Optimising Exome Prenatal Sequencing Services (EXPRESS): a study protocol to evaluate rapid prenatal exome sequencing in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service

Background Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) for the diagnosis of fetal anomalies was implemented nationally in England in October 2020 by the NHS Genomic Medicine Service (GMS). The GMS is based around seven regional Genomic Laboratory Hubs (GLHs). Prenatal ES has the potential to significantly improve NHS prenatal diagnostic services by increasing genetic diagnoses and informing prenatal decision-making. Prenatal ES has not previously been offered routinely in a national healthcare system and there are gaps in knowledge and guidance. Methods Our mixed-methods evaluation commenced in October 2020, aligning with the start date of the NHS prenatal ES service. Study design draws on a framework developed in previous studies of major system innovation. There are five interrelated workstreams. Workstream-1 will use interviews and surveys with professionals, non-participant observations and documentary analysis to produce indepth case studies across all GLHs. Data collection at multiple time points will track changes over time. In Workstream-2 qualitative interviews with parents offered prenatal ES will explore experiences and establish information and support needs. Workstream-3 will analyse data from all prenatal ES tests for nine-months to establish service outcomes (e.g. diagnostic yield, referral rates, referral sources). Comparisons between GLHs will identify factors (individual or service-related) associated with any variation in outcomes. Workstream-4 will identify and analyse practical ethical problems. Requirements for an effective ethics framework for an optimal and equitable service will be determined. Workstream-5 will assess costs and cost-effectiveness of prenatal ES versus standard tests and evaluate costs of implementing an optimal prenatal ES care pathway. Integration of findings will determine key features of an optimal care pathway from a service delivery, parent and professional perspective. Discussion The proposed formative and summative evaluation will inform the evolving prenatal ES service to ensure equity of access, high standards of care and benefits for parents across England.

[1]  G. Úrrutia,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. , 2021, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[2]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2021, BMJ.

[3]  M. Kilby,et al.  Evidence to Support the Clinical Utility of Prenatal Exome Sequencing in Evaluation of the Fetus with Congenital Anomalies , 2021, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[4]  V. Braun,et al.  Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches , 2020 .

[5]  A. Talati,et al.  Impact of prenatal exome sequencing for fetal genetic diagnosis on maternal psychological outcomes and decisional conflict in a prospective cohort , 2020, Genetics in Medicine.

[6]  L. Chitty,et al.  Couples experiences of receiving uncertain results following prenatal microarray or exome sequencing: A mixed‐methods systematic review , 2020, Prenatal diagnosis.

[7]  R. Christensen,et al.  Implementation of exome sequencing in fetal diagnostics—Data and experiences from a tertiary center in Denmark , 2020, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[8]  J. Berg,et al.  An approach to integrating exome sequencing for fetal structural anomalies into clinical practice , 2020, Genetics in Medicine.

[9]  N. Leach,et al.  The use of fetal exome sequencing in prenatal diagnosis: a points to consider document of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) , 2020, Genetics in Medicine.

[10]  J. Barwell,et al.  The new genomic medicine service and implications for patients . , 2019, Clinical medicine.

[11]  Kate Roberts,et al.  Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development , 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[12]  V. Jobanputra,et al.  Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study , 2019, The Lancet.

[13]  Jay F Rowland,et al.  Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study , 2019, The Lancet.

[14]  Alison M. Male,et al.  Rapid prenatal diagnosis using targeted exome sequencing: a cohort study to assess feasibility and potential impact on prenatal counseling and pregnancy management , 2018, Genetics in Medicine.

[15]  M. Henson.  Joint Position Statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis (ISPD), the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM), and the Perinatal Quality Foundation (PQF) on the use of genome‐wide sequencing for fetal diagnosis , 2018, Prenatal diagnosis.

[16]  N. Vora,et al.  Promises, pitfalls and practicalities of prenatal whole exome sequencing , 2018, Prenatal diagnosis.

[17]  M. Kilby,et al.  Parental experiences of prenatal whole exome sequencing (WES) in cases of ultrasound diagnosed fetal structural anomaly , 2017, Prenatal diagnosis.

[18]  J. Berg,et al.  Prenatal Exome Sequencing in Anomalous Fetuses: New Opportunities and Challenges , 2017, Genetics in Medicine.

[19]  Carme Camps,et al.  Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service , 2017, PLoS medicine.

[20]  S. Hull,et al.  Views of American OB/GYNs on the ethics of prenatal whole‐genome sequencing , 2016, Prenatal diagnosis.

[21]  C. Moore,et al.  Reorganising specialist cancer surgery for the twenty-first century: a mixed methods evaluation (RESPECT-21) , 2016, Implementation Science.

[22]  M. Hurles,et al.  Prenatal whole exome sequencing: the views of clinicians, scientists, genetic counsellors and patient representatives , 2016, Prenatal diagnosis.

[23]  L. Chitty,et al.  Uptake, outcomes, and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for Down’s syndrome into NHS maternity care: prospective cohort study in eight diverse maternity units , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[24]  L. Chitty,et al.  Women’s Experiences and Preferences for Service Delivery of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Aneuploidy in a Public Health Setting: A Mixed Methods Study , 2016, PloS one.

[25]  Christine Nadel,et al.  Case Study Research Design And Methods , 2016 .

[26]  A. Rajkovic,et al.  Prenatal whole‐exome sequencing: parental attitudes , 2015, Prenatal diagnosis.

[27]  A. O’Cathain,et al.  Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  L. Chitty,et al.  Client Views and Attitudes to Non-Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis for Sickle Cell Disease, Thalassaemia and Cystic Fibrosis , 2014, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[29]  S. Morris,et al.  Model-Based Analysis of Costs and Outcomes of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Down’s Syndrome Using Cell Free Fetal DNA in the UK National Health Service , 2014, PloS one.

[30]  F. Bianchi,et al.  Epidemiology of multiple congenital anomalies in Europe: a EUROCAT population-based registry study. , 2014, Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology.

[31]  M. Mealer,et al.  Methodological and ethical issues related to qualitative telephone interviews on sensitive topics. , 2014, Nurse researcher.

[32]  R. Yin.  Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations , 2013 .

[33]  C. May.  Towards a general theory of implementation , 2013, Implementation Science.

[34]  C. McKevitt,et al.  Innovations in major system reconfiguration in England: a study of the effectiveness, acceptability and processes of implementation of two models of stroke care , 2013, Implementation Science.

[35]  C. Rounding,et al.  Monitoring the Prenatal Detection of Structural Fetal Congenital Anomalies in England and Wales: Register-based Study , 2011, Journal of medical screening.

[36]  D. Casey,et al.  Issues in using methodological triangulation in research. , 2009, Nurse researcher.

[37]  Gina Novick.  Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? , 2008, Research in nursing & health.

[38]  Elizabeth Murray,et al.  Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model , 2007, BMC Health Services Research.

[39]  K. Devers,et al.  Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. , 2007, Health services research.

[40]  Judith E. Sturges,et al.  Comparing Telephone and Face-to-Face Qualitative Interviewing: a Research Note , 2004 .

[41]  C. Pope,et al.  Assessing quality in qualitative research , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[42]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.