Non-invasive prenatal screening: Testing motivations and decision making in the low-risk population.

Non-invasive prenatal screening provides a risk assessment for aneuploidies by utilizing cell-free DNA (cfDNA). It is recommended that cell-free DNA screening (cfDNA screening) be offered to all pregnant people regardless of a priori risk for aneuploidy. In the absence of an increased risk, alternative motives for electing cfDNA screening and different levels of informed decision making may arise. Therefore, our study aimed to characterize low-risk patients' motivations for cfDNA screening election, determine how often informed decisions are being made, and compare motivations between informed and uninformed decision makers. A survey that included a modified, validated measure of informed choice (MMIC) and questions to assess patients' motivations for cfDNA screening was offered at four MFM clinics following genetic counseling. It was found that 44% of participants (n = 100) made an uninformed decision about testing. Participants with private insurers were 4.25 times more likely to make an informed decision (95% CI = 1.10-16.37). Informed decision makers scored avoiding invasive procedures higher (p = 0.007) and ranked doing what family/friends desire lower (p = 0.005) than uninformed decision makers. While most participants scored receiving information about genetic conditions highest, 12% of participants reported fetal sex disclosure as a priority. However, this was not found to be associated with uninformed decision making. This study ultimately established that following genetic counseling, a low-risk population shared motivations with high-risk populations which highlights the importance of complete pre-test counseling for all. Future research should investigate the effect of modifying variables, such as socioeconomic status, on the performance of informed choice measures and critically evaluate the parameters that determine informed choice.

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.

Project Inclusive Genetics: Exploring the impact of patient-centered counseling training on physical disability bias in the prenatal setting.

PURPOSE: There is robust research examining the negative impact of racial and socioeconomic implicit bias on healthcare provider clinical decision-making. However, other under-studied important biases are likely to impact clinical care as well. The goal of this study was to explore the presence of bias against people with physical disability among a heterogeneous group of healthcare workers and trainees and to evaluate the effect of implicit association testing and an educational module on this bias. METHOD: The study was composed of a one-hour web-based survey and educational module. The survey included an explicit disability bias assessment, disability Implicit Association Tests (IATs), demographic collection, and pre- and post- module clinical vignettes of prenatal patient scenarios. In addition to providing counseling to hypothetical patients, participants also indicated their personal preferences on genetic testing and termination. The educational module focused on the principles of patient-centered counseling. RESULTS: The collected data reflects responses from 335 participants. Within this sample, there were both explicit and implicit biases towards individuals with physical disabilities. Prior to the IAT and educational module, when respondents were tasked with providing genetic testing recommendations, implicit biases and personal preferences for genetic testing and termination influenced respondents' clinical recommendations. Importantly, having previous professional experience with individuals with disabilities diminished biased clinical recommendations prior to the intervention. In response to the IAT and educational intervention, the effect of implicit bias and personal preferences on clinical recommendations decreased. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how bias against a marginalized group exists within the medical community and that personal opinions can impact clinical counseling. Importantly, our findings suggest that there are strategies that can be easily implemented into curricula to address disability bias, including formal educational interventions and the addition of professional experiences into healthcare professional training programs.

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.

Patients with unexplained mismatch repair deficiency are interested in updated genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Individuals who have colorectal or endometrial cancers displaying loss of immunohistochemical staining of one or more mismatch repair proteins without an identifiable causative germline pathogenic variant have unexplained mismatch repair deficiency (UMMRD). Comprehensive germline genetic testing for Lynch syndrome (LS) includes sequencing and deletion/duplication analysis of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, deletion analysis of EPCAM, and MSH2 inversion analysis. Updated genetic testing to include elements of comprehensive LS testing not previously completed could further clarify LS status in individuals with UMMRD, allowing for tailored screening guidelines for affected individuals and their family members. However, patient understanding of the potential impact of updated genetic testing for LS is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the interest in and perceived impact of updated genetic testing among individuals with UMMRD at a tertiary academic center. METHODS: A survey evaluating interest in and perceived impact of updated genetic testing was mailed to 98 potential participants. Electronic health record review was completed for all individuals meeting eligibility criteria. Thirty-one individuals responded to the survey. RESULTS: Results indicate this population is highly interested in updated genetic testing with the perceived impact being primarily for family members to have appropriate genetic testing and screening. Electronic health record review indicates that clinicians have an evolving understanding of causes of UMMRD, representing a potential change in assessment of cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Updated risk assessment and genetic counseling with a discussion of the benefits and limitations of germline and somatic genetic testing, is essential as the understanding of UMMRD and genetic testing recommendations for this population evolve.

Impact of Emerging Technologies in Prenatal Genetic Counseling.

For decades, prenatal testing has been offered to evaluate pregnancies for genetic conditions. In recent years, the number of testing options and range of testing capabilities has dramatically increased. Because of the risks associated with invasive diagnostic testing, research has focused on the detection of genetic conditions through screening technologies such as cell-free DNA. Screening for aneuploidy, copy number variants, and monogenic disorders is clinically available using a sample of maternal blood, but limited data exist on the accuracy of some of these testing options. Additional research is needed to examine the accuracy and utility of screening for increasingly rare conditions. As the breadth of prenatal genetic testing options continues to expand, patients, clinical providers, laboratories, and researchers need to find collaborative means to validate and introduce new testing technologies responsibly. Adequate validation of prenatal tests and effective integration of emerging technologies into prenatal care will become even more important once prenatal treatments for genetic conditions become available.

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.

Current genetic counseling practice in the United States following positive non-invasive prenatal testing for sex chromosome abnormalities.

The purpose of this study was to describe current genetic counseling practice in the United States following a non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) result positive for a sex chromosome abnormality (SCA). Screening for SCAs can be confounded by confined placental mosaicism, natural loss of the X chromosome from maternal cells during aging, and undiagnosed maternal SCA or copy number variant (CNV). Furthermore, with the exception of 45,X, individuals with SCAs usually have no ultrasound or postnatal findings. This makes follow-up for unresolved positive NIPT necessary; however, there are currently no clinical guidelines. This study used a cross-sectional design with an anonymous questionnaire to survey 176 genetic counselors. The majority of prenatal respondents always offered diagnostic testing (>88%) and anatomy ultrasound (~90%), but the percent consistently offering maternal karyotype (22%-52%) and postnatal evaluation (28%-87%) varied. Maternal karyotype was offered more often when NIPT was positive for 45,X or 47,XXX and patients had normal prenatal diagnostic testing (p < 0.02) or declined testing (p < 0.02). Offer of postnatal evaluation was more likely when diagnostic testing was declined (p < 0.001). The majority of pediatric providers always offered a postnatal karyotype for the newborn (>72%) but the percent offering maternal karyotype (6%-46%) varied widely. With the current inconsistencies, many newborns with undiagnosed SCAs who could benefit from growth hormone therapy, early intervention, and/or targeted surveillance may be missed. Therefore, there is a need for professional guidelines to help improve the consistency of clinical care for patients with NIPT results positive for SCAs.

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.

The utilization of prenatal microarray: A survey of current genetic counseling practices and barriers.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated what prenatal genetic counselor's (GCs) practices, attitudes, and barriers are in regards to prenatal microarray since the publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) guidelines for microarray use. METHODS: This was a survey-based cross-sectional study of English-speaking, board certified or eligible GCs who currently practice prenatal genetic counseling. RESULTS: Of 192 respondents, 183 (95%) have incorporated chromosome microarray (CMA) into clinical practice, with 64% believing that the benefits of CMA outweigh the harms and 52% agreeing that CMA should be offered to all women regardless of indication. Those who reported being experts/comfortable in their knowledge of CMA (85%) and familiar with current clinical guidelines (86%) were significantly more likely to offer CMA to patients undergoing invasive testing and patients with fetal anomalies. Patient-specific concerns were the largest reported barrier (51%) when GCs do not offer CMA to patients. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates GCs follow guidelines for CMA use when specific indications are involved, but further guidelines are needed regarding CMA use for other routine indications where utility of CMA is not clearly understood. On this basis, ACOG and SMFM should continue revising their guidelines as more information comes to light regarding utility of prenatal CMA for all indications, and organizations like the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) should consider publishing guidelines on prenatal CMA that are specialized to the GCs sphere of practice.

Attitudes of clinicians toward cardiac surgery and trisomy 18.

Trisomy 18 is an autosomal trisomy condition characterized by minor to major birth defects, severe disabilities, and high rates of pre- and postnatal mortality. Interventions for these infants have traditionally been withheld with focus instead on palliative support. The issues and attitudes surrounding corrective surgery of congenital heart defects, which is a birth defect that occurs in approximately 90% of infants with trisomy 18, is of our study's interest as recent literature has indicated that cardiac surgery is being performed and may lead to improved survival compared to palliative care. Thus, our study aimed to describe clinician attitudes toward cardiac surgery and trisomy 18. We surveyed 378 clinicians from multiple specialties, including genetic counselors, involved in the pre- and postnatal care of infants with trisomy 18. Descriptive statistics were performed to describe all clinicians' responses, and a secondary analysis with stratifications by clinician type was also performed. Forty-eight percent (n = 378) of clinicians felt it was appropriate to discuss the option of cardiac surgery. Ethical concerns and insufficient outcome data were the most agreed upon reasons for not offering cardiac surgery. Trisomy 18 not being uniformly lethal and expressed parental wishes were the most agreed upon justifications for offering surgery. Clinicians felt the discussion of the option of cardiac surgery is appropriate, however are hesitant due to ethical concerns and insufficient outcome data. Results from this study aim to promote discussion and collaboration among clinicians to improve consistency in patient care.

Undergraduate Student Perceptions and Awareness of Genetic Counseling.

Genetic counseling is a rapidly expanding field, and the supply of certified genetic counselors is currently unable to keep up with job demand. Research is fairly limited regarding the awareness and perceptions that prospective genetic counseling students have on the field and what factors most influence their interest. The current study includes data collected from 1389 undergraduate students in the sciences at 23 universities across the United States who were surveyed regarding information related to their awareness, perceptions, knowledge, and interest in genetic counseling. The majority of participants had heard of genetic counseling (78.0%), many from a high school course (37.3%), college course (28.1%), or online (11.5%). Familiarity was associated with factors such as female gender (p = 0.003) and length of time in school (p < 0.001). After taking the survey, participant interest was positively associated with several factors including female gender (p < 0.001) and Asian and Hispanic ethnicity (p = 0.012). Factors commonly reported as attractive about the field included direct patient care, the variety of roles available, cultural competency and psychosocial training, and helping others. Discussion elaborates upon specific factors related to student awareness and interest in genetic counseling and potential ways to tailor recruitment strategies for maximum benefit to the field.

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.

Physicians' Awareness and Utilization of Genetic Services in Texas.

The number of disorders for which genetic testing is available has increased nearly 500% in the past 15 years. Access to genetic tests and services often hinges on physicians' ability to identify patients at risk for genetic disease and provide appropriate testing and counseling or refer to genetic specialists. Recent research demonstrates the need for referrals to genetic specialists by showing that many physicians lack skills required to perform appropriate genetic services, such as making proper risk assessments, providing genetic counseling, ordering genetic testing and interpreting results. However, little research exists on physicians' awareness and utilization of genetic services. In this study, an electronic survey evaluating practicing physicians' awareness of, utilization of and perceived barriers to genetic services in Texas, and interest in learning more about genetics and genetic services was distributed via state physician organizations. Of the 157 participants, approximately half reported they were moderately or very aware of genetic testing and services in their area. Very few reported awareness of telemedicine services. Over two-thirds reported never or rarely referring to genetic counselors or other genetic specialists, despite 75% reporting they had noticed an increased impact of genetics on their field and 61% reporting they had discussed genetics more in their day-to-day practice in the last 5-10 years. Only 20% reported genetics was very integral to their specialty. Over three-fourths of all participants indicated interest in learning more about genetics, genetic testing, and genetic services. Among the most frequently chosen barriers to genetic counselors were awareness-related barriers such as not knowing how to refer to a genetic counselor. Responses to many items varied significantly by medical specialty. The results identify a need to increase awareness of genetic services and referral logistics. Specific findings can help direct outreach efforts to educate clinicians, such as developing clinically meaningful, specialty-specific educational objectives.

Finding Middle Ground in Constructing a Clinically Useful Expanded Carrier Screening Panel.

Expanded carrier screening for autosomal-recessive conditions effectively identifies more carrier couples than traditional guideline-based carrier screening. However, clinically available expanded carrier screening panels include numerous conditions, some of which have questionable clinical utility as a result of very low carrier frequency, low or unknown testing sensitivity, and mild or incompletely penetrant phenotypes. Using the 2013 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Position Statement on Prenatal and Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening and the 2017 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee Opinion on Carrier Screening in the Age of Genomic Medicine as guidance, we propose specific criteria for the development of expanded carrier screening panels that will maximize clinical utility and minimize patient stress, unnecessary cost of follow-up testing, and clinician time spent facilitating and performing follow-up counseling and testing. We identified 96 conditions that meet our proposed criteria, far more than current guidelines recommend. On the other hand, a considerable percentage (73%) of conditions on current expanded carrier screen panels does not meet our proposed criteria. The purpose of this commentary is to acknowledge the benefits of expanded panels, but to also recognize that in their current state, we are putting patients at risk for undue stress and spending excessive time and money on follow-up testing for remarkably rare or mild conditions and conditions with low screening performance. We encourage laboratories and clinicians to work together to create the most clinically useful screening panels for patients desiring reproductive risk information.