Expanded carrier screening: counseling and considerations

Abstract

The primary goal of carrier screening is to identify asymptomatic individuals who carry variants associated with genetic diseases, to inform about the risk of having a child with a genetic disease. Carrier screening can be accomplished through different approaches including ethnicity-based screening, pan-ethnic screening, and expanded carrier screening (ECS), and the decision to pursue carrier screening is voluntary. ECS takes a broad approach by screening for a large number of genetic diseases irrespective of ethnic background, and ideally is performed prior to conception. ECS has many benefits, including that it does not depend on accuracy of reported ancestry, as well as its greater yield of information that can be used for reproductive decision-making. However, there are also many important limitations of ECS to consider, ranging from the yield of unexpected information, uncertainty about the phenotype of a particular disease for which an individual is a carrier, and greater downstream costs associated with further testing and genetic counseling. Detailed genetic counseling both prior to and after ECS is essential in order for patients to understand the breadth of this approach, potential and actual results, and limitations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. ACOG Committee (2017a) ACOG Committee Opinion No. 691. Carrier screening for genetic conditions. Obstet Gynecol 129(3):e41–e55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ACOG Committee (2017b) ACOG Committee Opinion No. 690. Carrier screening in the age of genomic medicine. Obstet Gynecol 129(3):e35–e40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beauchamp KA, Muzzey D, Wong KK, Hogan GJ, Kamiri K, Candille SI et al (2018) Systematic design and comparison of expanded carrier panels. Genet Med 20(1):55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Benn P, Chapman AR, Erickson K et al (2014) Obstetricians and gynecologists’ practice and opinions of expanded carrier testing and noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn 34(2):145–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chokoshvili D, Vears DF, Borry P (2017) Growing complexity of (expanded) carrier screening: direct-to-consumer, physician-mediated, and clinic-based offers. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 44:57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Edwards JG, Feldman G, Goldberg J, Gregg AR, Norton ME, Rose NC et al (2015) Expanded carrier screening in reproductive medicine: a joint statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Society of Genetic Counselors, Perinatal Quality Foundation, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstet Gynecol 125(3):653–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gilmore MJ, Schneider J, Davis JV, Kauffman TL, Leo MC, Bergen K et al (2017) Reasons for declining preconception expanded carrier screening using genome sequencing. J Genet Couns 26(5):971–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grody WW (2016) Where to draw the boundaries for prenatal carrier screening. JAMA 316(7):717–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Grody WW, Thompson BH, Gregg AR, Bean LH, Monaghan KG, Schneider A, Lebo RV (2013) ACMG position statement on prenatal/preconception expanded carrier screening. Genet Med 15(6):482–483

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haque IS, Lazarin GA, Kang P, Evans EA, Goldberg JD, Wapner RJ (2016) Modeled fetal risk of genetic diseases identified by expanded carrier screening. JAMA 316(7):734–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Henneman L, Borry P, Chokoshvili D, Cornel MC, van El CG, Forzano F, on behalf of the European Society of Human Genetics et al (2016) Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet 24:e1–e12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaback MM, Desnick RJ (2011) Hexosaminidase A deficiency. GeneReviews. University of Washington, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kohl S, Jägle H, Wissinger B, et al (2004) Achromatopsia. In: Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, et al (eds) GeneReviews, University of Washington, Seattle, 1993–2019. Availabel from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1418/

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kraft SA, Duenas D, Wilfond BS, Goddard KAB (2018a) The evolving landscape of expanded carrier screening: challenges and opportunities. Genet Med 21(4):790–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kraft SA, McMullen CK, Porter KM, Kauffman TL, Davis JV, Schneider JL et al (2018b) Patient perspectives on the use of categories and conditions for decision making about genomic carrier screening results. Am J Med Genet 176A:376–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lazarin GA, Haque IS, Nazareth S, Iori K, Patterson S, Jacobson JL et al (2013) An empirical estimate of carrier frequencies for 400+ causal Mendelian variants: results from an ethnically diverse clinical sample of 23,453 individuals. Genet Med 15(3):178–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Malm D, Nilssen O (2012) Alpha-mannosidosis. GeneReviews. University of Washington, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nazareth SB, Lazarin GA, Goldberg JD (2015) Changing trends in carrier screening for genetic disease in the United States. Prenat Diagn 35:931–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Norton ME (2017) Expanded carrier screening: a rational approach to screening for rare diseases. Obstet Gynecol 130(2):260–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ong T, Marshall SG, Karczeski BA, Sternen DL, Cheng E, Cutting GR (2017) Cystic fibrosis and congenital absence of the vas deferens. GeneReviews. University of Washington, Seattle. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1250/

    Google Scholar 

  21. Petterson SM, Bazemore AW, Phillips RL, Rayburn WF (2014) Trends in office based care for reproductive-aged women according to physician specialty: a ten-year study. J Women’s Health 23(12):1021–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Peyser A, Singer T, Mullin C, Bristow SL, Gamma A, Onel K et al (2019) Comparing ethnicity-based and expanded carrier screening methods at a single fertility center reveals significant differences in carrier rates and couple rates. Genet Med 21:1400–1406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J (2015) Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 17(5):405–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schneider JL, Goddard KA, Davis J, Wilfond B, Kauffman TL, Reiss JA, Gilmore M et al (2016) “Is it worth knowing?” Focus group participants’ perceived utility of genomic preconception carrier screening. J Genet Couns 25:135–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stevens B, Krstic N, Jones M, Murphy L, Hoskovec J (2017) Finding middle ground in constructing a clinically useful expanded carrier screening panel. Obstet Gynecol 130(2):279–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Weiss KH (2016) Wilson disease. GeneReviews. University of Washington, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wilkins-Haug L, Erickson K, Hill L, Power M, Holzman GB, Schulkin J (2000) Obstetrician-gynecologists’ opinions and attitudes on the role of genetics in women’s health. J Women’s Health Gender Based Med 9:873–879

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wolfe L, Jethva R, Oglesbee D, Vockley J (2018) Short-chain acyl-coA dehydrogenase deficiency. GeneReviews. University of Washington, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

T.N.S. is supported by Grant 5K12HD001262-18 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The contents of the publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. T.N.S. is also supported by a Grant from the Fetal Health Foundation. Ultragenyx has provided financial support for studies conducted through the UCSF Center for Maternal–Fetal Precision Medicine.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teresa N. Sparks.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sparks, T.N. Expanded carrier screening: counseling and considerations. Hum Genet 139, 1131–1139 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-019-02080-y

Download citation