Since its introduction in 2011, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has spread rapidly around the world. It carries numerous benefits but also raises challenges, often related to sociocultural, legal, and economic contexts. This article describes the implementation of NIPT in nine countries, each with its own unique characteristics: Australia, Canada, China and Hong Kong, India, Israel, Lebanon, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Themes covered for each country include the structure of the healthcare system, how NIPT is offered, counseling needs and resources, and cultural and legal context regarding disability and pregnancy termination. Some common issues emerge, including cost as a barrier to equitable access, the complexity of decision-making about public funding, and a shortage of appropriate resources that promote informed choice. Conversely, sociocultural values that underlie the use of NIPT vary greatly among countries. The issues described will become even more challenging as NIPT evolves from a second-tier to a first-tier screening test with expanded use. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics Volume 22 is August 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Reproductive genetic carrier screening aims to offer couples information about their chance of having children with certain autosomal recessive and X-linked genetic conditions. We developed a gene list for use in "Mackenzie's Mission", a research project in which 10,000 couples will undergo screening. Criteria for selecting genes were: the condition should be lifelimiting or disabling, with childhood onset, such that couples would be likely to take steps to avoid having an affected child; and/or be one for which early diagnosis and intervention would substantially change outcome. Strong evidence for genephenotype relationship was required. Candidate genes were identified from OMIM and via review of 23 commercial and published gene lists. Genes were reviewed by 16 clinical geneticists using a standard operating procedure, in a process overseen by a multidisciplinary committee which included clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, an ethicist, a parent of a child with a genetic condition and scientists from diagnostic and research backgrounds. 1300 genes met criteria. Genes associated with non-syndromic deafness and non-syndromic differences of sex development were not included. Our experience has highlighted that gene selection for a carrier screening panel needs to be a dynamic process with ongoing review and refinement.

Background There is mounting evidence of the benefit of risk‐stratified (risk‐tailored) cancer population screening, when compared to standard approaches. However, shifting towards this approach involves changes to practice that may give rise to implementation challenges. Objectives To explore the public's potential acceptance of risk‐stratified screening across different cancer types, including reducing screening frequency if at low risk and the use of personal risk information, to inform implementation strategies. Method Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 40 public participants; half had received personal genomic risk information and half had not. Participants were prompted to consider different cancers. Data were analysed thematically as one dataset. Results Themes included the following: (a) a sense of security; (b) tailored screening is common sense; (c) risk and the need to take action; (d) not every cancer is the same; and (e) trust and belief in health messages. Both groups expressed similar views. Participants were broadly supportive of risk‐stratified screening across different cancer types, with strong support for increased screening frequency for high‐risk groups. They were less supportive of reduced screening frequency or no screening for low‐risk groups. Findings suggest the public will be amenable to reducing screening when the test is invasive and uncomfortable; be less opposed to forgo screening if offered the opportunity to screen at some stage; and view visible cancers such as melanoma differently. Conclusions Approaching distinct cancer types differently, tailoring messages for different audiences and understanding reasons for participating in screening may assist with designing future implementation strategies for risk‐stratified cancer screening.

Australian Genomics is a national collaborative research partnership of more than 80 organizations piloting a whole-of-system approach to integrating genomics into healthcare that is based on federation principles. The aim of Australian Genomics is to assess the application of genomic testing in healthcare at the translational interface between research and clinical delivery, with an emphasis on robust evaluation of outcomes. It encompasses two bodies of work: a research program prospectively providing genomic testing through exemplar clinical projects in rare diseases, cancers, and reproductive carrier screening and interdependent programs for advancing the diagnostic, health informatics, regulatory, ethical, policy, and workforce infrastructure necessary for the integration of genomics into the Australian health system.