4.3 Review

Benchmarks for Cystic Fibrosis carrier screening: A European consensus document

Journal

JOURNAL OF CYSTIC FIBROSIS
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages 165-178

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcf.2010.02.005

Keywords

Cystic Fibrosis; CFTR; Genetic analysis; Carrier screening; Carrier testing

Funding

  1. Mukoviszidose ev
  2. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
  3. EuroCareCF [LSHM-CT-2005-018932]
  4. EuroGenTest NoE [LSHB-CT-2004-512148]
  5. Bayer HealthCare
  6. Solvay Pharmaceuticals
  7. Luminex
  8. Abbott Molecular
  9. Innogenetics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents an overview of the conclusions from an international conference convened to address current issues related to the provision of Cystic Fibrosis carrier screening within Europe. Consensus was not aimed at stating whether such a programme should be implemented. Instead the focus was to provide a framework for countries and agencies who are considering or planning its establishment. The general principles and target population of Cystic Fibrosis carrier screening, advantages and disadvantages, health economics, monitoring and future evaluative and research directions were covered. A range of screening strategies have been assessed and compared: pre-conceptional and prenatal screening; individual and couple screening; sequential and simultaneous sampling or testing. Furthermore, technical issues were examined with respect to the choice of the panel of mutations, its detection rate, sensitivity, management of intermediate 'at-risk' couples, screening approach to different populations and ethnic minorities, and assurance of laboratory quality control. The consensus statement also aims to establish the benchmarks for communicating with health care providers, the general public and potential and actual participants before and after the genetic test. (C) 2010 European Cystic Fibrosis Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available