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.

No abstract

Ten years after the Human Genome Project, medicine is still waiting for many of the promised benefits, and experts have tempered their high expectations. Public opinion on genetic testing has generally been favourable but is this still the case? The aim of this study is to compare public experiences, beliefs and expectations concerning genetic testing over the years (2002 vs 2010). A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted using the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel in 2002 and 2010. Responses to questions in identical wording were compared. In 2002 and 2010, 817 (63%) and 978 (70%) members responded, respectively. Awareness and reported use of genetic tests remained stable over time. In 2010, more respondents expected genetic testing to become more widely applied, believed that knowledge about the genetic background of disease helps people live longer, and that testing should be promoted more intensively. In 2010, they were also more interested in their own genetic make-up. On the one hand, the concern that a dichotomy would emerge between people with 'good genes' and 'bad genes' was higher. On the other hand, respondents thought that insurance companies would be less likely to demand a genetic test in order to calculate health insurance premiums. In conclusion, the results suggest that in 8 years, expectations of benefits and potential use of genetic testing have been raised among the public, resulting in more positive opinions. Worries on inequity remain, although worries about premium differentiation by insurance companies have decreased.

ESHG background document genetic testing and common disorders F Becker et al S10 European Journal of Human Genetics Knowledge of test Feasibility of screening procedures Suitable test or examination. Suitable test or examination. Test acceptable to the population. Entire screening procedure acceptable to the population. Case finding should be a continuing process and not 'once and for all' project. Screening should be a continuing process and should encompass all elements of screening procedures. Treatment for disease Interventions and follow-up Accepted treatment for patients with recognized disease. Interventions that have physical, psychological, and social net benefit available. Facilities for diagnosis and treatment available. Facilities for adequate surveillance, prevention, treatment, education, counselling, and social support available. Agreed on policy concerning whom to treat as patients. Consensus on accepted management for those with positive test results. Cost considerations Societal and health system issues Costs of case finding (including diagnosis and treatment of patients diagnosed) economically balanced in relation to possible expenditures on medical care as a whole. Costs should be balanced in economic, psychological, social, and medical terms and with health-care expenditures as a whole. Appropriate screening services accessible to the entire population, without adverse consequences for non-participants. Appropriate confidentiality procedures and antidiscrimination provisions for participants and non-participants. a Ethical, legal, and sociobehavioral issues are considered across all domains. Screening should be considered within a framework that recognizes fundamental human rights.