Expanded carrier screening for monogenic disorders: where are we now?

Prenatal Diagnosis - Tập 38 Số 1 - Trang 59-66 - 2018
Davit Chokoshvili1, Danya F. Vears1, Pascal Borry1
1Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Tóm tắt

AbstractBackground

Expanded carrier screening (ECS), which can identify carriers of a large number of recessive disorders in the general population, has grown in popularity and is now widely accessible to prospective parents. This article presents a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of currently available ECS tests.

Methods

To identify relevant ECS providers, we employed a multi‐step approach, which included online searching, review of the recent literature, and consultations with researchers familiar with the current landscape of ECS.

Results

As of January 2017, there were 16 providers of ECS tests: 13 commercial companies, 2 medical hospitals, and 1 academic diagnostic laboratory. We observed drastic differences in the characteristics of ECS tests, with the number of conditions ranging from 41 to 1792. Only three conditions (cystic fibrosis, maple syrup urine disease 1b, and Niemann–Pick disease) were screened for by all providers. Where the same disease gene was included by multiple providers, substantial differences existed in the mutations screened and/or variant interpretation/reporting strategies.

Conclusion

Given the importance of carrier screening results in reproductive decision‐making, the observed heterogeneity across ECS panels is concerning. Efforts should be made to ensure that clear and concrete criteria are in place to guide the development of ECS panels. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1007/s12687-011-0071-z

10.1007/s12687-012-0092-2

10.1097/GIM.0b013e318188d04c

10.21037/jxym.2017.02.07

10.1038/ejhg.2015.271

10.1093/humrep/der042

10.1002/pd.4647

10.1007/s00439-009-0669-y

10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815f247c

10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.05.012

Chokoshvili D, 2017, Growing complexity of (expanded) carrier screening: direct‐to‐consumer, physician‐mediated, and clinic‐based offers, Best Prac Res Clin Obstet Gynecol, 44

10.1097/AOG.0000000000000666

10.1186/s12913-017-2083-9

10.1053/j.semperi.2015.11.005

10.1007/s12687-013-0169-6

10.1038/gim.2013.47

10.1371/journal.pone.0114391

10.1002/ajmg.a.37513

10.1002/ajmg.a.37477

Ghiossi C, 2016, Clinical utility of expanded carrier screening: reproductive behaviors of at‐risk couples, bioRxiv

Alouini S, 2011, Termination of pregnancy for mild foetal abnormalities: opinions of physicians, Webmed Central Obstet Gynecol, 2

10.2217/pme-2016-0018

Beauchamp KA, 2016, Systematic design and comparison of expanded carrier screening panels, bioRxiv

ClinVar.Entry c.2991G>C (p.Leu997Phe). Available from:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/variation/7229/Accessed on 5 April.

10.1097/GIM.0b013e318228efb2

10.1097/GIM.0b013e31823c49a2

10.1001/jama.2016.10888

10.1097/AOG.0000000000001952

10.1038/gim.2016.153

HegerM.Carrier screening firms question methods of study that finds their assays deficient. (2016); Available at:https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing‐technology/carrier‐screening‐firms‐question‐methods‐study‐finds‐their‐assays‐deficient. Accessed 5 April 2017