Factors that impact on women's decision-making around prenatal genomic tests: An international discrete choice survey.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a survey-based discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to understand the test features that drive women's preferences for prenatal genomic testing, and explore variation across countries. METHODS: Five test attributes were identified as being important for decision-making through a literature review, qualitative interviews and quantitative scoring exercise. Twelve scenarios were constructed in which respondents choose between two invasive tests or no test. Women from eight countries who delivered a baby in the previous 24 months completed a DCE presenting these scenarios. Choices were modeled using conditional logit regression analysis. RESULTS: Surveys from 1239 women (Australia: n = 178; China: n = 179; Denmark: n = 88; Netherlands: n = 177; Singapore: n = 90; Sweden: n = 178; UK: n = 174; USA: n = 175) were analyzed. The key attribute affecting preferences was a test with the highest diagnostic yield (p < 0.01). Women preferred tests with short turnaround times (p < 0.01), and tests reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS; p < 0.01) and secondary findings (SFs; p < 0.01). Several country-specific differences were identified, including time to get a result, who explains the result, and the return of VUS and SFs. CONCLUSION: Most women want maximum information from prenatal genomic tests, but our findings highlight country-based differences. Global consensus on how to return uncertain results is not necessarily realistic or desirable.

How to deal with uncertainty in prenatal genomics: A systematic review of guidelines and policies.

Exome sequencing (ES) enhanced the diagnostic yield of genetic testing, but has also increased the possibility of uncertain findings. Prenatal ES is increasingly being offered after a fetal abnormality is detected through ultrasound. It is important to know how to handle uncertainty in this particularly stressful period. This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of guidelines available for addressing uncertainty related to prenatal chromosomal microarray (CMA) and ES. Ten uncertainty types associated with prenatal ES and CMA were identified and defined by an international multidisciplinary team. Medline (all) and Embase were systematically searched. Laboratory scientists, clinical geneticists, psychologists, and a fetal medicine specialist screened the papers and performed the data extraction. Nineteen papers were included. Recommendations generally emphasized the importance of trio analysis, clinical information, data sharing, validation and re-analysis, protocols, multidisciplinary teams, genetic counselling, whether to limit the possible scope of results, and when to report particular findings. This systematic review helps provide a vocabulary for uncertainties, and a compass to navigate uncertainties. Prenatal CMA and ES guidelines provide a strong starting point for determining how to handle uncertainty. Gaps in guidelines and recommendations were identified and discussed to provide direction for future research and policy making.

Dealing with uncertain results from chromosomal microarray and exome sequencing in the prenatal setting: An international cross-sectional study with healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct qualitative interviews with healthcare providers working in different countries to understand their experiences of dealing with uncertain results from prenatal chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 31 healthcare providers who report or return prenatal CMA and/or ES results (clinicians, genetic counsellors and clinical scientists) in six countries with differing healthcare systems; Australia (4), Denmark (5), Netherlands (6), Singapore (4), Sweden (6) and United Kingdom (6). The topic guide explored the main sources of uncertainty and their management. RESULTS: There was variation in reporting practices both between and across countries for variants of uncertain significance, however, there was broad agreement on reporting practices for incidental findings. There was also variation in who decides what results are reported (clinical scientists or clinicians). Technical limitations and lack of knowledge (to classify variants and of prenatal phenotypes) were significant challenges, as were turnaround times and lack of guidelines. CONCLUSION: Health professionals around the globe are dealing with similar sources of uncertainty, but managing them in different ways, Continued dialogue with international colleagues on ways of managing uncertain results is important to compare and contrast the benefits and limitations of the different approaches.

Parental experiences of uncertainty following an abnormal fetal anomaly scan: Insights using Han's taxonomy of uncertainty.

For a number of prospective parents, uncertainty during pregnancy starts when an anomaly is found during a routine fetal anomaly scan. This may be followed by numerous tests to determine the etiology and nature of the anomaly. In this study, we aimed to understand how prospective parents perceive and manage uncertainty after being confronted with a structural anomaly during their routine ultrasound. Han's taxonomy of uncertainty was used as a framework to identify and understand the different types of uncertainty experienced. Interviews were held in the UK (n = 8 women and n = 1 male partner) and in the Netherlands (n = 7 women) with participants who had experienced uncertainty in their pregnancy after a fetal scan. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, and the uncertainties experienced by parents were mapped against the dimensions of the Han taxonomy (sources, issues, and locus). Participants' experience of uncertainty was relevant to all dimensions and subcategories of the Han taxonomy, showing its applicability in the prenatal setting. Sources of uncertainty included receiving probabilistic or ambiguous information about the anomaly, or information that was complex and challenging to understand. Issues of uncertainty included were those that were scientific-such as a probable diagnosis with no further information, personal-such as the emotional impact of uncertainty, and practical-such as limited information about medical procedures and practical aspects of care. Additionally, participants described what helped them to manage uncertainty. This included active coping strategies such as searching for information on the Internet, external coping resources such as seeking social support, and internal coping resources such as using positivity and hope. Several recommendations for the healthcare professional to minimize uncertainty and help the patient deal with uncertainty have been proposed based on these findings.

Psychosocial Impact of a True-Positive, False-Positive, or Inconclusive Newborn Bloodspot Screening Result: A Questionnaire Study among Parents.

Expansion of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) can increase health gain for more children but also increases the number of false-positive and uncertain results. The impact of abnormal and inconclusive NBS results on parental well-being and healthcare utilization was investigated. A questionnaire was sent to Dutch parents receiving an abnormal or inconclusive NBS result five weeks (T1) and four months (T2) post-NBS and compared to parents with a normal result (controls). In total, 35 true-positive (TP), 20 false-positive (FP), and 57 inconclusive (IC) participants and 268 controls filled out T1; 19 TP, 14 FP, 27 IC, and 116 controls filled out T2. Participants showed positive attitudes towards NBS. FP participants more often considered NBS less reliable. TP and FP participants experienced more negative emotions regarding the test result compared to controls at both T1 and T2, and IC only at T1. Parent-reported child vulnerability and perceptions of the newborn's health status and of parenthood showed no differences. TP and FP participants reported more healthcare utilization at T1, and mainly TP at T2. TP and IC participants showed more emergency department visits at T1. The findings can be used to improve NBS programs and optimize support for families with various NBS results.

Challenges and Pragmatic Solutions in Pre-Test and Post-Test Genetic Counseling for Prenatal Exome Sequencing.

The yield of genetic prenatal diagnosis has been notably improved by introducing whole genome chromosomal microarray (CMA) and prenatal exome sequencing (pES). However, together with increased numbers of diagnoses made, the need to manage challenging findings such as variants of unknown significance (VUS) and incidental findings (IF) also increased. We have summarized the current guidelines and recommendations and we have shown current solutions used in our tertiary center in the Netherlands. We discuss four of the most common clinical situations: fetus with normal pES results, fetus with a pathogenic finding explaining the fetal phenotype, fetus with a variant of uncertain clinical significance fitting the phenotype and fetus with a variant leading to an incidental diagnosis. Additionally, we reflect on solutions in order to facilitate genetic counseling in an NGS-era.

The role of a multidisciplinary team in managing variants of uncertain clinical significance in prenatal genetic diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Although in general prenatal exome sequencing only reports (likely) pathogenic variants, in some cases a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) is disclosed. The aims of this retrospective study were to evaluate the types of VUS that have been reported to prospective parents, possible reclassification and to design a standard flow chart to determine which types of VUS could be considered for reporting in prenatal settings. Furthermore, we investigated what the crucial elements are to facilitate rapid management of uncertain results in a prenatal setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed exome results from 451 pregnancies performed in 2019-2021. We analyzed which factors that were taken into account by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) contributed towards decision making on reporting VUS after prenatal exome sequencing. RESULTS: In 9/451 (2%) pregnancies tested with exome sequencing using a broad panel analysis a VUS was reported. After birth 3/9 VUS could be reclassified to likely pathogenic variants based on new clinical follow up data. We considered reporting VUS in genes: 1) matching the fetal phenotype, 2) associated with a severe disorder when a functional test is available or 3) possibly associated with a disorder where early post-partum diagnosis and treatment are crucial for a better prognosis. Two flowcharts were designed to guide first the laboratory specialist and then the MDT in decisions on reporting VUS. The crucial elements that enabled timely decisions on VUS disclosure were regular meetings, appropriate expertise, professional connections with other experts and psychological safety within the MDT. CONCLUSION: In this study three out of nine VUS could be re-classified as likely pathogenic after clinical follow-up. In order to protect pregnant couples from the burden of uncertain results, the genetic professionals have to take the responsibility to limit the reporting of VUS. This can be done not only by automated filtering of data, by following professional guidelines and by building standardized decision flows, but also by discussing individual cases considering personal situations and the involved disease and by sharing professional experience and responsibility in a multidisciplinary prenatal team setting.

Assessing women's preferences towards tests that may reveal uncertain results from prenatal genomic testing: Development of attributes for a discrete choice experiment, using a mixed-methods design.

Prenatal DNA tests, such as chromosomal microarray analysis or exome sequencing, increase the likelihood of receiving a diagnosis when fetal structural anomalies are identified. However, some parents will receive uncertain results such as variants of uncertain significance and secondary findings. We aimed to develop a set of attributes and associated levels for a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) that will examine parents' preferences for tests that may reveal uncertain test results. A two phase mixed-methods approach was used to develop attributes for the DCE. In Phase 1, a "long list" of candidate attributes were identified via two approaches: 1) a systematic review of the literature around parental experiences of uncertainty following prenatal testing; 2) 16 semi-structured interviews with parents who had experienced uncertainty during pregnancy and 25 health professionals who return uncertain prenatal results. In Phase 2, a quantitative scoring exercise with parents prioritised the candidate attributes. Clinically appropriate levels for each attribute were then developed. A final set of five attributes and levels were identified: likelihood of getting a result, reporting of variants of uncertain significance, reporting of secondary findings, time taken to receive results, and who tells you about your result. These attributes will be used in an international DCE study to investigate preferences and differences across countries. This research will inform best practice for professionals supporting parents to manage uncertainty in the prenatal setting.

Parents' views on accepting, declining, and expanding newborn bloodspot screening.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is the early detection of treatable disorders in newborns to offer early intervention. Worldwide, the number of conditions screened for is expanding, which might affect public acceptance. In the Netherlands, participation is high (>99%), but little is known about how parents perceive NBS. This study assessed parents' views on accepting, declining and expanding NBS. METHODS: A total of 804 of 6051 (13%) invited parents who participated in NBS in the Netherlands during the last two weeks of December 2019, and 48 of 1162 (4%) invited parents who declined participation in NBS in 2019 and 2020, completed a questionnaire. RESULTS: The most important reason for parents to participate in NBS was to prevent health complaints, whereas the most important reason to decline NBS was parents' viewpoint on life and the belief that the heel prick would be painful for the child. Compared to NBS participants, respondents who declined NBS were more actively religious, considered alternative medicine or lifestyle more important, were less inclined to vaccinate their child for infectious diseases, and reported more doubt about NBS participation (all differences p < .001). Informed choice was lower among respondents who declined NBS (44%) compared to participants in NBS (83%, p < .001), mostly due to insufficient knowledge. Of the NBS participants, 95% were positive about NBS expansion. Most NBS participants agreed to include conditions that could unintentionally reveal a diagnosis in the mother instead of the child (86%) or a condition that may not cause symptoms until later in the child's life (84%). CONCLUSION: Most participants made an informed decision to participate in NBS and are positive about screening for more conditions. Insights into parents' views on (non-)participation and expansion of NBS can help to ensure that NBS suits the population needs while safeguarding ethical principles for screening.