cells from chorionic villi or amniotic fluid cultures, which readily detects any aneuploidy and larger structural genomic rearrangements that are more than 4 to 5 megabases in size. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is also used for rapid detection of the common aneuploidies seen in liveborns. If there is prior knowledge that increases risk for a specific deletion or duplication syndrome, FISH with a probe specific for the region in question is done. Over the past decade, array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) has been developed, which can survey the entire genome for submicroscopic microdeletions and microduplications, in addition to all unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities that are also detected by karyotype. aCGH in essence interrogates the genome with thousands of probes fixed on a slide in a single assay, and has already revolutionized cytogenetic diagnosis in the pediatric population. aCGH is being used increasingly for prenatal diagnosis where it is also beginning to make a significant impact. The authors review here principles of aCGH, its benefits for prenatal diagnosis and associated challenges, primarily the inability to detect balanced chromosomal abnormalities and a small risk for discovery of chromosomal abnormalities of uncertain clinical significance. The superior diagnostic power of aCGH far outweighs these concerns. Furthermore, such issues can be addressed during pre- and posttest counseling, and their impact will further diminish as the technology continues to develop and experience with its prenatal diagnostic use grows.

Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored

This paper explores the ethical implications of introducing non-invasive prenatal diagnostic tests (NIPD tests) in prenatal screening for foetal abnormalities. NIPD tests are easy and safe and can be performed early in pregnancy. Precisely because of these features, it is feared that informed consent may become more difficult, that both testing and selective abortion will become 'normalized', and that there will be a trend towards accepting testing for minor abnormalities and non-medical traits as well. In our view, however, the real moral challenge of NIPD testing consists in the possibility of linking up a technique with these features (easy, safe and early) with new genomic technologies that allow prenatal diagnostic testing for a much broader range of abnormalities than is the case in current procedures. An increase in uptake and more selective abortions need not in itself be taken to signal a thoughtless acceptance of these procedures. However, combining this with considerably enlarging the scope of NIPD testing will indeed make informed consent more difficult and challenge the notion of prenatal screening as serving reproductive autonomy. If broad NIPD testing includes later-onset diseases, the 'right not to know' of the future child will become a new issue in the debate about prenatal screening. With regard to the controversial issue of selective abortion, it may make a morally relevant difference that after NIPD testing, abortion can be done early. A lower moral status may be attributed to the foetus at that moment, given the dominant opinion that the moral status of the foetus progressively increases with its development.