scholarly journals Evaluation and classification of severity for 176 genes on an expanded carrier screening panel

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 1246-1257
Author(s):  
Aishwarya Arjunan ◽  
Holly Bellerose ◽  
Raul Torres ◽  
Rotem Ben‐Shachar ◽  
Jodi D. Hoffman ◽  
...  
PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e114391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel A. Lazarin ◽  
Felicia Hawthorne ◽  
Nicholas S. Collins ◽  
Elizabeth A. Platt ◽  
Eric A. Evans ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aishwarya Arjunan ◽  
Holly Bellerose ◽  
Raul Torres ◽  
Rotem Ben-Shachar ◽  
Jodi D. Hoffman ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundSeverity is an important factor for inclusion of diseases on expanded carrier screening (ECS) panels. Here, we applied a validated algorithm that objectively classifies diseases into severity categories to 176 genes on a clinically available ECS panel. We then mapped disease traits from the algorithm to severity-related criteria cited by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).MethodsEight genetic counselors (GCs), followed by four medical geneticists (MDs), applied the algorithm to subsets of the 176 genes. MDs and GCs then determined which disease traits met ACOG severity criteria.ResultsUpon initial GC and MD review, 107/176 genes (61%) and 133/176 genes (76%), respectively, had concordant classifications, with consensus reached for all genes. Final severity classifications were 68 (39%) profound, 71 (40%) severe, 36 (20%) moderate, and one (1%) mild. The vast majority of genes (170 out of 176) met at least one of ACOG’s four severity criteria.ConclusionThis study classified the severity of a large set of Mendelian genes by collaborative clinical expert application of an algorithm. Further, it clarified and operationalized difficult to interpret ACOG severity criteria via mapping of disease traits, thereby promoting consistency of ACOG criteria interpretation across laboratories.What’s already known about this topic?Disease severity is an important consideration for disease inclusion on expanded carrier screening panels.An algorithm that objectively classifies diseases into severity categories has been published and validated.What does this study add?176 genes were classified into severity categories.The algorithm was used to bring clarity to American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist’s (ACOG’s) severity criteria that are not easily interpretable.170 of 176 genes met at least one of ACOG’s severity criteria.Data Availability StatementThe data that support the findings of this study have been completely reported in this manuscript and shared in the Figures and Supplementary Material.


Author(s):  
Ivy van Dijke ◽  
Phillis Lakeman ◽  
Naoual Sabiri ◽  
Hanna Rusticus ◽  
Cecile P. E. Ottenheim ◽  
...  

AbstractPreconception carrier screening offers couples the possibility to receive information about the risk of having a child with a recessive disorder. Since 2016, an expanded carrier screening (ECS) test for 50 severe autosomal recessive disorders has been available at Amsterdam Medical Center, a Dutch university hospital. This mixed-methods study evaluated the experiences of couples that participated in the carrier screening offer, including high-risk participants, as well as participants with a general population risk. All participants received genetic counselling, and pre- (n = 132) and post-test (n = 86) questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were administered. The most important reason to have ECS was to spare a future child a life with a severe disorder (47%). The majority of survey respondents made an informed decision (86%), as assessed by the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. Among the 86 respondents, 27 individual carriers and no new carrier couples were identified. Turn-around time of the test results was considered too long and costs were perceived as too high. Overall, mean levels of anxiety were not clinically elevated. High-risk respondents (n = 89) and pregnant respondents (n = 13) experienced higher levels of anxiety before testing, which decreased after receiving the test result. Although not clinically significant, distress was on average higher for carriers compared to non-carriers (p < 0.0001). All respondents would opt for the test again, and 80.2% would recommend it to others. The results suggest that ECS should ideally be offered before pregnancy, to minimise anxiety. This study could inform current and future implementation initiatives of preconception ECS.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liya Rabkina ◽  
Amy Swanson ◽  
Sharon Aufox ◽  
Lauren Propst ◽  
Morris Fiddler ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Thirsa Conijn ◽  
Ivy van Dijke ◽  
Lotte Haverman ◽  
Phillis Lakeman ◽  
Frits A Wijburg ◽  
...  

AbstractPreconception expanded carrier screening (ECS) enables prospective parents to assess their risk of having a child with an autosomal recessive disorder. Knowledge on motivations, feelings, and considerations people have towards the offer and use of ECS is limited. To enrich the public and professional discussion on ECS implementation, this study explored the perspectives towards various aspects of ECS in seven focus groups compromising first- and second-degree relatives of MPS III patients (N=9, N=4, N=5, N=5) and members of the general Dutch population (N=6, N=7, N=5). The focus groups were audio recorded and the transcripts were qualitatively analyzed to identify themes. Both relatives of MPS III patients and participants from the general population supported offering ECS, in particular for severe, childhood-onset disorders. Important barriers identified for ECS were a lack of genetic knowledge and a perceived lack of personal relevance and awareness, as well as out-of-pocket costs of testing. The majority of participants would prefer full disclosure of individual test results instead of couple-based test results. Moreover, offering people a choice for the way of reporting was proposed. All participants agreed that more efforts, for example by governmental campaigns, should be made to increase awareness on the availability, potentials, and limitations of ECS. Educating prospective parents about ECS is essential for increasing awareness and informed decision making. This study provides valuable insights that can be used by governments and public health authorities when considering implementation of preconception ECS.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Janssens ◽  
Davit Chokoshvili ◽  
Danya F. Vears ◽  
Anne De Paepe ◽  
Pascal Borry

2018 ◽  
Vol 131 ◽  
pp. 54S
Author(s):  
Maggie Westemeyer ◽  
Jennifer Saucier ◽  
Bert Gold ◽  
Herman Hedriana ◽  
Kimberly A. Martin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Balzotti ◽  
Linyan Meng ◽  
Dale Muzzey ◽  
Katherine Johansen Taber ◽  
Kyle Beauchamp ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectiveClinical guidelines consider expanded carrier screening (ECS) to be an acceptable method of carrier screening. However, broader guideline support and payer adoption require evidence for associations between the genes on ECS panels and the conditions for which they aim to identify carriers. We applied a standardized framework for evaluation of gene-disease association to assess the clinical validity of conditions screened by ECS panels.MethodsThe ClinGen gene curation framework was used to assess genetic and experimental evidence of associations between 208 genes and conditions screened on two commercial ECS panels. Twenty-one conditions were previously classified by ClinGen, and the remaining 187 were evaluated by curation teams at two laboratories. To ensure consistent application of the framework across the laboratories, concordance was evaluated on a subset of conditions.ResultsAll 208 evaluated conditions met the evidence threshold for supporting a gene-disease association. Furthermore, 203 of 208 (98%) achieved the strongest (“Definitive”) level of gene-disease association. All conditions evaluated by both commercial laboratories were similarly classified.ConclusionAssessment using the ClinGen standardized framework revealed strong evidence of gene-disease association for conditions on two ECS panels. This result establishes the disease-level clinical validity of the panels considered herein.


2021 ◽  
Vol 137 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-350
Author(s):  
Julia Silver ◽  
Mary E. Norton

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document