[Increased use of genetic health care in Iceland 2012-2017].

INTRODUCTION: A genetic counselling unit at Landspitali hospital (LSH) was established in 2006. Meanwhile, genetic testing has become an integral part of general health care. In this article we detail the outcome of genetic testing at the Department of Genetic and Molecular Medicine (DGM) at Landspitali over a five year period (2012-2017). Factors that were analyzed for the time period were: Number of patients, reason for referral, reason for genetic testing without genetic counselling and yield (proportion of positive tests) of genetic testing. METHODS: Data was analysed from two medical record databases, Shire and Saga, used by the DGM in the time period. RESULTS: The number of individuals coming for genetic counselling increased every year over the time period. Reasons for referral were cancer-related in two-thirds of cases. Other reasons for referral included various other familial disorders. Most common were autosomal dominant disorders like myotonic dystrophy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and autosomal recessive disorders like spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and GM1-gangliosidosis. Most common reasons for genetic testing outside of the LSH GC unit was because of managable diseases like hemochromatosis and F5/Prothrombin-related thrombophilia. Yield of genetic testing was assessed for a) known mutation testing / carrier testing, b) single gene testing, c) gene panel testing and d) whole genome and whole exome sequencing. Known mutation testing was positive in 33% of cases and single gene testing in 46% of cases. The yield of gene panel testing for cancer was found to be lower (20%) than gene panel testing for other disorders (40%). The yield of whole exome and whole genome sequencing was 46%.

Web-based return of BRCA2 research results: one-year genetic counselling experience in Iceland.

There is an increased pressure to return results from research studies. In Iceland, deCODE Genetics has emphasised the importance of returning results to research participants, particularly the founder pathogenic BRCA2 variant; NM_000059.3:c.771_775del. To do so, they opened the website www.arfgerd.is . Individuals who received positive results via the website were offered genetic counselling (GC) at Landspitali in Reykjavik. At the end of May 2019, over 46.000 (19% of adults of Icelandic origin) had registered at the website and 352 (0.77%) received text message informing them about their positive results. Of those, 195 (55%) contacted the GC unit. Additionally, 129 relatives asked for GC and confirmatory testing, a total of 324 individuals. Various information such as gender and age, prior knowledge of the variant and perceived emotional impact, was collected. Of the BRCA2 positive individuals from the website, 74 (38%) had prior knowledge of the pathogenic variant (PV) in the family. The majority initially stated worries, anxiety or other negative emotion but later in the process many communicated gratitude for the knowledge gained. Males represented 41% of counsellees as opposed to less than 30% in the regular hereditary breast and ovarian (HBOC) clinic. It appears that counselling in clinical settings was more reassuring for worried counsellees. In this article, we describe one-year experience of the GC service to those who received positive results via the website. This experience offers a unique opportunity to study the public response of a successful method of the return of genetic results from research.

Comparing prenatal screening experiences of Icelandic women who received false-positive and true-negative first-trimester combined screening results in Iceland in 2012-2016.

First-trimester combined screening (FTS) has been offered to all pregnant women in Iceland since 2003. Individuals with high-risk FTS results are offered an invasive test option with a ≤1% risk of fetal loss. This study gives insight into the prenatal screening and diagnosis experiences and preferences of 101 women who underwent FTS in Iceland in the years 2012-2016, comparing the experience of those who received false-positive FTS results to those who received true-negative results. Retrospective patient-reported anxiety levels at the time of receiving FTS results were significantly higher in those who received false-positive results compared to those who received true-negative results. For a subset of these participants, the anxiety lasted through pregnancy, and for a smaller subset, it lasted even longer. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is currently not offered in Iceland, aside from the rare exceptional case. Given the extremely low false-positive rates of NIPT, we believe NIPT is worth considering as Iceland's standard first-tier screening method for trisomy 13, 18, and 21. We believe the findings of this study are beneficial not only for Iceland but also for other countries where FTS is the first-tier prenatal screening method or the only offered test. Additionally, only 21% of participants in our study reported that they had heard of NIPT, which emphasizes the need for comprehensive NIPT pretest information to be available prior to its uptake to ensure informed and autonomous decision-making.