Inter-lab concordance of variant classifications establishes clinical validity of expanded carrier screening

Expanded carrier screening: What conditions should we screen for?

Carrier screening tests reproductive couples for their risk of having children affected by serious monogenic conditions. Carrier screening has historically been offered for certain conditions in high-risk populations. However, more recent evidence has shown that offering carrier screening to all patients, regardless of their ethnicity, more effectively and equitably identifies at-risk couples. Coupled with technology that enables screening for a nearly unlimited number of conditions, this expanded carrier screening (ECS) approach is now supported by professional society guidelines. Despite recent recommendations by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics to screen all patients who are pregnant or considering pregnancy for 113 conditions, questions remain about what conditions should be included on a core ECS panel. Here, we briefly review the history of carrier screening and guidelines on criteria for panel design. We then suggest which of these criteria are most critical, as well as thresholds to identify which conditions meet these criteria. Based on these interpretations, we recommend a core panel of 64 conditions that would identify the vast majority of at-risk couples. Widespread adoption of a core panel such as this would result in a marked improvement in the number of patients currently receiving comprehensive carrier screening.

Carrier screening: An update

Genetic carrier screening (CS) for reproductive decision making was introduced 50 years ago. Technological advances and improvements in knowledge of the human genome makes multi-disease, pan-ethnic CS possible. Such screening will identify most individuals as carriers of at least one autosomal recessive or X-linked recessive disorder. Past experiences and best practices have provided a framework for CS. Although its clinical utilization is increasing, some challenges remain. In this study, several aspects of CS panel implementation have been addressed including how to evaluate the quantitative gene inclusion criteria, how to classify the severity of genetic conditions, how to understand clinical validity at the level of gene-disease association and variant classification, and how to minimize residual risks.

A guidelines-consistent carrier screening panel that supports equity across diverse populations

PURPOSE

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) suggest carrier screening panel design criteria intended to ensure meaningful results. This study used a data-driven approach to interpret the criteria to identify guidelines-consistent panels.

METHODS

Carrier frequencies in >460,000 individuals across 11 races/ethnicities were used to assess carrier frequency. Other criteria were interpreted on the basis of published data. A total of 176 conditions were then evaluated. Stringency thresholds were set as suggested by ACOG and/or ACMG or by evaluating conditions already recommended by ACOG and ACMG.

RESULTS

Forty and 75 conditions had carrier frequencies of ≥1 in 100 and ≥1 in 200, respectively; 175 had a well-defined phenotype; and 165 met at least 1 severity criterion and had an onset early in life. Thirty-seven conditions met conservative thresholds, including a carrier frequency of ≥1 in 100, and 74 conditions met permissive thresholds, including a carrier frequency of ≥1 in 200; thus, both were identified as guidelines-consistent panels.

CONCLUSION

Clear panel design criteria are needed to ensure quality and consistency among carrier screening panels. Evidence-based analyses of criteria resulted in the identification of guidelines-consistent panels of 37 and 74 conditions.

The ethics of preconception expanded carrier screening in patients seeking assisted reproduction

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) entails a screening offer for carrier status for multiple recessive disorders simultaneously and allows testing of couples or individuals regardless of ancestry or geographic origin. Although universal ECS—referring to a screening offer for the general population—has generated considerable ethical debate, little attention has been given to the ethics of preconception ECS for patients applying for assisted reproduction using their own gametes. There are several reasons why it is time for a systematic reflection on this practice. Firstly, various European fertility clinics already offer preconception ECS on a routine basis, and others are considering such a screening offer. Professionals involved in assisted reproduction have indicated a need for ethical guidance for ECS. Secondly, it is expected that patients seeking assisted reproduction will be particularly interested in preconception ECS, as they are already undertaking the physical, emotional and economic burdens of such reproduction. Thirdly, an offer of preconception ECS to patients seeking assisted reproduction raises particular ethical questions that do not arise in the context of universal ECS: the professional’s involvement in the conception implies that both parental and professional responsibilities should be taken into account. This paper reflects on and provides ethical guidance for a responsible implementation of preconception ECS to patients seeking assisted reproduction using their own gametes by assessing the proportionality of such a screening offer: do the possible benefits clearly outweigh the possible harms and disadvantages? If so, for what kinds of disorders and under what conditions?

Clinical validity of expanded carrier screening: Evaluating the gene-disease relationship in more than 200 conditions

Clinical guidelines consider expanded carrier screening (ECS) to be an acceptable method of carrier screening. However, broader guideline support and payer adoption require evidence for associations between the genes on ECS panels and the conditions for which they aim to identify carriers. We applied a standardized framework for evaluation of gene‐disease association to assess the clinical validity of conditions screened by ECS panels. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) gene curation framework was used to assess genetic and experimental evidence of associations between 208 genes and conditions screened on two commercial ECS panels. Twenty‐one conditions were previously classified by ClinGen, and the remaining 187 were evaluated by curation teams at two laboratories. To ensure consistent application of the framework across the laboratories, concordance was evaluated on a subset of conditions. All 208 evaluated conditions met the evidence threshold for supporting a gene‐disease association. Furthermore, 203 of 208 (98%) achieved the strongest (“Definitive”) level of gene‐disease association. All conditions evaluated by both commercial laboratories were similarly classified. Assessment using the ClinGen standardized framework revealed strong evidence of gene‐disease association for conditions on two ECS panels. This result establishes the disease‐level clinical validity of the panels considered herein.

Inter-lab concordance of variant classifications establishes clinical validity of expanded carrier screening

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) panels that use next‐generation sequencing aim to identify pathogenic variants in coding and clinically relevant non‐coding regions of hundreds of genes, each associated with a serious recessive condition. ECS has established analytical validity and clinical utility, meaning that variants are accurately identified and pathogenic variants tend to alter patients' clinical management, respectively. However, the clinical validity of ECS, that is, correct discernment of whether an identified variant is indeed pathogenic, has only been shown for single conditions, not for panels. Here, we evaluate the clinical validity of a >170‐condition ECS panel by assessing concordance between >12 000 variant interpretations classified with guideline‐based criteria to their corresponding per‐variant combined classifications in ClinVar. We observe 99% concordance at the level of unique variants. A more clinically relevant frequency‐weighted analysis reveals that fewer than 1 in 500 patients are expected to receive a report with a variant that has a discordant classification. Importantly, gene‐level concordance is not diminished for rare ECS conditions, suggesting that large panels do not balloon the panel‐wide false‐positive rate. Finally, because ECS is intended to serve all reproductive‐age couples, we show that classification of novel variants is feasible and scales predictably for a large population.