This document of the European Society of Human Genetics contains recommendations regarding responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Carrier screening is defined here as the detection of carrier status of recessive diseases in couples or persons who do not have an a priori increased risk of being a carrier based on their or their partners' personal or family history. Expanded carrier screening offers carrier screening for multiple autosomal and X-linked recessive disorders, facilitated by new genetic testing technologies, and allows testing of individuals regardless of ancestry or geographic origin. Carrier screening aims to identify couples who have an increased risk of having an affected child in order to facilitate informed reproductive decision making. In previous decades, carrier screening was typically performed for one or few relatively common recessive disorders associated with significant morbidity, reduced life-expectancy and often because of a considerable higher carrier frequency in a specific population for certain diseases. New genetic testing technologies enable the expansion of screening to multiple conditions, genes or sequence variants. Expanded carrier screening panels that have been introduced to date have been advertised and offered to health care professionals and the public on a commercial basis. This document discusses the challenges that expanded carrier screening might pose in the context of the lessons learnt from decades of population-based carrier screening and in the context of existing screening criteria. It aims to contribute to the public and professional discussion and to arrive at better clinical and laboratory practice guidelines.

This paper contains a joint ESHG/ASHG position document with recommendations regarding responsible innovation in prenatal screening with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). By virtue of its greater accuracy and safety with respect to prenatal screening for common autosomal aneuploidies, NIPT has the potential of helping the practice better achieve its aim of facilitating autonomous reproductive choices, provided that balanced pretest information and non-directive counseling are available as part of the screening offer. Depending on the health-care setting, different scenarios for NIPT-based screening for common autosomal aneuploidies are possible. The trade-offs involved in these scenarios should be assessed in light of the aim of screening, the balance of benefits and burdens for pregnant women and their partners and considerations of cost-effectiveness and justice. With improving screening technologies and decreasing costs of sequencing and analysis, it will become possible in the near future to significantly expand the scope of prenatal screening beyond common autosomal aneuploidies. Commercial providers have already begun expanding their tests to include sex-chromosomal abnormalities and microdeletions. However, multiple false positives may undermine the main achievement of NIPT in the context of prenatal screening: the significant reduction of the invasive testing rate. This document argues for a cautious expansion of the scope of prenatal screening to serious congenital and childhood disorders, only following sound validation studies and a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant aspects. A further core message of this document is that in countries where prenatal screening is offered as a public health programme, governments and public health authorities should adopt an active role to ensure the responsible innovation of prenatal screening on the basis of ethical principles. Crucial elements are the quality of the screening process as a whole (including non-laboratory aspects such as information and counseling), education of professionals, systematic evaluation of all aspects of prenatal screening, development of better evaluation tools in the light of the aim of the practice, accountability to all stakeholders including children born from screened pregnancies and persons living with the conditions targeted in prenatal screening and promotion of equity of access.

The Netherlands launched a nationwide implementation study on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a first-tier test offered to all pregnant women. This started on April 1, 2017 as the TRIDENT-2 study, licensed by the Dutch Ministry of Health. In the first year, NIPT was performed in 73,239 pregnancies (42% of all pregnancies), 7,239 (4%) chose first-trimester combined testing, and 54% did not participate. The number of trisomies 21 (239, 0.33%), 18 (49, 0.07%), and 13 (55, 0.08%) found in this study is comparable to earlier studies, but the Positive Predictive Values (PPV)-96% for trisomy 21, 98% for trisomy 18, and 53% for trisomy 13-were higher than expected. Findings other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13 were reported on request of the pregnant women; 78% of women chose to have these reported. The number of additional findings was 207 (0.36%); these included other trisomies (101, 0.18%, PPV 6%, many of the remaining 94% of cases are likely confined placental mosaics and possibly clinically significant), structural chromosomal aberrations (95, 0.16%, PPV 32%,) and complex abnormal profiles indicative of maternal malignancies (11, 0.02%, PPV 64%). The implementation of genome-wide NIPT is under debate because the benefits of detecting other fetal chromosomal aberrations must be balanced against the risks of discordant positives, parental anxiety, and a potential increase in (invasive) diagnostic procedures. Our first-year data, including clinical data and laboratory follow-up data, will fuel this debate. Furthermore, we describe how NIPT can successfully be embedded into a national screening program with a single chain for prenatal care including counseling, testing, and follow-up.

Objective: The objectives of this study were (1) to explore public experiences, genetic knowledge, expectations of future medical genetic developments, and the attitudes towards the use of genetic information, and (2) to determine whether there are subject characteristics associated with these variables. Methods: Participants (n = 1,308, age ≧25 years) of a Dutch consumer panel were sent a questionnaire, specifically designed for this study. Results: Response was 63% (817/1,308). A minority of respondents reported to know someone with a hereditary disease (34%) or to have used a genetic test (8%). Overall, 57% perceived a lack of genetic knowledge. In multivariate analyses, high self-rated knowledge, younger age, having heard of genetic testing, high educational level, female gender, having children living at home, being a health professional, and familiarity with genetic testing were positively associated with genetic knowledge. Future expectations of the consequences of developments in medical genetics varied between the subjects. The great majority expected great benefits for medical practice such as an increasing use of genetic aspects of disease for diagnosis or prevention. One fifth, mainly older people, anticipated a negative impact of genetic developments on society. The results also show that most people are reserved to share their genetic information with others, especially with regard to the wider public domain (e.g. industry and insurers) and employers. Remarkably, respondents were more willing to share their genetic information with scientific researchers (68%) than with their relatives (54%). Conclusion: This study suggests that although one fifth anticipates negative consequences of genetic developments, the great majority has high expectations about the increasing use of genetics in prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases. In developing educational programmes about genetic innovations in medicine, policymakers will have to take into account pre-existing lay knowledge, views and expectations of different groups of citizens towards these developments.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess knowledge of genetics and awareness of genetic tests among Dutch general practitioners (GPs), gynecologists (GYNs), and pediatricians (PEDs), as well as factors influencing their knowledge and awareness. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire inquiry was used, validated with a sample of 52 clinical geneticists (CGs). The study was carried out in primary care (general practice) and secondary care (general and university hospitals) in The Netherlands. A random sample of 200 GPs, 300 GYNs, and 265 PEDs received a questionnaire. In addition, all registered CGs (58) received a questionnaire for validation. In total, 122 GPs, 187 GYNs, 164 PEDs, and 52 CGs returned a completed questionnaire. The main outcome measures were differences in knowledge scores between physicians working in different disciplines and factors influencing these scores. Results: Knowledge scores of GPs (mean 64% correct answers, 61%-66% [95% confidence interval]), GYNs (mean 75% correct answers, 73%-76% [95% confidence interval]), and PEDs (mean 81% correct answers, 79%-82% [95% confidence interval]) were lower than those in the CG validation group (mean 95% correct answers, 94%-96% [95% confidence interval]). The 5th percentile of GPs, GYNs, and PEDs was at approximately 40%, 52% and 62% correct answers, respectively. There was a specific lack of knowledge about DNA testing. In addition to specialty, important factors positively associated with the knowledge scores of nongeneticists are more recent graduation, having taken an elective course in genetics, and providing genetic counseling in their own practice. Conclusion:The overall knowledge levels of genetics in many nongeneticist health care providers show clear deficiencies. This is in line with reports from other countries, showing that these deficiencies are a global problem.Genet Med 2005:7(9):605-610.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and its potential to test for multiple disorders has received much attention. This study explores attitudes of women and men towards NIPT, and their views on widening the scope of prenatal testing in a country with a low uptake of prenatal screening (The Netherlands). Five focus groups with low-risk pregnant women (n ¼ 28), three focus groups with men (n ¼ 19) and 13 interviews with high-and low-risk pregnant women were conducted. Participants felt that current prenatal screening has great disadvantages such as uncertain results and risk of miscarriage from follow-up diagnostics. Characteristics of NIPT (accurate, safe and early testing) could therefore diminish these disadvantages of prenatal screening and help lower the barrier for participation. This suggests that NIPT might allow couples to decide about prenatal testing based mostly on their will to test or not, rather than largely based on fear of miscarriage risk or the uncertainty of results. The lower barrier for participation was also seen as a downside that could lead to uncritical use or pressure to test. Widening the scope of prenatal testing was seen as beneficial for severe disorders, although it was perceived difficult to determine where to draw the line. Participants argued that there should be a limit to the scope of NIPT, avoiding testing for minor abnormalities. The findings suggest that NIPT could enable more meaningful decision-making for prenatal screening. However, to ensure voluntary participation, especially when testing for multiple disorders, safeguards on the basis of informed decision-making will be of utmost importance. INTRODUCTIONNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) allows detection of chromosomal aneuploidies in the foetus by using circulating cell-free foetal DNA (cffDNA) in the plasma of pregnant women. 1 This technique makes it possible to detect foetal trisomies 21, 13 and 18 as early as 9 weeks into the pregnancy, and perhaps even earlier. 2 As the procedure of NIPT consists of only drawing a blood sample, it eliminates the risk of miscarriage associated with invasive diagnostic procedures, that is, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis. Consequently, NIPT assures both earlier and safer prenatal testing, although diagnostic confirmation of abnormal NIPT results by invasive testing is still required due to the chance of false positive test results. 3 In 2010, Lo et al 4 showed that it is possible to deduce the entire genomic sequence of a foetus through NIPT, implying that NIPT could identify a much wider range of genetic disorders in the future. These major developments in the field of prenatal testing are generating a great amount of debate regarding the potential impact, benefits and drawbacks of NIPT. Greely 5 , for example, provides a summary of the ethical questions that have been raised with regard to the implications of NIPT on the current prenatal screening setting and

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical impact of nationwide implementation of genome‐wide non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in pregnancies at increased risk for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 (TRIDENT study).MethodWomen with elevated risk based on first trimester combined testing (FCT ≥ 1:200) or medical history, not advanced maternal age alone, were offered NIPT as contingent screening test, performed by Dutch University Medical laboratories. We analyzed uptake, test performance, redraw/failure rate, turn‐around time and pregnancy outcome.ResultsBetween 1 April and 1 September 2014, 1413/23 232 (6%) women received a high‐risk FCT result. Of these, 1211 (85.7%) chose NIPT. One hundred seventy‐nine women had NIPT based on medical history. In total, 1386/1390 (99.7%) women received a result, 6 (0.4%) after redraw. Mean turn‐around time was 14 days. Follow‐up was available in 1376 (99.0%) pregnancies. NIPT correctly predicted 37/38 (97.4%) trisomies 21, 18 or 13 (29/30, 4/4 and 4/4 respectively); 5/1376 (0.4%) cases proved to be false positives: trisomies 21 (n = 2), 18 (n = 1) and 13 (n = 2). Estimated reduction in invasive testing was 62%.ConclusionIntroduction of NIPT in the Dutch National healthcare‐funded Prenatal Screening Program resulted in high uptake and a vast reduction of invasive testing. Our study supports offering NIPT to pregnant women at increased risk for fetal trisomy. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

BackgroundAvailable evidence suggests that improvements in genetics education are needed to prepare primary care providers for the impact of ongoing rapid advances in genomics. Postgraduate (physician training) and master (midwifery training) programmes in primary care and public health are failing to meet these perceived educational needs. The aim of this study was to explore the role of genetics in primary care (i.e. family medicine and midwifery care) and the need for education in this area as perceived by primary care providers, patient advocacy groups and clinical genetics professionals.MethodsForty-four participants took part in three types of focus groups: mono-disciplinary groups of general practitioners and midwives, respectively and multidisciplinary groups composed of a diverse set of experts. The focus group sessions were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis. Recurrent themes were identified.ResultsFour themes emerged regarding the educational needs and the role of genetics in primary care: (1) genetics knowledge, (2) family history, (3) ethical dilemmas and psychosocial effects in relation to genetics and (4) insight into the organisation and role of clinical genetics services. These themes reflect a shift in the role of genetics in primary care with implications for education. Although all focus group participants acknowledged the importance of genetics education, general practitioners felt this need more urgently than midwives and more strongly emphasized their perceived knowledge deficiencies.ConclusionThe responsibilities of primary care providers with regard to genetics require further study. The results of this study will help to develop effective genetics education strategies to improve primary care providers' competencies in this area. More research into the educational priorities in genetics is needed to design courses that are suitable for postgraduate and master programmes for general practitioners and midwives.