Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 3: the ethical and counseling implications of new genomic technologies: all pregnant women should be offered prenatal diagnostic genome-wide testing for prenatally identified fetal congenital anomalies

A Founding Father of Reproductive Genetics: Eugene Pergament (1933-2022)

A Founding Father of Reproductive Genetics: Eugene Pergament (1933-2022) This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare professionals working in prenatal diagnosis toward expanded non-invasive prenatal testing in China

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in prenatal diagnosis toward expanded non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in China.

METHODS

We conducted a national online survey among HCPs working in prenatal diagnosis, including specialists in prenatal diagnosis and foetal medicine, obstetricians and gynaecologists, nurses in obstetrics and gynaecology, obstetric ultrasound doctors, and technicians in prenatal diagnosis laboratories. A total of 1882 questionnaires were collected, among which 1822 questionnaires met the research criteria and were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

More than 99% of all participants opted for NIPT for trisomies 21, 18, and 13. The rates of support for expanded NIPT for sex chromosome aneuploidies, rare autosomal trisomies, microdeletions and microduplications, and single-gene disorders were 93.9%, 88.6%, 89.4%, and 86.8%, respectively. Specialists in prenatal diagnosis and foetal medicine had greater knowledge but were less likely to support expanded NIPT compared to other participants. Knowledge increased with educational level, whereas support for expanded NIPT decreased with educational level.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 80% of HCPs working in prenatal diagnosis in China expressed support for expanding NIPT to conditions other than common trisomies. The degree of knowledge was negatively associated with the rate of support.

Noninvasive prenatal screening or advanced diagnostic testing: caveat emptor

The past few years have seen extraordinary advances in prenatal genetic practice led by 2 major technological advances; next-generation sequencing of cell-free DNA in the maternal plasma to noninvasively identify fetal chromosome abnormalities, and microarray analysis of chorionic villus sampling and amniotic fluid samples, resulting in increased cytogenetic resolution. Noninvasive prenatal screening of cell-free DNA has demonstrated sensitivity and specificity for trisomy 21 superior to all previous screening approaches with slightly lower performance for other common aneuploidies. These tests have rapidly captured an increasing market share, with substantial reductions in the number of chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis performed suggesting that physicians and patients regard such screening approaches as an equivalent replacement for diagnostic testing. Simultaneously, many clinical programs have noted significant decreases in patient counseling. In 2012 the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development funded a blinded comparison of karyotype with the emerging technology of array comparative genomic hybridization showing that in patients with a normal karyotype, 2.5% had a clinically relevant microdeletion or duplication identified. In pregnancies with an ultrasound-detected structural anomaly, 6% had an incremental finding, and of those with a normal scan, 1.6% had a copy number variant. For patients of any age with a normal ultrasound and karyotype, the chance of a pathogenic copy number variant is greater than 1%, similar to the age-related risk of aneuploidy in the fetus of a 38 year old. This risk is 4-fold higher than the risk of trisomy 21 in a woman younger than 30 years and 5- to 10-fold higher than the present accepted risk of a diagnostic procedure. Based on this, we contend that every patient, regardless of her age, be educated about these risks and offered the opportunity to have a diagnostic procedure with array comparative genomic hybridization performed.

Prenatal Testing for Adult-Onset Conditions: the Position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Advances in genetic testing and the availability of such testing in pregnancy allows prospective parents to test their future child for adult-onset conditions. This ability raises several complex ethical issues. Prospective parents have reproductive rights to obtain information about their fetus. This information may or may not alter pregnancy management. These rights can be in conflict with the rights of the future individual, who will be denied the right to elect or decline testing. This paper highlights the complexity of these issues, details discussions that went into the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Public Policy Task Force's development of the Prenatal testing for Adult-Onset Conditions position statement adopted in November 2014, and cites relevant literature on this topic through December 2015. Issues addressed include parental rights and autonomy, rights of the future child, the right not to know, possible adverse effects on childhood and the need for genetic counseling. This paper will serve as a reference to genetic counselors and healthcare professionals when faced with this situation in clinical practice.

Screening and Testing in Multiples

The choice of screening or invasive procedure in twin pregnancies is a personal choice of whether the patient wishes to take a small risk of having a baby with a serious disorder versus a small risk of having a complication because she wishes to avoid that. How to interpret such risks has profound effects on the perceived value of techniques, either leading to a decision to screening or going directly to chorionic villus sampling. There are profound issues surrounding the data and the interpretation of the data. No single short review can exhaustively examine all of the issues.

Pre- and post-test genetic counseling for chromosomal and Mendelian disorders

Genetic carrier screening, prenatal screening for aneuploidy, and prenatal diagnostic testing have expanded dramatically over the past 2 decades. Driven in part by powerful market forces, new complex testing modalities have become available after limited clinical research. The responsibility for offering these tests lies primarily on the obstetrical care provider and has become more burdensome as the number of testing options expands. Genetic testing in pregnancy is optional, and decisions about undergoing tests, as well as follow-up testing, should be informed and based on individual patients' values and needs. Careful pre- and post-test counseling is central to supporting informed decision-making. This article explores three areas of technical expansion in genetic testing: expanded carrier screening, non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies using cell-free DNA, and diagnostic testing using fetal chromosomal microarray testing, and provides insights aimed at enabling the obstetrical practitioner to better support patients considering these tests.

Integrating Microarrays into Routine Prenatal Diagnosis: Determinants of Decision Making

OBJECTIVES

The explosion in genetic technologies, including array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), has increased the complexity of genetic counseling. We now offer chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and aCGH to all first-trimester patients, as this allows the prenatal diagnosis of an additional 1% of anomalies not otherwise detectable and can detect genetic copy number variants at a much higher resolution than conventional cytogenetics. Here, we explored some of the determinants of how patients are deciding to use or not use this new technology and evaluate risk-benefit analyses for that decision.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case-control study of singleton and multiples pregnancies at our center. Those having aCGH testing along with CVS were defined as 'testers' and those who declined aCGH but had the CVS were 'nontesters'.

RESULTS

Demographic data of 181 educated women who chose CVS were compared. Among those carrying singletons (n = 144), older women, defined as over 35 years of age (or 'advanced maternal age'; AMA), were more likely to choose the aCGH than younger women. Further, women who had a prior history of genetic testing and who wanted to know the gender of the fetus were more likely to choose the aCGH test. In women carrying multiples (n = 37), AMA ceases to be a predictor of choice. Having had prior genetic counseling remains a strong predictor for choosing aCGH, as does wanting to know the gender of the fetus. Neither prior abortions nor having prior children were significant for women carrying singletons or multiples.

CONCLUSION

Offering pregnant couples an individualized choice regarding aCGH seems an appropriate approach. There are discrete patterns associated with the choice of taking the aCGH that varied depending on whether the patient was carrying a singleton or multiples.