Considerations on the Use of Carrier Screening Testing in Human Reproduction: Comparison Between Recommendations from the Italian Society of Human Genetics and Other International Societies

Overview

Journal J Assist Reprod Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialties Genetics
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2022 Nov 12

PMID 36370240

Authors

Antonio Capalbo

Ilaria Gabbiato

Silvia Caroselli

Ludovica Picchetta

Pietro Cavalli

Fortunato Lonardo

Sebastiano Bianca

Emiliano Giardina

Daniela Zuccarello

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Carrier screening (CS) is a term used to describe a genetic test performed on individuals without family history of genetic disorders, to investigate the carrier status for pathogenic variants associated with multiple recessive conditions. The advent of next-generation sequencing enabled simultaneous CS for an increasing number of conditions; however, a consensus on which diseases to include in gene panels and how to best develop the provision of CS is far to be reached. Therefore, the provision of CS is jeopardized and inconsistent and requires solving several important issues.

Methods: In 2020, the Italian Society of Human Genetics (SIGU) established a working group composed of clinical and laboratory geneticists from public and private fields to elaborate a document to define indications and best practice of CS provision for couples planning a pregnancy.

Results: Hereby, we present the outcome of the Italian working group's activity and compare it with previously published international recommendations (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG)). We determine a core message on genetic counseling and nine main subject categories to explore, spanning from goals and execution to technical scientific, ethical, and socio-economic topics. Moreover, a level of agreement on the most critical points is discussed using a 5-point agreement scale, demonstrating a high level of consensus among the four societies.

Conclusions: This document is intended to provide genetic and healthcare professionals involved in human reproduction with guidance regarding the clinical implementation of CS.

Citing Articles

Genetic study on candidates for oocyte donation.

Araujo S, Paula Neto A, Pinho M, Doria S, Barros A, Carvalho F JBRA Assist Reprod. 2024; 29(1):61-66.

PMID: 39688442 PMC: 11867239. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20240087.

Population-based genetic carrier screening. A consensus statement from the Spanish societies: AEGH, AEDP, ASEBIR, SEAGEN, SEF and SEGCD.

Vendrell X, Abuli A, Serra C, Guillen J, Rueda J, Garcia-Planells J Eur J Hum Genet. 2024; .

PMID: 39623216 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-024-01751-3.

Considering severity in the design of reproductive genetic carrier screening programs: screening for severe conditions.

Freeman L, Archibald A, Dive L, Delatycki M, Kirk E, Laing N Eur J Hum Genet. 2024; 33(2):194-198.

PMID: 39587355 PMC: 11840106. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-024-01738-0.

References

Rowe C, Wright C . Expanded universal carrier screening and its implementation within a publicly funded healthcare service. J Community Genet. 2019; 11(1):21-38. PMC: 6962405. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-019-00443-6. View

Beauchamp K, Johansen Taber K, Muzzey D . Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of a 176-condition expanded carrier screen. Genet Med. 2019; 21(9):1948-1957. PMC: 6752320. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0455-8. View

Kaback M . Population-based genetic screening for reproductive counseling: the Tay-Sachs disease model. Eur J Pediatr. 2001; 159 Suppl 3:S192-5. DOI: 10.1007/pl00014401. View

Rigden D, Fernandez X . The 2022 Nucleic Acids Research database issue and the online molecular biology database collection. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022; 50(D1):D1-D10. PMC: 8728296. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkab1195. View

de Wert G, van der Hout S, Goddijn M, Vassena R, Frith L, Vermeulen N . The ethics of preconception expanded carrier screening in patients seeking assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod Open. 2021; 2021(1):hoaa063. PMC: 7880037. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa063. View

Chokoshvili D, Vears D, Borry P . Expanded carrier screening for monogenic disorders: where are we now?. Prenat Diagn. 2017; 38(1):59-66. DOI: 10.1002/pd.5109. View

Baudhuin L, Lagerstedt S, Klee E, Fadra N, Oglesbee D, Ferber M . Confirming Variants in Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Testing by Sanger Sequencing. J Mol Diagn. 2015; 17(4):456-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2015.03.004. View

Beck T, Mullikin J, Biesecker L . Systematic Evaluation of Sanger Validation of Next-Generation Sequencing Variants. Clin Chem. 2016; 62(4):647-54. PMC: 4878677. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2015.249623. View

Edwards D, Hawker C, Carrier J, Rees C . A systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies and interventions to improve the transition from student to newly qualified nurse. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015; 52(7):1254-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.03.007. View

10.

Henneman L, Borry P, Chokoshvili D, Cornel M, van El C, Forzano F . Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016; 24(6):e1-e12. PMC: 4867464. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.271. View

11.

Antonarakis S . Carrier screening for recessive disorders. Nat Rev Genet. 2019; 20(9):549-561. DOI: 10.1038/s41576-019-0134-2. View

12.

Grody W, Cutting G, Klinger K, Richards C, Watson M, Desnick R . Laboratory standards and guidelines for population-based cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Genet Med. 2001; 3(2):149-54. DOI: 10.1097/00125817-200103000-00010. View

13.

Dondorp W, De Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B . ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 21: genetic screening of gamete donors: ethical issues. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29(7):1353-9. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu111. View

14.

Wakap S, Lambert D, Olry A, Rodwell C, Gueydan C, Lanneau V . Estimating cumulative point prevalence of rare diseases: analysis of the Orphanet database. Eur J Hum Genet. 2019; 28(2):165-173. PMC: 6974615. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-019-0508-0. View

15.

Shraga R, Yarnall S, Elango S, Manoharan A, Rodriguez S, Bristow S . Evaluating genetic ancestry and self-reported ethnicity in the context of carrier screening. BMC Genet. 2017; 18(1):99. PMC: 5704547. DOI: 10.1186/s12863-017-0570-y. View

16.

Tandy-Connor S, Guiltinan J, Krempely K, LaDuca H, Reineke P, Gutierrez S . False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care. Genet Med. 2018; 20(12):1515-1521. PMC: 6301953. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2018.38. View

17.

Capalbo A, Fabiani M, Caroselli S, Poli M, Girardi L, Patassini C . Clinical validity and utility of preconception expanded carrier screening for the management of reproductive genetic risk in IVF and general population. Hum Reprod. 2021; 36(7):2050-2061. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deab087. View

18.

Azimi M, Schmaus K, Greger V, Neitzel D, Rochelle R, Dinh T . Carrier screening by next-generation sequencing: health benefits and cost effectiveness. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2016; 4(3):292-302. PMC: 4867563. DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.204. View

19.

Sikkema-Raddatz B, Johansson L, de Boer E, Almomani R, Boven L, van den Berg M . Targeted next-generation sequencing can replace Sanger sequencing in clinical diagnostics. Hum Mutat. 2013; 34(7):1035-42. DOI: 10.1002/humu.22332. View

20.

Bell C, Dinwiddie D, Miller N, Hateley S, Ganusova E, Mudge J . Carrier testing for severe childhood recessive diseases by next-generation sequencing. Sci Transl Med. 2011; 3(65):65ra4. PMC: 3740116. DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001756. View