Privacy Risks in Prenatal Aneuploidy and Carrier Screening: What Obstetricians and Their Patients Need to Know.
Aneuploidy
Cell-Free Nucleic Acids
/ analysis
Databases, Genetic
Female
Genetic Carrier Screening
/ ethics
Genetic Privacy
Humans
Information Dissemination
Information Storage and Retrieval
Laboratories
/ organization & administration
Obstetrics
Patient Education as Topic
Pregnancy
Prenatal Diagnosis
Risk Factors
Journal
Obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1873-233X
Titre abrégé: Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401101
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2021
01 06 2021
Historique:
received:
11
01
2021
accepted:
04
03
2021
pubmed:
7
5
2021
medline:
27
7
2021
entrez:
6
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Modern prenatal genetic screening techniques such as cell-free fetal DNA and expanded carrier screening genotype substantial amounts of maternal and fetoplacental DNA. Although DNA can be deidentified by stripping protected health information from genetic data, anonymized DNA can be reidentified using genetic databases, raising long-term genetic privacy concerns for both mother and fetus. In this commentary, we explore the evolution of prenatal genetic screening and how modern screening techniques may pose unanticipated privacy risks. We highlight knowledge gaps and outline steps to improve patient awareness of and control over their genetic privacy, including specific recommendations for laboratories and prenatal care practitioners who offer screening. We also encourage our colleagues who provide prenatal care to be well informed about the privacy implications of the genetic tests we order and to be vocal advocates for our patients' genetic privacy, both with the laboratories that perform these tests and in the public sphere.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33957653
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004387
pii: 00006250-202106000-00014
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cell-Free Nucleic Acids
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1074-1079Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
Références
Cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy. Committee Opinion No. 640. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:e31–7. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001051
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001051
Green ED, Rubin EM, Olson MV. The future of DNA sequencing. Nature 2017;550:179–81. doi: 10.1038/550179a
doi: 10.1038/550179a
Paxton A. Cell-free DNA screening blooms in expansion to low-risk pregnancies. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://www.captodayonline.com/cell-free-dna-screening-blooms-expansion-low-risk-pregnancies/
Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 226. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2020;136:e48–69. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004084
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004084
Carrier screening for genetic conditions. Committee Opinion No. 691. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e41–55. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001952
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001952
Carrier screening in the age of genomic medicine. Committee Opinion No. 690. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e35–40. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001951
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001951
Haque IS, Lazarin GA, Kang HP, Evans EA, Goldberg JD, Wapner RJ. Modeled fetal risk of genetic diseases identified by expanded carrier screening. JAMA 2016;316:734–42. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.11139
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.11139
Lazarin GA, Haque IS. Expanded carrier screening: a review of early implementation and literature. Semin Perinatol 2016;40:29–34. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.11.005
doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.11.005
Kraft SA, Duenas D, Wilfond BS, Goddard KAB. The evolving landscape of expanded carrier screening: challenges and opportunities. Genet Med 2019;21:790–7. doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0273-4
doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0273-4
Gymrek M, McGuire AL, Golan D, Halperin E, Erlich Y. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 2013;339:321–4. doi: 10.1126/science.1229566
doi: 10.1126/science.1229566
Erlich Y, Shor T, Pe'er I, Carmi S. Identity inference of genomic data using long-range familial searches. Science 2018;362:690–4. doi: 10.1126/science.aau4832
doi: 10.1126/science.aau4832
Guerrini CJ, Robinson JO, Petersen D, McGuire AL. Should police have access to genetic genealogy databases? Capturing the Golden State Killer and other criminals using a controversial new forensic technique. PLoS Biol 2018;16:e2006906. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006906
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006906
Lin Z, Owen AB, Altman RB. Genetics. Genomic research and human subject privacy. Science 2004;305:183. doi: 10.1126/science.1095019
doi: 10.1126/science.1095019
Pergament E, Cuckle H, Zimmermann B, Banjevic M, Sigurjonsson S, Ryan A, et al. Single-nucleotide polymorphism–based noninvasive prenatal screening in a high-risk and low-risk cohort. Obstet Gynecol 2014:210–8. doi.10.1097/aog.0000000000000363
doi: doi.10.1097/aog.0000000000000363
Liu S, Huang S, Chen F, Zhao L, Yuan Y, Francis SS, et al. Genomic analyses from non-invasive prenatal testing reveal genetic associations, patterns of viral infections, and Chinese population history. Cell 2018;175:347–59.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.016
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.016
Sparks AB, Wang ET, Struble CA, Barrett W, Stokowski R, McBride C, et al. Selective analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood for evaluation of fetal trisomy. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:3–9. doi: 10.1002/pd.2922
doi: 10.1002/pd.2922
Green RC, Lautenbach D, McGuire AL. GINA, genetic discrimination, and genomic medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372:397–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1404776
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1404776
Counseling about genetic testing and communication of genetic test results. Committee Opinion No. 693. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e96–101. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002020
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002020
Miller AR, Tucker CE. Privacy protection, personalized medicine and genetic testing. Management science. Accessed January 8, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2411230
Tsui NBY, Kadir RA, Chan KCA, Chi C, Mellars G, Tuddenham EG, et al. Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of hemophilia by microfluidics digital PCR analysis of maternal plasma DNA. Blood 2011;117:3684–91. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-10-310789
doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-10-310789
Barrett AN, McDonnell TCR, Chan KCA, Chitty LS. Digital PCR analysis of maternal plasma for noninvasive detection of sickle cell anemia. Clin Chem 2012;58:1026–32. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2011.178939
doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2011.178939
Bennett J, Chitty L, Lewis C. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for BRCA mutations - a qualitative pilot study of health professionals' views. J Genet Couns 2016;25:198–207. doi: 10.1007/s10897-015-9858-0
doi: 10.1007/s10897-015-9858-0
National Council on Disability. Genetic testing and the rush to perfection: part of the bioethics and disability series. National Council on Disability; 2019.
Hendricks-Sturrup RM, Prince AER, Lu CY. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing and potential loopholes in protecting consumer privacy and nondiscrimination. JAMA 2019;321:1869–70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.3384
doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.3384
Rowe HJ, Fisher JRW, Quinlivan JA. Are pregnant Australian women well informed about prenatal genetic screening? A systematic investigation using the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;46:433–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00630.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00630.x
Bangsgaard L, Tabor A. Do pregnant women and their partners make an informed choice about first trimester risk assessment for Down syndrome, and are they satisfied with the choice? Prenatal Diagn 2013:146–52. doi.10.1002/pd.4026
doi: doi.10.1002/pd.4026
Bryant AS, Norton ME, Nakagawa S, Bishop JT, Pena S, Gregorich SE, et al. Variation in women's understanding of prenatal testing. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:1306–12. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000843
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000843
Karagkiouzis T, Sifakis S, Makrithanasis P, Dessypris N, Petridou ET, Kitsiou-Tzeli S, et al. Awareness of prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy among pregnant women in Greece. In Vivo 2015;29:155–60.
Sheinis M, Bensimon K, Selk A. Patients' knowledge of prenatal screening for trisomy 21. J Genet Couns 2018:95–103. doi.10.1007/s10897-017-0126-3
doi: doi.10.1007/s10897-017-0126-3
Farrell R, Hawkins A, Barragan D, Hudgins L, Taylor J. Knowledge, understanding, and uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing among Latina women. Prenat Diagn 2015;35:748–53. doi: 10.1002/pd.4599
doi: 10.1002/pd.4599
Piechan JL, Hines KA, Koller DL, Stone K, Quaid K, Torres-Martinez W, et al. NIPT and informed consent: an assessment of patient understanding of a negative NIPT result. J Genet Couns 2016;25:1127–37. doi: 10.1007/s10897-016-9945-x
doi: 10.1007/s10897-016-9945-x
LawSeq. State law search. Accessed February 15, 2021. https://lawseq.umn.edu/state-search
Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP Jr, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Institute for Simulation and Training; 1975.
Ewing AT, Erby LAH, Bollinger J, Tetteyfio E, Ricks-Santi LJ, Kaufman D. Demographic differences in willingness to provide broad and narrow consent for biobank research. Biopreserv Biobank 2015;13:98–106. doi: 10.1089/bio.2014.0032
doi: 10.1089/bio.2014.0032
Sanderson SC, Brothers KB, Mercaldo ND, Clayton EW, Antommaria AHM, Aufox SA, et al. Public attitudes toward consent and data sharing in biobank research: a large multi-site experimental survey in the US. Am J Hum Genet 2017;100:414–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.01.021
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.01.021
Weindling P. The origins of informed consent: the international scientific commission on medical war crimes, and the Nuremburg code. Bull Hist Med 2001;75:37–71. doi: 10.1353/bhm.2001.0049
doi: 10.1353/bhm.2001.0049
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013;310:2191–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Wendler D, Wertheimer A. Why is coerced consent worse than no consent and deceived consent? J Med Philos 2017;42:114–31. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhw064
doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhw064
Weiss BD. Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. American Medical Association; 2003.