Introduction of a nationwide first-trimester anomaly scan in the Dutch national screening program.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of major fetal structural anomalies can be detected in the first trimester by ultrasound examination. However, the test performance of the first-trimester anomaly scan (FTAS) performed in a low-risk population as part of a nationwide prenatal screening program is unknown. Potential benefits of the FTAS include early detection of fetal anomalies, providing parents with more time for reproductive decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the uptake, test performance and time to a final prenatal diagnosis after referral. STUDY DESIGN: A nationwide implementation study was conducted in the Netherlands (November 2021-November 2022). The FTAS was performed between 12+3 and 14+3 weeks gestation by certified sonographers using a standard protocol. Women were referred to a tertiary care center if anomalies were suspected. Uptake, test performance and time to a final prenatal diagnosis (days between referral and date of final diagnosis/prognosis for reproductive decision-making) were determined. Test performance was calculated for first-trimester major congenital anomalies, such as anencephaly and holoprosencephaly and all diagnosed anomalies <24 weeks gestation. RESULTS: The FTAS uptake was 74.9% (129 704/173 129). In 1.0% (1 313/129 704), an anomaly was suspected, of which 54.9% (n=721) had abnormal findings on the detailed first-trimester diagnostic scan and 44.6% (n=586) showed normal results. In 0.5% (n=6), intra-uterine fetal death occurred. In the total group of 721 cases with abnormal findings, 332 structural anomalies, 117 genetic anomalies, 82 other findings (abnormal fetal biometry, sonomarkers, placental/umbilical cord anomaly, an-/oligohydramnios) and 189 cases with transient findings (defined as ultrasound findings which resolved <24 weeks gestation) were found, with one case having an unknown outcome. 0.9% (n=1164) of all cases with a normal FTAS were diagnosed with a fetal anomaly in the second trimester. Test performance included a sensitivity of 84.6% (126/149) for first-trimester major congenital anomalies and 31.6% (537/1701) for all types of anomalies. Specificity for all anomalies was 99.2% (98 055/98 830); positive predictive value 40.9% (537/1 312); negative predictive value 98.8% (98 055/99 219); positive likelihood ratio 40.3; negative likelihood ratio 0.7; false positive rate 0.8% (775/98 830) and false negative rate 68.4% (1 164/1 701). The median time to diagnosis for structural anomalies was 20 days (6-43 days; median GA 16+3), for genetic anomalies 17 days (8.5-27.5 days; median GA 15+6 weeks) and for first-trimester major congenital anomalies 9 days (5-22 days; median GA 14+6 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of a newly introduced nationwide FTAS in a low-risk population showed a high sensitivity for first-trimester major congenital anomalies and a lower sensitivity for all anomalies combined. The program was accompanied by a referral rate of 1.0%, of which 59.1% involved cases where anomalies were either not confirmed or resolved before 24 weeks gestation. Timing of diagnosis was around 16 weeks gestation for referred cases. To evaluate the balance between benefits and potential harm of the FTAS within a nationwide prenatal screening program, it is essential to assess the effectiveness of the program over time and to consider the perspectives of both women and their partners, as well as healthcare professionals.

An ESHG-ESHRE survey on the current practice of expanded carrier screening in medically assisted reproduction.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the current practice and views on (expanded) carrier screening ((E)CS) among healthcare professionals in medically assisted reproductive (MAR) practices in Europe? SUMMARY ANSWER: The findings show a limited support for ECS with less than half of the respondents affiliated to centres offering ECS, and substantial variation in practice between centres in Europe. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The availability of next-generation sequencing, which enables testing for large groups of genes simultaneously, has facilitated the introduction and expansion of ECS strategies, currently offered particularly in the private sector in the context of assisted reproduction. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional survey evaluating practice and current views among professionals working in MAR practice in different European countries was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool. The web-based questionnaire included questions on general information regarding the current practice of (E)CS in MAR and questions on what is offered, to whom the test is offered, and how it is offered. It consisted mostly of multiple-choice questions with comment boxes, but also included open questions on the respondents' attitudes/concerns relevant to (E)CS practice, and room to upload requested files (e.g. guidelines and gene panels). In total, 338 responses were collected from 8 February 2022 to 11 April 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The online survey was launched with an invitation email from the ESHRE central office (n = 4889 emails delivered) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) central office (n = 1790 emails delivered) sent to the ESHRE and ESHG members, and by social media posts. The survey was addressed to European MAR centres or gamete banks and to centres located in non-European countries participating in the European IVF-monitoring Consortium. Two reminder emails were sent. After exclusion of 39 incomplete responses received (e.g. only background information), 299 respondents from 40 different countries were included for analyses. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Overall, 42.5% (127/299) of respondents were affiliated to centres offering ECS. The perceived responsibility to enable prospective parents to make informed reproductive decisions and preventing suffering/burden for parents were the main reasons to offer ECS. A single ECS panel is offered by nearly 45% (39/87 received answers) of the centres offering ECS, 25.3% (22/87) of those centres offer a selection of ECS panels, and 29.9% (26/87) offer whole exome sequencing and a large in silico panel. Different ranges of panel sizes and conditions were included in the ECS panel(s) offered. Most of the respondents (81.8%; 72/88 received answers) indicated that the panels they offer are universal and target the entire population. Pathogenic variants (89.7%; 70/78 received answers), and to a lesser extent, likely pathogenic variants (64.1%%; 50/78 received answers), were included in the ECS report for individuals and couples undergoing MAR with their own gametes. According to 87.9% (80/91 received answers) of the respondents, patients have to pay to undergo an ECS test. Most respondents (76.2%; 61/80 received answers) reported that counselling is provided before and after the ECS test. Preimplantation genetic testing, the use of donor gametes, and prenatal diagnostic testing were the three main reproductive options discussed with identified carrier couples. The main reason, according to the respondents, for not offering ECS in their centre, was the lack of professional recommendations supporting ECS (52.5%; 73/139 received answers) and the high cost for couples or reimbursement not being available (49.6%; 69/139). The challenges and moral dilemmas encountered by the respondents revolved mainly around the content of the offer, including the variants classification and the heterogeneity of the panels, the counselling, and the cost of the test. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the total number of respondents was acceptable, the completion rate of the survey was suboptimal. In addition, the heterogeneity of answers to open-ended questions and the ambiguity of some of the answers, along with incomplete responses, posed a challenge in interpreting survey results. It is also plausible that some questions were not easily understood by the respondents. For this reason, response and non-response bias are acknowledged as further limitations of the survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this survey could aid in identifying potential challenges or areas for improvement in the current practice of ECS in the MAR field and contribute to the discussion on how to address them. The results underline the need to stimulate a more knowledge-based debate on the complexity and the pros and cons of a possible implementation of ECS in MAR. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): All costs relating to the development process were covered from European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and European Society of Human Genetics funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. A.C. is full-time employee of Juno Genetics. L.H. declared receiving a research grant during the past 36 months from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. She has also participated in a Health Council report of the Netherlands on preconception carrier screening and collaborated with the VSOP Dutch Genetic Alliance (patient umbrella organization on rare and genetic disorders). L.H. and C.v.E. are affiliated with Amsterdam University Medical Centre, a hospital that offers ECS in a non-commercial setting. R.V. received honoraria for presentations from Merck Academy and is unpaid board member of the executive committee of the Spanish Fertility Society. The other authors had nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Perspectives of pregnant women on broadening the scope of noninvasive prenatal testing from screening for foetal aneuploidies to prediction of adverse pregnancy outcomes: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of pregnant women on broadening the scope of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) from screening for foetal aneuploidies to prediction of adverse pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: Four online focus groups (n = 23 participants) and 14 individual semi-structured interviews were conducted. Participants included pregnant women with and without a history of adverse pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS: Both women at low and high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes had a positive attitude towards using NIPT to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes. Perceived benefits included the possibility to potentially improve maternal and foetal outcomes by taking risk-reducing measures and/or intensified monitoring during pregnancy and the ability to mentally prepare for the potential adverse outcome. Perceived concerns included anxiety and stress caused by a high-risk test result, a false sense of control over pregnancy, and potential false reassurance. Additionally, women reasoned that broadening the scope of NIPT could increase the complexity of prenatal screening and raised concerns on the combined screening aims in one test (prediction of adverse pregnancy outcomes to improve foetal and maternal health vs. screening for foetal aneuploidies to increase reproductive autonomy). On a societal level, considerations on the risk of medicalising pregnancy and overall pressure to opt for NIPT were mentioned. CONCLUSION: In general, pregnant women have a positive attitude towards broadening the scope of NIPT to the prediction of pregnancy outcomes, although some concerns are acknowledged.

The need to set explicit goals for human germline gene editing public dialogues.

Given the potentially large ethical and societal implications of human germline gene editing (HGGE) the urgent need for public and stakeholder engagement (PSE) has been repeatedly expressed. However, the explicit goals of such PSE efforts often remain poorly defined. In this program report, we outline the goals of our Dutch project called De DNA dialogen (The DNA dialogues). We believe that setting explicit goals in advance is essential to enable meaningful PSE efforts. Moreover, it enables the evaluation of our engagement efforts. The following four goals, which result from intensive consultations among the transdisciplinary projects' consortium members and based on the literature, form the foundation for how we will engage the public and stakeholders in deliberation about HGGE: 1) Enable publics and stakeholders to deliberate on "what if" questions, before considering "whether" and "how" questions regarding HGGE, 2) Investigate agreement and disagreement in values and beliefs regarding HGGE in order to agree and disagree more precisely, 3) Involve diverse publics with various perspectives, with a focus on those that are typically underrepresented in PSE, 4) Enable societally aligned policy making by providing policymakers, health care professionals and legal experts insight into how values are weighed and ascribed meaning in the context of HGGE by various publics, and how these values relate to the principles of democratic rule of law and fundamental rights. The effort to describe our goals in detail may serve as an example and can inform future initiatives striving for open science and open governance in the context of PSE.

Genetic Screening-Emerging Issues.

In many countries, some form of genetic screening is offered to all or part of the population, either in the form of well-organized screening programs or in a less formalized way. Screening can be offered at different phases of life, such as preconception, prenatal, neonatal and later in life. Screening should only be offered if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Technical innovations in testing and treatment are driving changes in the field of prenatal and neonatal screening, where many jurisdictions have organized population-based screening programs. As a result, a greater number and wider range of conditions are being added to the programs, which can benefit couples' reproductive autonomy (preconception and prenatal screening) and improve early diagnosis to prevent irreversible health damage in children (neonatal screening) and in adults (cancer and cascade screening). While many developments in screening are technology-driven, citizens may also express a demand for innovation in screening, as was the case with non-invasive prenatal testing. Relatively new emerging issues for genetic screening, especially if testing is performed using DNA sequencing, relate to organization, data storage and interpretation, benefit-harm ratio and distributive justice, information provision and follow-up, all connected to acceptability in current healthcare systems.

Perceptions of reproductive healthcare providers regarding their involvement in offering expanded carrier screening in fertility clinics: a qualitative study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the main arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour or against their involvement in offering expanded carrier screening (ECS) for recessive disorders at fertility clinics in the Netherlands? DESIGN: Semi-structured interview study with 20 reproductive healthcare providers between May 2020 and January 2021. Participants included 11 gynaecologists, seven fertility doctors, one nurse practitioner and one clinical embryologist, recruited from academic medical centres (n = 13), peripheral facilities associated with academic centres (n = 4), and independent fertility treatment centres (n = 3) in the Netherlands. An interview guide was developed, and thematic content analysis was performed using ATLAS.ti software. RESULTS: Arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour of their potential involvement in offering ECS included: (i) opportunities offered by the setting; (ii) motivation to assist in reproduction and prevent suffering; and (iii) to counter unwanted commercialization offers. Arguments against involvement included: (i) lack of knowledge and familiarity with offering ECS; (ii) insufficient staff and resources, and potential high costs for clinics and/or couples; (iii) the emotional impact it may have on couples; (iv) perceived complexity of counselling and expected elongation of waiting lists; and (v) expected low impact on reducing the burden of diseases. Participants felt that more evidence and research on the costs-benefits, implications and demand are needed prior to their involvement. CONCLUSION: While agreeing that the field of medically assisted reproduction provides a unique opportunity to offer ECS, reproductive healthcare workers feel a lack of capability and limited motivation to offer ECS to all or a selection of couples at their fertility clinics.

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.

Should non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) be used for fetal sex determination? Perspectives and experiences of healthcare professionals.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can not only accurately detect early in pregnancy the presence of chromosomal abnormalities but also fetal sex. However, whether fetal sex should be reported after performing NIPT is ethically contentious. In Belgium, NIPT is practically fully reimbursed and offered to all pregnant women as a first-tier screening. In practice, fetal sex is reported upon request of the expectant parents; however, this is not stipulated in guidelines. As more countries are offering NIPT and looking to implement it in public healthcare, challenges and insights of healthcare professionals working in Belgium can be of value for others. We assessed healthcare professionals' experiences with and perspectives on sex determination and reporting following NIPT in Belgium by conducting a semi-structured interview study. We interviewed 30 professionals involved in prenatal screening. While overall healthcare professionals did not consider reporting fetal sex to be an issue if the expectant parents want to know, some consider the reporting of a non-medical trait like fetal sex problematic when it is reimbursed or if it could lead to sex-selective termination of pregnancy. Moreover, the strong desire of expectant parents to know fetal sex risks compromising informed decision-making about NIPT. In this way, fetal sex may distract from the primary aim of NIPT as a test for medical conditions. Improving pre-test counseling both in terms of quality and availability may help overcome some of these issues.

Psychological impact of additional findings detected by genome-wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): TRIDENT-2 study.

In the Netherlands, genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is offered to all pregnant women as part of the nationwide TRIDENT-2 study. Findings other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13, which are called "additional findings", are reported only on request of the pregnant woman. This study examined: (1) women's pre-test perceptions and reasons to opt for additional findings and (2) women's experiences with- and the psychological impact of being informed about an additional finding. A questionnaire, consisting of the anxiety measure State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), distress measure Impact of Event Scale (IES) and questions developed specifically for this study, was retrospectively administered to 402 women who received an additional finding. A total of 227 (56.5%) women completed the questionnaire. Most (60.2%) chose to know additional findings because they wanted as much information as possible about the health of their fetus. Almost all (92%) stated that receiving the additional finding was unexpected, a shock, and/or they were in disbelief, for 85% it caused a lot of worry. Post-test, high anxiety (STAI) levels were reported in 15.5% of women, and 7.5% reported severe distress (IES). Women who gave birth to an affected child (n = 10) experienced most psychological impact (STAI and IES). Eighty-six percent of women with a fetal aberration would opt for additional findings again, compared to 49.2% of women whose result was confined to the placenta. Pre-test counseling should focus on explaining the different results NIPT can generate. Post-test counseling should focus on guiding pregnant women through this uncertain and anxious time.

Fetal fraction of cell-free DNA in noninvasive prenatal testing and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a nationwide retrospective cohort study of 56,110 pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive prenatal testing by cell-free DNA analysis is offered to pregnant women worldwide to screen for fetal aneuploidies. In noninvasive prenatal testing, the fetal fraction of cell-free DNA in the maternal circulation is measured as a quality control parameter. Given that fetal cell-free DNA originates from the placenta, the fetal fraction might also reflect placental health and maternal pregnancy adaptation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the association between the fetal fraction and adverse pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women with singleton pregnancies opting for noninvasive prenatal testing between June 2018 and June 2019 within the Dutch nationwide implementation study (Trial by Dutch Laboratories for Evaluation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing [TRIDENT]-2). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess associations between fetal fraction and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Fetal fraction was assessed as a continuous variable and as <10th percentile, corresponding to a fetal fraction <2.5%. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 56,110 pregnancies. In the analysis of fetal fraction as a continuous variable, a decrease in fetal fraction was associated with increased risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 2.27 [95% confidence interval, 1.89-2.78]), small for gestational age neonates <10th percentile (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37 [1.28-1.45]) and <2.3rd percentile (adjusted odds ratio, 2.63 [1.96-3.57]), and spontaneous preterm birth from 24 to 37 weeks of gestation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [1.01-1.03]). No association was found for fetal congenital anomalies (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [1.00-1.04]), stillbirth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [0.96-1.08]), or neonatal death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [0.96-1.08]). Similar associations were found for adverse pregnancy outcomes when fetal fraction was <10th percentile. CONCLUSION: In early pregnancy, a low fetal fraction is associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. These findings can be used to expand the potential of noninvasive prenatal testing in the future, enabling the prediction of pregnancy complications and facilitating tailored pregnancy management through intensified monitoring or preventive measures.

Informed choice and routinization of the second-trimester anomaly scan: a national cohort study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Since 2007 all pregnant women in the Netherlands are offered the second-trimester anomaly scan (SAS) in a nationwide prenatal screening program. This study aims to assess the level of informed choice of women opting for the SAS and to evaluate the presence of routinization 16 years after its implementation. It further explores decisional conflict and women's decision making. METHODS: This prospective national survey study consisted of an online questionnaire which was completed after prenatal counseling and before undergoing the SAS. Informed choice was measured by the adapted multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC) and was defined in case women were classified as value-consistent, if their decision for the SAS was deliberated and made with sufficient knowledge. RESULTS: A total of 894/1167 (76.6%) women completed the questionnaire. Overall, 54.8% made an informed choice, 89.6% had good knowledge, 59.8% had deliberated their choice and 92.7% held a positive attitude towards the SAS. Women with low educational attainment (p=0.004) or respondents of non-Western descent (p=0.038) were less likely to make an informed choice. Decisional conflict was low, with a significantly lower decisional conflict score in women that made an informed choice (p<0.001). Most respondents (97.9%) did not perceive pressure to undergo the SAS. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a relatively low rate of informed choice for the SAS, due to absence of deliberation. Therefore, some routinization seem to be present in the Netherlands. However, most women had sufficient knowledge, did not perceive pressure and experienced low decisional conflict.

Attitudes of Patients with Adrenoleukodystrophy towards Sex-Specific Newborn Screening.

Newborn screening (NBS) for X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) can identify affected individuals before the onset of life-threatening manifestations. Some countries have decided to only screen boys (sex-specific screening). This study investigates the attitudes of individuals with ALD towards sex-specific NBS for ALD. A questionnaire was sent to all patients in the Dutch ALD cohort. Invitees were asked who they thought should be screened for ALD: only boys, both boys and girls or neither. The motives and background characteristics of respondents were compared between screening preferences. Out of 108 invitees, 66 participants (61%), 38 men and 28 women, participated in this study. The majority (n = 53, 80%) favored screening both newborn boys and girls for ALD, while 20% preferred boys only. None of the respondents felt that newborns should not be screened for ALD. There were no differences in the background characteristics of the respondents between screening preferences. Our study revealed a diverse range of motivations underlying respondents' screening preferences. This study is one of the first to investigate the attitudes of patients towards sex-specific screening for ALD. The outcomes of this study can offer insights to stakeholders engaged in the implementation of NBS programs. ALD patients are important stakeholders who can provide valuable input in this process.

A qualitative study on the perspectives of mothers who had been diagnosed with primary carnitine deficiency through newborn screening of their child.

BACKGROUND: Primary carnitine deficiency is an inborn error of metabolism, which can lead to life-threating complications early in life. Low carnitine levels can be detected by newborn bloodspot screening (NBS). However, NBS can also identify, mostly asymptomatic, mothers with primary carnitine deficiency. To identify mothers' needs and areas for improving screening practice, this study explored the experiences with, and opinions on primary carnitine deficiency screening in NBS among women diagnosed through NBS of their newborn. METHODS: Twelve Dutch women were interviewed, 3-11 years after diagnosis. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Four main themes were derived: 1) psychological impact of primary carnitine deficiency diagnosis, 2) becoming a patient and "patient-in-waiting", 3) information issues and care provision, and 4) primary carnitine deficiency as part of the NBS panel. Mothers shared that they did not experience major psychological distress of the diagnosis. They did experience (recall) various emotions following the initial abnormal NBS result, including fear and anxiety as well as relief, and emotions regarding their own diagnosis, including uncertainty about health risks and treatment effectiveness. Some felt a patient-in-waiting. Many participants experienced a lack of information, especially shortly after receiving the abnormal NBS result. All shared the belief that screening for primary carnitine deficiency in NBS is beneficial for the newborn, and, given the information they received, also considered the knowledge beneficial for their own health. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological burden following diagnosis was experienced by women as limited, although the experienced lack of information amplified feelings of uncertainty and anxiety. Most mothers believed that benefits of knowing about primary carnitine deficiency outweighed the disadvantages. Mothers' perspectives should be incorporated in policy-making about primary carnitine deficiency in NBS.

Current practice of first-trimester ultrasound screening for structural fetal anomalies in developed countries.

OBJECTIVES: First-trimester ultrasound screening is increasingly performed to detect fetal anomalies early in pregnancy, aiming to enhance reproductive autonomy for future parents. This study aims to display the current practice of first-trimester ultrasound screening in developed countries. METHOD: An online survey among 47 prenatal screening experts in developed countries. RESULTS: First-trimester structural anomaly screening is available in 30 of the 33 countries and is mostly offered to all women with generally high uptakes. National protocols are available in 23/30 (76.7%) countries, but the extent of anatomy assessment varies. Monitoring of scan quality occurs in 43.3% of the countries. 23/43 (53.5%) of the respondents considered the quality of first-trimester ultrasound screening unequal in different regions of their country. CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester screening for structural fetal anomalies is widely offered in developed countries, but large differences are reported in availability and use of screening protocols, the extent of anatomy assessment, training and experience of sonographers and quality monitoring systems. Consequently, this results in an unequal offer to parents in developed countries, sometimes even within the same country. Furthermore, as offer and execution differ widely, this has to be taken into account when results of screening policies are scientifically published or compared.

Association between low fetal fraction in cell-free DNA screening and fetal chromosomal aberrations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature on low fetal fraction (LFF) in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening and the risk of fetal chromosomal aberrations. METHOD: We searched articles published between January 2010 and May 2021 in PubMed and EMBASE databases. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising data of 243,700 singleton pregnancies. Compared to normal fetal fraction, LFF was associated with a higher risk of trisomy 13 (OR 5.99 [3.61-9.95], I 2 of heterogeneity = 0%, n = 22 studies), trisomy 18 (OR 4.46 [3.07-6.47], I 2  = 0%, n = 22 studies), monosomy X (OR 5.88 [2.34-14.78], I 2  = 18%, n = 10 studies), and triploidy (OR 36.39 [9.83-134.68], I 2  = 61%, n = 6 studies), but not trisomy 21 (OR 1.25 [0.76-2.03], I 2  = 36%, n = 23 studies). LFF was also associated with a higher risk of various other types of fetal chromosomal aberrations (OR 4.00 [1.78-9.00], I 2  = 2%, n = 11 studies). Meta-analysis of proportions showed that absolute rates of fetal chromosomal aberrations ranged between 1% and 2% in women with LFF. A limitation of this review is the potential risk of ascertainment bias because of differences in outcome assessment between pregnancies with LFF and those with normal fetal fraction. Heterogeneity in population characteristics or applied technologies across included studies may not have been fully addressed. CONCLUSION: An LFF test result in cfDNA screening is associated with an increased risk of fetal trisomy 13, trisomy 18, monosomy X, and triploidy, but not trisomy 21. Further research is needed to assess the association between LFF and other specific types of fetal chromosomal aberrations.

Rapid exome sequencing as a first-tier test in neonates with suspected genetic disorder: results of a prospective multicenter clinical utility study in the Netherlands.

The introduction of rapid exome sequencing (rES) for critically ill neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit has made it possible to impact clinical decision-making. Unbiased prospective studies to quantify the impact of rES over routine genetic testing are, however, scarce. We performed a clinical utility study to compare rES to conventional genetic diagnostic workup for critically ill neonates with suspected genetic disorders. In a multicenter prospective parallel cohort study involving five Dutch NICUs, we performed rES in parallel to routine genetic testing for 60 neonates with a suspected genetic disorder and monitored diagnostic yield and the time to diagnosis. To assess the economic impact of rES, healthcare resource use was collected for all neonates. rES detected more conclusive genetic diagnoses than routine genetic testing (20% vs. 10%, respectively), in a significantly shorter time to diagnosis (15 days (95% CI 10-20) vs. 59 days (95% CI 23-98, p < 0.001)). Moreover, rES reduced genetic diagnostic costs by 1.5% (€85 per neonate). CONCLUSION:  Our findings demonstrate the clinical utility of rES for critically ill neonates based on increased diagnostic yield, shorter time to diagnosis, and net healthcare savings. Our observations warrant the widespread implementation of rES as first-tier genetic test in critically ill neonates with disorders of suspected genetic origin. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Rapid exome sequencing (rES) enables diagnosing rare genetic disorders in a fast and reliable manner, but retrospective studies with neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) indicated that genetic disorders are likely underdiagnosed as rES is not routinely used. • Scenario modeling for implementation of rES for neonates with presumed genetic disorders indicated an expected increase in costs associated with genetic testing. WHAT IS NEW: • This unique prospective national clinical utility study of rES in a NICU setting shows that rES obtained more and faster diagnoses than conventional genetic tests. • Implementation of rES as replacement for all other genetic tests does not increase healthcare costs but in fact leads to a reduction in healthcare costs.

Primary care professionals' views on population-based expanded carrier screening: an online focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) involves screening for multiple recessive diseases offered to all couples considering a pregnancy or during pregnancy. Previous research indicates that in some countries primary care professionals are perceived as suitable providers for ECS. However, little is known about their perspectives. We therefore aimed to explore primary care professionals' views on population-based ECS. METHODS: Four online focus groups with 14 general practitioners (GPs) and 16 community midwives were conducted in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Our findings highlight various perspectives on the desirability of population-based ECS. Participants agreed that ECS could enhance reproductive autonomy and thereby prevent suffering of the child and/or parents. However, they also raised several ethical, societal, and psychological concerns, including a tendency towards a perfect society, stigmatization, unequal access to screening and negative psychosocial consequences. Participants believed that provision of population-based ECS would be feasible if prerequisites regarding training and reimbursement for providers would be fulfilled. most GPs considered themselves less suitable or capable of providing ECS, in contrast to midwives who did consider themselves suitable. Nevertheless, participants believed that, if implemented, ECS should be offered in primary care or by public health services rather than as hospital-based specialized care, because they believed a primary care ECS offer increases access in terms of time and location. CONCLUSIONS: While participants believed that an ECS offer would be feasible, they questioned its desirability and priority. Studies on the desirability and feasibility of population-based ECS offered in primary care or public health settings are needed.

Conditions for autonomous reproductive decision-making in prenatal screening: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women should be able to make autonomous and meaningful decisions about prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities. It remains largely unclear which circumstances facilitate or hinder such a decision-making process. OBJECTIVE: To investigate what conditions Dutch pregnant women and professional experts consider important for autonomous reproductive decision-making in prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities, and the extent to which, according to women, those conditions are met in practice. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted in the Netherlands in 2016-2017. A conceptual model was used to interview professional experts (n = 16) and pregnant women (n = 19). Thematic analysis was performed to identify important conditions. Subsequently, a questionnaire assessed the perceived importance of those conditions and the extent to which these were met, in the experience of pregnant women (n = 200). RESULTS: Professional experts stressed the importance of information provision, and emphasized a rational decision-making model. Pregnant women differed in what information they felt was needed, and this depended on the screening decision made. Questionnaire findings showed that women prioritized discussion and consensus with partners. Information about test accuracy and miscarriage risk of invasive follow-up testing was also considered important. Two key conditions were not adequately met, in the experience of women: (1) having information about miscarriage risk; (2) not being directed by health professionals in decision-making. CONCLUSION: According to women, discussion and consensus with partners was considered a highly important condition for an autonomous and meaningful decision-making process. Access to information about safety of testing and ensuring that women are not being directed in their decision-making by health professionals seem to be areas for improvement in prenatal care practice.

A cross-country comparison of pregnant women's decision-making and perspectives when opting for non-invasive prenatal testing in the Netherlands and Belgium.

BACKGROUND: The Netherlands and Belgium have been among the first countries to offer non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a first-tier screening test. Despite similarities, differences exist in counseling modalities and test uptake. This study explored decision-making and perspectives of pregnant women who opted for NIPT in both countries. METHODS: A questionnaire study was performed among pregnant women in the Netherlands (NL) (n = 587) and Belgium (BE) (n = 444) opting for NIPT, including measures on informed choice, personal and societal perspectives on trisomy 21, 18 and 13 and pregnancy termination. RESULTS: Differences between Dutch and Belgian women were shown in the level of informed choice (NL: 83% vs. BE: 59%, p < 0.001), intention to terminate the pregnancy in case of confirmed trisomy 21 (NL: 51% vs. BE: 62%, p = 0.003) and trisomy 13/18 (NL: 80% vs. BE: 73%, p = 0.020). More Belgian women considered trisomy 21 a severe condition (NL: 64% vs. BE: 81%, p < 0.001). Belgian women more frequently indicated that they believed parents are judged for having a child with trisomy 21 (BE: 42% vs. NL: 16%, p < 0.001) and were less positive about quality of care and support for children with trisomy 21 (BE: 23% vs. NL: 62%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Differences in women's decision-making regarding NIPT and the conditions screened for may be influenced by counseling aspects and country-specific societal and cultural contexts.

Expanded Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) : Can the Child's Right to an Open Future Help Set the Scope?

Expanded non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has provoked ethical concerns about its justifiable scope. In this paper, we evaluate the role of the child's right to an open future in setting the scope of NIPT. This 'open future principle' has been cited in arguments both limiting and expanding parental freedoms. This moral right holds that adult autonomy rights which children cannot yet exercise should nonetheless be protected until they can. Its purpose is to protect the future autonomy of the child as a future adult. Several authors have extended this rationale from child to fetus. However, the right was not anticipated to apply to the fetus, a non-legal entity in many jurisdictions. The aim of this paper is to reconsider whether this principle is useful to help deliberate the scope of NIPT. We find that extending the open future principle to delineate the scope of NIPT is theoretically flawed. We contend that in the prenatal context its value primarily lies with counselling for prenatal screening where it can be used to encourage parents' reflection on the implications of knowing for the sake of knowing on their future children and their relationship with them.