Privacy Risks in Prenatal Aneuploidy and Carrier Screening: What Obstetricians and Their Patients Need to Know

Knowledge gaps and confidence in counseling about aneuploidy screening and testing: A survey of prenatal care clinicians

OBJECTIVES

Comprehensive counseling on prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing is challenging for clinicians. We sought to identify baseline clinician knowledge of prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing and needs to promote counseling aligned with ACOG recommendations.

METHODS

We performed an anonymous, cross-sectional survey of clinicians at two unaffiliated, tertiary academic institutions to assess the knowledge of, confidence in, and time spent counseling on prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing. Stata (Version 17, College Station, TX) was used to perform descriptive statistics. Deductive and inductive coding was used to analyze responses regarding ideal education resources.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 78% (100/129). Only 36% of respondents correctly answered knowledge questions about prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing. A majority, 59% (16/39), of those confident or extremely confident in counseling were unable to answer all questions accurately. Respondents reported a median of 5.6 min (95% CI 4.9-6.4 min) spent counseling. Thematic analysis of free responses revealed desire for visual tools that discuss financial costs and patient values.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveyed clinicians demonstrated deficiencies in knowledge about prenatal genetic counseling. To provide better and more comprehensive care, we noted a desire for the development of formalized resources for clinician and patient education.

Evaluating Expanded Noninvasive Prenatal Screening

Public attention has been drawn recently to the commercial availability of noninvasive prenatal screening for rare genetic conditions, despite estimates that the positive predictive value of such tests is low. Many have focused on the importance of educating patients on the difference between screening and diagnostic testing so that they are adequately prepared for the possibility of a false-positive result. Even so, we question whether expanded noninvasive prenatal screening is ready to be used a screening tool. We argue that established public health criteria for evaluating the risks and benefits of a screening tool should be applied to expanded noninvasive prenatal screening. If a test fails to meet accepted standards, governmental agencies should consider regulating the accuracy and promotional claims of commercially available tests.

Video education about genetic privacy and patient perspectives about sharing prenatal genetic data: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Laboratories offering cell-free DNA often reserve the right to share prenatal genetic data for research or even commercial purposes, and obtain this permission on the patient consent form. Although it is known that nonpregnant patients are often reluctant to share their genetic data for research, pregnant patients' knowledge of, and opinions about, genetic data privacy are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether pregnant patients who had already undergone cell-free DNA screening were aware that genetic data derived from cell-free DNA may be shared for research. Furthermore, we examined whether pregnant patients exposed to video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act-a federal law that mandates workplace and health insurance protections against genetic discrimination-were more willing to share cell-free DNA-related genetic data for research than pregnant patients who were unexposed.

STUDY DESIGN

In this randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04420858), English-speaking patients with singleton pregnancies who underwent cell-free DNA and subsequently presented at 17 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks of gestation for a detailed anatomy scan were randomized 1:1 to a control or intervention group. Both groups viewed an infographic about cell-free DNA. In addition, the intervention group viewed an educational video about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The primary outcomes were knowledge about, and willingness to share, prenatal genetic data from cell-free DNA by commercial laboratories for nonclinical purposes, such as research. The secondary outcomes included knowledge about existing genetic privacy laws, knowledge about the potential for reidentification of anonymized genetic data, and acceptability of various use and sharing scenarios for prenatal genetic data. Eighty-one participants per group were required for 80% power to detect an increase in willingness to share data from 60% to 80% (α=0.05).

RESULTS

A total of 747 pregnant patients were screened, and 213 patients were deemed eligible and approached for potential study participation. Of these patients, 163 (76.5%) consented and were randomized; one participant discontinued the intervention, and two participants were excluded from analysis after the intervention when it was discovered that they did not fulfill all eligibility criteria. Overall, 160 (75.1%) of those approached were included in the final analysis. Most patients in the control group (72 [90.0%]) and intervention (76 [97.4%]) group were either unsure about or incorrectly thought that cell-free DNA companies could not share prenatal genetic data for research. Participants in the intervention group were more likely to incorrectly believe that their prenatal genetic data would not be shared for nonclinical purposes than participants in the control group (28.8% in the control group vs 46.2% in the intervention; P=.03). However, video education did not increase participant willingness to share genetic data in multiple scenarios. Non-White participants were less willing than White participants to allow sharing of genetic data specifically for academic research (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Most participants were unaware that their prenatal genetic data may be used for nonclinical purposes. Pregnant patients who were educated about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act were not more willing to share genetic data than those who did not receive this education. Surprisingly, video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act led patients to falsely believe that their data would not be shared for research, and participants who identified as racial minorities were less willing to share genetic data. New strategies are needed to improve pregnant patients' understanding of genetic privacy.