guidelines and statements have assisted patients seeking prenatal screening information and health-care providers responsible for providing accurate and up-to-date information to their patients. [1][2][3] Until recently, noninvasive prenatal screening for aneuploidy relied on measurements of maternal serum analytes and/or ultrasonography. These have a false-positive rate of approximately 5% and detection rates of 50-95%, depending on the specific screening strategy used. Advances in genomic technologies led to noninvasive prenatal screening that relies on the presence of cell-free DNA derived from the placenta but circulating in maternal blood, which is referred to here as noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS). Massive parallel sequencing of maternal and placental (also called fetal when speaking of the fraction of this DNA in maternal blood) fragments of DNA occurs simultaneously. Sequencing with quantification can be random, targeted, and followed by quantification or exploitation of single-nucleotide polymorphisms. [4][5][6][7][8] Alternatively, sequencing can take place by measuring the release of hydrogen ions as nucleotides are added to a DNA template (i.e., semiconductor sequencing). 9 Microarray technology can also be used to quantify DNA. 10 Bioinformatics that enable these methodologies is complex and proprietary. Since the introduction of NIPS in 2011, health-care providers and patients have experienced marketing pressures, rapidly evolving professional practice guidelines, and confusion regarding the appropriate role of Noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA (NIPS) has been rapidly integrated into prenatal care since the initial American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) statement in 2013. New evidence strongly suggests that NIPS can replace conventional screening for Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes across the maternal age spectrum, for a continuum of gestational age beginning at 9-10 weeks, and for patients who are not significantly obese. This statement sets forth a new framework for NIPS that is supported by information from validation and clinical utility studies. Pretest counseling for NIPS remains crucial; however, it needs to go beyond discussions of Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes. The use of NIPS to include sex chromosome aneuploidy screening and screening for selected copy-number variants (CNVs) is becoming commonplace because there are no other screening options to identify these conditions. Providers should have a more thorough understanding of patient preferences and be able to educate about the current drawbacks of NIPS across the prenatal screening spectrum. Laboratories are encouraged to meet the needs of providers and their patients by delivering meaningful screening reports and to engage in education. With health-care-provider guidance, the patient should be able to make an educated decision about the current use of NIPS and the ramifications of a positive, negative, or no-call result. Genet Med advance online publication 28 July 2016Key Words: cell-f...

Standard educational approaches may be equally effective as expanded counseling approaches in enhancing knowledge. Since knowledge is a key aspect of medical decision-making, standard education may be adequate in situations where genetic testing must be streamlined. On the other hand, it has been argued that optimal decision-making requires not only knowledge, but also a reasoned evaluation of the positive and negative consequences of alternate decisions. Although the counseling approach is more likely to achieve this goal, it may not diminish interest in testing, even among women at low to moderate risk. Future research should focus on the merits of these alternate approaches for subgroups of individuals with different backgrounds who are being counseled in the variety of settings where BRCA1 testing is likely to be offered.

No abstract

Will the United States have sufficient numbers of qualified health professionals to provide for the future genetic health care and service needs of the population?This is a difficult question to answer. Continued scientific discoveries and new clinical applications will fuel a growing interest and demand for genetic services. At the same time, the very definition of genetic services is evolving. Clinical genetics services are highly specialized and currently constitute a focused area of overall medical care and public health programs. Yet, genetics-related discoveries are forecast to be one of the most significant factors affecting health care over the next decades.This summary presents key findings of a survey of medical geneticists that was one component of a 3-year national research project, Assessing Genetic Services and the Health Workforce. The goals of the overall project were to: (1) describe current models of providing clinical genetics services; (2) describe the roles of health professionals delivering services; (3) identify measures to monitor changes in demand for services; and (4) establish a framework and baseline description for ongoing and longitudinal studies of genetic services.A written survey of all American Board of Medical Genetics (ABMG) certified medical geneticists was conducted in February 2003; it included 67 questions organized into six sections. A 55% response rate was obtained. No response rate difference (bias) was found using comparisons by geographic location (US Census regions and divisions), and year and type of initial ABMG certification. When using comparisons by respondents' degree type, response rates varied from 51% to 63%, with a slight but statistically significant higher response rate for the PhD-only degree subgroup. We concluded from this analysis that the observed response rates showed variability but little evidence of bias. Thus, we present findings weighted for the entire population (1377) This commentary begins with a workforce summary that presents findings for the entire medical genetics workforce. Only limited subgroup analysis is presented (e.g., the geographic distribution of MD clinical geneticists, activities of clinical laboratory geneticists). This workforce summary approach allows one to describe the overall characteristics, professional practices, and aggregate contributions of the professional group.

No abstract

The identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2, two breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility genes, has brought many ethical and social issues to the forefront. This paper presents the results of a survey assessing the attitudes of 238 unaffected first-degree relatives of women with breast or ovarian cancer regarding the ethical issues of autonomy and confidentiality as they relate to BRCA1/2 testing. Baseline knowledge about BRCA1/2 and ethnic and psychosocial characteristics of our study population were examined to determine their association with women's attitudes. The majority of women (86-87%) felt that health care providers should not disclose the results of genetic tests for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility to insurance companies or employers without written consent; however, only 56-57% felt that written consent should be required for a spouse or immediate family to receive this information. Ninety-eight percent of the women surveyed agreed that genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer risk should be voluntary. Likewise, most women (95%) agreed that a person should be able to have genetic testing against a doctor's recommendation and 88% of the women surveyed agreed that parents should be able to consent to genetic susceptibility testing on behalf of their minor children. African American women were less concerned than Caucasian women about the protection of confidentiality in families, they were more likely to agree that an individual should still have access to testing when their physicians recommended against it, and they were more supportive of parents' rights to consent to genetic predisposition testing on behalf of their minor children. Women with coping styles characterized by higher optimism were more likely to favor access to genetic testing when a physician recommended against it, and to support parents' rights to consent to testing of their minor children. Therefore, the setting and manner in which genetic counseling and testing are delivered must be appropriately tailored to reflect these attitudinal differences and preferences.

(Abstracted from Genet Med 2016;18(10):1056–1065) Rapid advancements in genomic technologies led to the introduction in 2011 of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) that used cell-free DNA (cfDNA) derived from the placenta and circulating in maternal blood. Noninvasive prenatal screening is addressed in this American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guideline to assist patients who are in search of prenatal screening information and health care providers who are responsible for providing precise and up-to-date information to their patients.

The use of anonymized stored tissue is a routine practice in genetic research. Investigators who utilize stored samples are neither required nor able to obtain informed consent before each use. Many genetic studies, however, are conducted on specific ethnic populations (e.g., Ashkenazi Jews). The results in these cases, although individually anonymous, are not anonymous with respect to the ethnicity of the participants. This lack of group anonymity has led to concern about the possibility of stigmatization and discrimination based on the results of the genetic research. In the present study we surveyed Jewish individuals about their attitudes regarding the practice of using stored DNA samples for genetic research. Specifically, we were interested in whether attitudes about informed consent and willingness to participate in genetics research using stored DNA would depend on the circumstances in which the material was collected (i.e., clinical setting vs. research setting) and the characteristics of the disease or trait under investigation. Overall, most respondents reported that written informed consent should be required and that they would be willing to provide such consent. Participants were most willing to provide consent, however, when the sample had been collected in a research rather than clinical setting. Further, participants were more likely to endorse the need for obtaining consent when the sample was collected in a clinical setting. Finally, participants were significantly less willing to participate in research that examined stereotypical or potentially stigmatizing traits as opposed to research that examined medical or mental illnesses.