Project Inclusive Genetics: Protecting reproductive autonomy from bias via prenatal patient-centered counseling.

Clinician bias negatively impacts the healthcare received by marginalized communities. In this study, we explored factors that influence clinician and trainee bias against individuals with intellectual disabilities and its impact on clinical judgment in prenatal genetic testing settings. Specifically, we examined bias toward a fetus with a higher chance of developing a disability. We compared genetics specialists with their non-expert counterparts. This web-based study included clinical vignettes, implicit association tests (IATs), and an educational module. 595 participants were recruited via their institution or professional society. We conducted statistical analyses, including regression models controlling for key demographic characteristics, to analyze recommendation patterns and degree of change after the module. Genetics expertise strongly correlated with appropriate testing recommendation when the patient would not consider pregnancy termination (r = 1.784 pre-module, r = 1.502 post-module, p < 0.01). Factors that influenced pre-module recommendation to test include increased age (r = -0.029, p < 0.05), high religiosity (r = 0.525, p < 0.05), and participant personal preference against testing (r = 1.112, p < 0.01). Responses among participants without genetics expertise improved after the educational module (Z = -4.435, p < 0.01). 42% of non-experts who answered inappropriately changed their answer to match guidelines after the module. Individual bias, along with structural and institutional bias, permeates family planning encounters and significantly decreases quality of care. We demonstrate here that anti-bias training is effective, particularly for non-expert providers, and it can improve the care provided to individuals with intellectual disability. Evidence-based training such as this one can help providers make appropriate genetic counseling recommendations.

Incidental Detection of Malignancies With Cell-Free DNA Screening.

Cell-free circulating DNA is an evolving technology with important clinical applications in both obstetric care and oncology. In the challenging patient with pregnancy and co-existing malignancy, the utility of cell-free DNA both for aneuploidy screening and cancer identification is an area of active research. Understanding the physiology associated with circulating cell-free DNA and subsequent laboratory evaluation is critical for clinicians caring for the obstetric patient with cell-free fetal DNA screening results suggestive of malignancy. Ongoing research is necessary to determine best practices for the evaluation and management of these patients with promising applications in the advancement of precision medicine.

Expanded carrier screening for reproductive risk assessment: An evidence-based practice guideline from the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) intends to broadly screen healthy individuals to determine their reproductive chance for autosomal recessive (AR) and X-linked (XL) conditions with infantile or early-childhood onset, which may impact reproductive management (Committee Opinion 690, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2017, 129, e35). Compared to ethnicity-based screening, which requires accurate knowledge of ancestry for optimal test selection and appropriate risk assessment, ECS panels consist of tens to hundreds of AR and XL conditions that may be individually rare in various ancestries but offer a comprehensive approach to inherited disease screening. As such, the term "equitable carrier screening" may be preferable. This practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for ECS using the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework (Guyatt et al., BMJ, 2008, 336, 995; Guyatt et al., BMJ, 2008, 336, 924). We used evidence from a recent systematic evidence review (Ramdaney et al., Genetics in Medicine, 2022, 20, 374) and compiled data from peer-reviewed literature, scientific meetings, and clinical experience. We defined and prioritized the outcomes of informed consent, change in reproductive plans, yield in identification of at-risk carrier pairs/pregnancies, perceived barriers to ECS, amount of provider time spent, healthcare costs, frequency of severely/profoundly affected offspring, incidental findings, uncertain findings, patient satisfaction, and provider attitudes. Despite the recognized barriers to implementation and change in management strategies, this analysis supported implementation of ECS for these outcomes. Based upon the current level of evidence, we recommend ECS be made available for all individuals considering reproduction and all pregnant reproductive pairs, as ECS presents an ethnicity-based carrier screening alternative which does not rely on race-based medicine. The final decision to pursue carrier screening should be directed by shared decision-making, which takes into account specific features of patients as well as their preferences and values. As a periconceptional reproductive risk assessment tool, ECS is superior compared to ethnicity-based carrier screening in that it both identifies more carriers of AR and XL conditions as well as eliminates a single race-based medical practice. ECS should be offered to all who are currently pregnant, considering pregnancy, or might otherwise biologically contribute to pregnancy. Barriers to the broad implementation of and access to ECS should be identified and addressed so that test performance for carrier screening will not depend on social constructs such as race.

Incidental Detection of Maternal Malignancy by Fetal Cell-Free DNA Screening.

Cell-free DNA is an advancing technology with increasing applications in screening, diagnosis, and treatment for several disease processes. The shared physiologic, genetic, and epigenetic characteristics of placental physiology and tumor development have become apparent to both clinicians and researchers. Maternal malignancy has been reported as a cause of false-positive prenatal cell-free DNA screening results. The detection of multiple aneuploidies or a single autosomal monosomy increases the chance for an underlying maternal malignancy when the result is discordant with fetal diagnostic testing. There is currently no consensus guideline on counseling and evaluation of patients with concern for malignancy from cell-free DNA testing. Furthermore, laboratories differ significantly in reporting policies, terminology, and in reporting strategies and methods used for unexpected or incidental findings. The ordering practitioner is therefore tasked to understand the policies of their laboratory of choice to provide adequate pretest and posttest genetic counseling. In pretest counseling, the potential for incidental or unexpected findings or nonreportable results should be explained. With an abnormal, unanticipated, or nonreportable result, posttest counseling should include a description of possible fetal or maternal diagnoses, including malignancy. Health care professionals should explain options for further evaluation and management, including a recommendation for fetal diagnostic testing. The medical workup recommended by various authors to evaluate cancer risk is based on consensus, experience, and expert opinion. These strategies should incorporate the patient's desire for information, cost, and family and personal medical history. Ongoing research and multi-disciplinary collaboration in this area is critical to identify best practices in management of complex results from this increasingly common screening test.

Utility of expanded carrier screening in pregnancies with ultrasound abnormalities.

OBJECTIVE: Explore the utility of expanded carrier screening in evaluating heritable causes of congenital anomalies detected by prenatal ultrasound. METHOD: A retrospective chart review was conducted to collect structural abnormality and genetic testing data on infants who were evaluated postnatally by a medical geneticist. These were used to determine if expanded carrier screening could have determined the etiology prior to delivery. Additionally, recessive and X-linked conditions on clinically available carrier screening panels were evaluated to determine the number of conditions associated with abnormal ultrasound findings. RESULTS: Our retrospective chart review found 222 patients with genetic etiologies, including eight unique autosomal recessive conditions and six X-linked conditions in the 23% who underwent exome sequencing. Of these 14 unique conditions detected, three were included on a list of 271 conditions for which screening was available in 2019 and five were included on a 500 condition panel available in 2020. A literature review was performed on the list of 271 conditions and 88 were reported to be associated with one or more ultrasound abnormalities. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates limited but potential utility for expanded carrier screening to determine the underlying etiology of congenital anomalies.

Exploring the predicted yield of prenatal testing by evaluating a postnatal population with structural abnormalities using a novel mathematical model.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of prenatal testing and screening options after identification of fetal structural abnormalities using a novel mathematical model. METHOD: A retrospective chart review was conducted to collect structural abnormality and genetic testing data on infants who were evaluated postnatally by a medical geneticist. A novel mathematical model was used to determine and compare the predicted diagnostic yields of prenatal testing and screening options. RESULTS: Over a quarter of patients with at least one structural abnormality (28.1%, n = 222) had a genetic aberration identified that explained their phenotype. Chromosomal microarray (CMA) had the highest predicted diagnostic yield (26.8%, P < .001). Karyotype (20.8%) had similar yields as genome wide NIPT (21.2%, P = .859) and NIPT with select copy number variants (CNVs) (17.9%, P = .184). Among individuals with an isolated structural abnormality, whole exome sequencing (25.9%) and CMA (14.9%) had the highest predicted yields. CONCLUSION: This study introduces a novel mathematical model for predicting the potential yield of prenatal testing and screening options. This study provides further evidence that CMA has the highest predicted diagnostic yield in cases with structural abnormalities. Screening with expanded NIPT options shows potential for patients who decline invasive testing, but only in the setting of adequate pre-test counseling.

It takes two: uptake of carrier screening among male reproductive partners.

OBJECTIVE: To describe uptake of carrier screening by male reproductive partners of prenatal and preconception patients. METHODS: A retrospective database review of all prenatal and preconception patients seen for genetic counseling in Maternal Fetal Medicine clinics was performed. Descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis were used on the data set. RESULTS: Within the study period, 6087 patients were seen for genetic counseling, of whom 661 were identified as a carrier of an autosomal recessive disorder by their referring provider or genetic counselor. Despite guidelines recommending partner testing for risk clarification when a woman is known to be a carrier of an autosomal recessive condition, only 41.5% male partners elected carrier screening to clarify the couple's reproductive risk, with a majority of males (75%) having screening consecutively. Of all assessed variables, the only significant predictors of male carrier screening uptake were female parity and earlier gestational age (p < .0001, and p = .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: With less than half of male partners pursuing carrier screening when indicated, its utility becomes severely diminished. More research is needed to explore reasons why males elect or decline carrier screening.

Introduction of cell-free DNA screening is associated with changes in prenatal genetic counseling indications.

The introduction of cell-free DNA screening, or non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), for chromosome abnormalities has greatly impacted prenatal care since its introduction in late 2011. We aimed to evaluate the association between the introduction of cell-free DNA screening and indication and referral patterns for genetic counseling at a large US academic medical center by comparing the percentage of each counseling indication between the time period prior to the introduction of cell-free DNA screening (2006-2011) and following its introduction (2012-2016) using multivariable Poisson regression models. Genetic counseling indications for positive carrier screens, average risk patients, abnormal ultrasound findings, and family history indications were significantly higher following the introduction of NIPT while advanced maternal age and abnormal maternal serum screening indications dropped significantly. We also showed that the uptake of amniocentesis dropped significantly after the introduction of cell-free DNA screening, while chorionic villus sampling uptake increased. These results provide evidence that the introduction of new genetic screening technologies is associated with a shift in genetic counseling referral indications and an increased uptake in genetic screening. Additional research is needed to explore the impact of expanded testing options on the need for genetic counseling services.

Genetic Counseling Overview for the Obstetrician-Gynecologist.

This article outlines a framework for the process of genetic counseling in the primary obstetric and gynecologic setting. Specifics regarding risk assessment, family history evaluation, genetic testing, and pretest and posttest counseling are discussed. Additionally, the article provides strategies for counseling patients effectively and addresses when a referral for additional genetic counseling by a specialized genetics provider should be considered.