Search

BACKGROUND: Genomic testing has reached the point where, technically at least, it can be cheaper to undertake panel-, exome- or whole genome testing than it is to sequence a single gene. An attribute of these approaches is that information gleaned will often have uncertain significance. In addition to the challenges this presents for pre-test counseling and informed consent, a further consideration emerges over how - ethically - we should conceive of and respond to this uncertainty. To date, the ethical aspects of uncertainty in genomics have remained under-explored. DISCUSSION: In this paper, we draft a conceptual and ethical response to the question of how to conceive of and respond to uncertainty in genomic medicine. After introducing the problem, we articulate a concept of 'genomic uncertainty'. Drawing on this, together with exemplar clinical cases and related empirical literature, we then critique the presumption that uncertainty is always problematic and something to be avoided, or eradicated. We conclude by outlining an 'ethics of genomic uncertainty'; describing how we might handle uncertainty in genomic medicine. This involves fostering resilience, welfare, autonomy and solidarity. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty will be an inherent aspect of clinical practice in genomics for some time to come. Genomic testing should not be offered with the explicit aim to reduce uncertainty. Rather, uncertainty should be appraised, adapted to and communicated about as part of the process of offering and providing genomic information.

BACKGROUND: Genetic information given to an individual newly diagnosed with a genetic condition is likely to have important health implications for other family members. The task of communicating with these relatives commonly falls to the newly diagnosed person. Talking to relatives about genetic information can be challenging and is influenced by many factors including family dynamics. Research shows that many relatives remain unaware of relevant genetic information and the possible impact on their own health. This study aims to evaluate whether a specific genetic counselling intervention for people newly diagnosed with a genetic condition, implemented over the telephone on a number of occasions, could increase the number of at-risk relatives who make contact with genetics services after a new genetic diagnosis within a family. METHODS: This is a prospective, multi-centre randomised controlled trial being conducted at genetics clinics at five public hospitals in Victoria, Australia. A complex genetic counselling intervention has been developed specifically for this trial. Probands (the first person in a family to present with a diagnosis of a genetic condition) are being recruited and randomised into one of two arms - the telephone genetic counselling intervention arm and the control arm receiving usual care. The number of at-risk relatives for each proband will be estimated from a family pedigree collected at the time of diagnosis. The primary outcome will be measured by comparing the proportion of at-risk relatives in each arm of the trial who make subsequent contact with genetics services. DISCUSSION: This study, the first randomised controlled trial of a complex genetic counselling intervention to enhance family communication, will provide evidence about how best to assist probands to communicate important new genetic information to their at-risk relatives. This will inform genetic counselling practice in the context of future genomic testing. TRIAL REGISTRATIO

BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 account for only a proportion of hereditary breast cancer, suggesting that additional genes contribute to hereditary breast cancer. Recently a heterozygous variant in the ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) gene, IVS10-6T-->G, was reported by an Australian multiple-case breast cancer family cohort study (the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer) to confer a substantial breast cancer risk. Although this variant can result in a truncated ATM product, its clinical significance as a high-penetrance breast cancer allele or its role as a low-penetrance risk-modifier is controversial. METHODS: We determined the frequency of ATM IVS10-6T-->G variants in a cohort of individuals affected by breast and/or ovarian cancer who underwent BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing at four major Australian familial cancer clinics. RESULTS: Seven of 495 patients (1.4%) were heterozygous for the IVS10-6T-->G variant; the carrier rate in unselected Australian women with no family history of breast cancer is reported to be 6 of 725 (0.83%) (P = 0.4). Two of the seven probands also harboured a pathogenic BRCA1 mutation and one patient had a BRCA1 unclassified variant of uncertain significance. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that the ATM IVS10-6T-->G variant does not seem to occur at a significantly higher frequency in affected individuals from high-risk families than in the general population. A role for this variant as a low-penetrance allele or as a modifying gene in association with other genes (such as BRCA1) remains possible. Routine testing for ATM IVS10-6T-->G is not warranted in mutation screening of affected individuals from high-risk families.