Davit Chokoshvili1, Danya Vears1, Pascal Borry1. 1. Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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.
BACKGROUND: 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.
Authors: Marta Molina Romero; Alberto Yoldi Chaure; Miguel Gañán Parra; Purificación Navas Bastida; José Luis Del Pico Sánchez; Ángel Vaquero Argüelles; Paloma de la Fuente Vaquero; Juan Pablo Ramírez López; José Antonio Castilla Alcalá Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Lieke M van den Heuvel; Nina van den Berg; A Cecile J W Janssens; Erwin Birnie; Lidewij Henneman; Wybo J Dondorp; Mirjam Plantinga; Irene M van Langen Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 5.351
Authors: Ivy van Dijke; Carla G van El; Phillis Lakeman; Mariëtte Goddijn; Tessel Rigter; Martina C Cornel; Lidewij Henneman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Marie Cosette Gabriel; Stephanie M Rice; Jennifer L Sloan; Matthew H Mossayebi; Charles P Venditti; Huda B Al-Kouatly Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 2.183
Authors: Nigel G Laing; Martin B Delatycki; Edwin P Kirk; Royston Ong; Kirsten Boggs; Tristan Hardy; Sarah Righetti; Ben Kamien; Tony Roscioli; David J Amor; Madhura Bakshi; Clara W T Chung; Alison Colley; Robyn V Jamieson; Jan Liebelt; Alan Ma; Nicholas Pachter; Sulekha Rajagopalan; Anja Ravine; Meredith Wilson; Jade Caruana; Rachael Casella; Mark Davis; Samantha Edwards; Alison Archibald; Julie McGaughran; Ainsley J Newson Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 4.246