OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the carrier frequency and pathogenic variation of monogenetic diseases in a population of 114 subjects in Han Chinese from Hebei province who are undergoing assisted reproductive technology through the utilization of Expanded Carrier Screening (ECS).
METHODS: The study utilized a panel consisting of 155 severe monogenic recessive genetic diseases for ECS. Next-generation sequencing technology was employed to identify specific variants associated with ECS in a cohort of 114 subjects from 97 couples, comprising 97 females and 17 male spouses.
RESULTS: A total of 114 individuals received ECS. The carrier rate of pathogenic genes in the enrolled population was 44.74% (51/114). Among the 97 females, the carrier rate of pathogenic genes was higher in those without assisted reproduction indicators than in those with assisted reproduction indicators (59.09% vs. 41.33%). However, the carrier rate of pathogenic genes in males without assisted reproductive technology was slightly lower than that with assisted reproductive technology (40% vs. 41.67%). Among both female and male participants, the carrier rate of pathogenic genes between individuals without indicators of assisted reproduction and those with such indicators was 55.55% vs. 41.38%. In 51 carriers, 72.55% (37/51) carried one genetic variant, 25.49% (13/51) carried two genetic variants, and 1.96% (1/51) carried three genetic variants. A total of 38 pathogenic genes were detected in this study, and GJB2 and MMACHC were most common. The carrier rates of the two genes were both 5.26% (6/114). A total of 55 variations were detected, and c.235delC was most frequently found. The carrier rate was 3.51% (4/114). The incidence of couples carrying the same pathogenic genes was 1.03% (1/97).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings elucidate the carrier rate of pathogenic genes among 155 severe monogenic recessive genetic diseases and underscore the significance of ECS as a preventive measure against congenital anomalies. When both partners carry the same genetic mutation for a monogenic disease, preventive strategies can be taken in offspring through preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), prenatal genetic testing, or the utilization of donor gametes. ECS is instrumental in assessing reproductive risk, guiding fertility-related decisions, and reducing the prevalence of monogenic recessive genetic disorders in subsequent generations.

Prostate cancer (PrCa) is a largely heritable and polygenic disease. It is the most common cancer in people with prostates (PwPs) in Europe and the USA, including in PwPs of African descent. In the UK in 2020, 52% of all cancers were diagnosed at stage I or II. The National Health Service (NHS) long-term plan is to increase this to 75% by 2028, to reduce absolute incidence of late-stage disease. In the absence of a UK PrCa screening programme, we should explore how to identify those at increased risk of clinically significant PrCa.Incorporating genomics into the PrCa screening, diagnostic and treatment pathway has huge potential for transforming patient care. Genomics can increase efficiency of PrCa screening by focusing on those with genetic predisposition to cancer-which when combined with risk factors such as age and ethnicity, can be used for risk stratification in risk-based screening (RBS) programmes. The goal of RBS is to facilitate early diagnosis of clinically significant PrCa and reduce overdiagnosis/overtreatment in those unlikely to experience PrCa-related symptoms in their lifetime. Genetic testing can guide PrCa management, by identifying those at risk of lethal PrCa and enabling access to novel targeted therapies.PrCa is curable if diagnosed below stage III when most people do not experience symptoms. RBS using genetic profiling could be key here if we could show better survival outcomes (or reduction in cancer-specific mortality accounting for lead-time bias), in addition to more cost efficiency than age-based screening alone. Furthermore, PrCa outcomes in underserved communities could be optimised if genetic testing was accessible, minimising health disparities.

BACKGROUND: This antenatal screening review will include reproductive screening evidence and approaches for pre-conception and post-conception, using first to third trimester screening opportunities.
METHODS: Focused antenatal screening peer-reviewed publications were evaluated and summarized.
RESULTS: Evidenced-based reproductive antenatal screening elements should be offered and discussed, with the pregnancy planning or pregnant person, during Preconception (genetic carrier screening for reproductive partners, personal and family (including reproductive partner) history review for increased genetic and pregnancy morbidity risks); First Trimester (fetal dating with ultrasound; fetal aneuploidy screening plus consideration for expanded fetal morbidity criteria, if appropriate; pregnant person preeclampsia screening; early fetal anatomy screening; early fetal cardiac screening); Second Trimester for standard fetal anatomy screening (18-22 weeks) including cardiac; pregnant person placental and cord pathology screening; pregnant person preterm birth screening with cervical length measurement); Third Trimester (fetal growth surveillance; continued preterm birth risk surveillance).
CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal reproductive screening has multiple elements, is complex, is time-consuming, and requires the use of pre- and post-testing counselling for most screening elements. The use of preconception and trimesters \'one to three\' requires clear patient understanding and buy-in. Informed consent and knowledge transfer is a main goal for antenatal reproductive screening approaches.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the epidemiological characteristics and mutation spectrum of monogenic diseases in Chinese population through a large-scale, multicenter carrier screening.
METHODS: This study was conducted among a total of 33 104 participants (16 610 females) from 12 clinical centers across China.Carrier status for 223 genes was analyzed using high-throughput sequencing and different PCR methods.
RESULTS: The overall combined carrier frequency was 55.58% for 197 autosomal genes and 1.84% for 26 X-linked genes in these participants.Among the 16 669 families, 874 at-risk couples (5.24%) were identified.Specifically, 584 couples (3.50%) were at risk for autosomal genes, 306(1.84%) for X-linked genes, and 16 for both autosomal and X-linked genes.The most frequently detected autosomal at-risk genes included GJB2(autosomal recessive deafness type 1A, 393 couples), HBA1/HBA2(α-thalassemia, 36 couples), PAH (phenylketonuria, 14 couples), and SMN1(spinal muscular atrophy, 14 couples).The most frequently detected X-linked at-risk genes were G6PD (G6PD deficiency, 236 couples), DMD (Duchenne muscular dystrophy, 23 couples), and FMR1(fragile X syndrome, 17 couples).After excluding GJB2 c.109G>A, the detection rate of at-risk couples was 3.91%(651/16 669), which was lowered to 1.72%(287/16 669) after further excluding G6PD.The theoretical incidence rate of severe monogenic birth defects was approximately 4.35‰(72.5/16 669).Screening for a battery of the top 22 most frequent genes in the at-risk couples could detect over 95% of at-risk couples, while screening for the top 54 genes further increased the detection rate to over 99%.
CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals the carrier frequencies of 223 monogenic genetic disorders in the Chinese population and provides evidence for carrier screening strategy development and panel design tailored to the Chinese population.In carrier testing, genetic counseling for specific genes or gene variants can be challenging, and the couples need to be informed of these difficulties before testing and provided with options for not screening these genes or gene variants.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

The blood counts of α thalassemia carriers (α-thal) are similar to those of β thalassemia carriers, except for Hemoglobin A2 (Hb A2), which is not elevated. The objective of this study was to determine whether mathematical formulas are effective for detecting suspected α-thal. The data were obtained from the database of the prevention program for detecting couples at risk for having a child with hemoglobinopathy. Red Blood Cells (RBC) indices were analyzed using mathematical formulas, and the sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Among 1334 blood counts suspected of α-thal analyzed, only the Shine and Lal and the Support Vector Machine formulas revealed high sensitivity and NPV. Sensitivity was 85.54 and 99.33%, and NPV was 98.93 and 99.93%, respectively. Molecular defects were found in 291, and 81 had normal α genes. Molecular analysis was not performed in 962 of the samples. Based on these results, mathematical formulas incorporating one of these reliable formulas for detecting suspected α or β thalassemia carriers in the program of the automatic analyzers can flag these results, increase the awareness of the primary physicians about the carrier risk, and send an alert with a recommendation for further testing.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing hemophilia B (HB) carrier status is important to manage bleeding in carriers and to prevent bleeding in potential offspring. Without a family history of hemophilia, diagnosing HB carrier status is challenging. Genetic testing is the gold-standard, however it is reserved for individuals with a high suspicion of carrier status.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the distribution of activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and factor IX coagulant (FIX:C) levels in HB carriers and assess the ratio of FIX:C to other Vitamin K dependent factors (FII:C, FVII:C, FX:C) as an indicator of HB carrier status.
METHODS: In this retrospective, single-centre cohort study, subjects were included if they were obligate or genetically proven HB carriers. Distributions of aPTT and FIX:C were described and the relationship between FIX:C levels in carriers and severity of familial HB was analysed. Ratios of FIX:C to FII:C, FVII:C, FX:C were calculated.
RESULTS: Seventy-two female HB carriers (median age: 34 years; IQR 24-43) were included. Median aPTT and FIX:C levels were 33.0 s [IQR 30.0-37.0] and 57 IU/dL [IQR 43-74]. Fifteen carriers (21%) had mild HB (FIX:C levels of 10-40 IU/dL). FIX:C levels trended higher in carriers of mild HB versus carriers of moderate/severe HB. In six carriers, the median ratio of FIX:C to other Vitamin K dependent factors was 0.44, with 92% of ratios being ≤ 0.75.
CONCLUSIONS: aPTT and FIX:C levels were unreliable in diagnosing HB carrier status. A low ratio of FIX:C to other Vitamin K dependent factors may be a useful marker of HB carrier status.

OBJECTIVE: What is the current practice and views on (expanded) carrier screening ((E)CS) among healthcare professionals in medically assisted reproductive (MAR) practices in Europe?
CONCLUSIONS: The findings show a limited support for ECS with less than half of the respondents affiliated to centres offering ECS, and substantial variation in practice between centres in Europe.
BACKGROUND: The availability of next-generation sequencing, which enables testing for large groups of genes simultaneously, has facilitated the introduction and expansion of ECS strategies, currently offered particularly in the private sector in the context of assisted reproduction.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey evaluating practice and current views among professionals working in MAR practice in different European countries was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool. The web-based questionnaire included questions on general information regarding the current practice of (E)CS in MAR and questions on what is offered, to whom the test is offered, and how it is offered. It consisted mostly of multiple-choice questions with comment boxes, but also included open questions on the respondents\' attitudes/concerns relevant to (E)CS practice, and room to upload requested files (e.g. guidelines and gene panels). In total, 338 responses were collected from 8 February 2022 to 11 April 2022.
METHODS: The online survey was launched with an invitation email from the ESHRE central office (n = 4889 emails delivered) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) central office (n = 1790 emails delivered) sent to the ESHRE and ESHG members, and by social media posts. The survey was addressed to European MAR centres or gamete banks and to centres located in non-European countries participating in the European IVF-monitoring Consortium. Two reminder emails were sent. After exclusion of 39 incomplete responses received (e.g. only background information), 299 respondents from 40 different countries were included for analyses.
RESULTS: Overall, 42.5% (127/299) of respondents were affiliated to centres offering ECS. The perceived responsibility to enable prospective parents to make informed reproductive decisions and preventing suffering/burden for parents were the main reasons to offer ECS. A single ECS panel is offered by nearly 45% (39/87 received answers) of the centres offering ECS, 25.3% (22/87) of those centres offer a selection of ECS panels, and 29.9% (26/87) offer whole exome sequencing and a large in silico panel. Different ranges of panel sizes and conditions were included in the ECS panel(s) offered. Most of the respondents (81.8%; 72/88 received answers) indicated that the panels they offer are universal and target the entire population. Pathogenic variants (89.7%; 70/78 received answers), and to a lesser extent, likely pathogenic variants (64.1%%; 50/78 received answers), were included in the ECS report for individuals and couples undergoing MAR with their own gametes. According to 87.9% (80/91 received answers) of the respondents, patients have to pay to undergo an ECS test. Most respondents (76.2%; 61/80 received answers) reported that counselling is provided before and after the ECS test. Preimplantation genetic testing, the use of donor gametes, and prenatal diagnostic testing were the three main reproductive options discussed with identified carrier couples. The main reason, according to the respondents, for not offering ECS in their centre, was the lack of professional recommendations supporting ECS (52.5%; 73/139 received answers) and the high cost for couples or reimbursement not being available (49.6%; 69/139). The challenges and moral dilemmas encountered by the respondents revolved mainly around the content of the offer, including the variants classification and the heterogeneity of the panels, the counselling, and the cost of the test.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the total number of respondents was acceptable, the completion rate of the survey was suboptimal. In addition, the heterogeneity of answers to open-ended questions and the ambiguity of some of the answers, along with incomplete responses, posed a challenge in interpreting survey results. It is also plausible that some questions were not easily understood by the respondents. For this reason, response and non-response bias are acknowledged as further limitations of the survey.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey could aid in identifying potential challenges or areas for improvement in the current practice of ECS in the MAR field and contribute to the discussion on how to address them. The results underline the need to stimulate a more knowledge-based debate on the complexity and the pros and cons of a possible implementation of ECS in MAR.
BACKGROUND: All costs relating to the development process were covered from European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and European Society of Human Genetics funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. A.C. is full-time employee of Juno Genetics. L.H. declared receiving a research grant during the past 36 months from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. She has also participated in a Health Council report of the Netherlands on preconception carrier screening and collaborated with the VSOP Dutch Genetic Alliance (patient umbrella organization on rare and genetic disorders). L.H. and C.v.E. are affiliated with Amsterdam University Medical Centre, a hospital that offers ECS in a non-commercial setting. R.V. received honoraria for presentations from Merck Academy and is unpaid board member of the executive committee of the Spanish Fertility Society. The other authors had nothing to disclose.
BACKGROUND: N/A.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitudes of pregnant couples toward carrier screening genomic tests.
METHODS: A validated 22-item questionnaire was offered in person by medical staff to pregnant women ≥32 weeks\' gestation and their partners attending prenatal classes from May to July 2014. The questionnaire inquired about demographic data, interest in various forms of genetic carrier screening tests, and genetic literacy.
RESULTS: Of 497 respondents, 69% expressed strong interest in carrier screening. The interested respondents exhibited substantial support for screening for common (82%) or all known genetic diseases (79%), as well as for treatable (79%) and untreatable diseases (85%). The majority of respondents believed that genetic test results could provide them with a sense of security but also provoke anxiety and fear. They were aware that these results could affect their perspective on life, work, and the atmosphere within their family, and acknowledged the potential effect on their relationship with their partner. However, none of these concerns diminished their desire to learn about their carrier status. Respondents with higher genetic literacy exhibited greater interest in screening tests (P=0.006). More non-religious respondents compared with practicing religious respondents (P=0.002), and more respondents with higher education compared with those with lower education, expressed interest in screening (P=0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents expressed considerable interest in receiving information about their carrier status through genetic tests.