Search

There are no evidence-based guidelines to inform genetic counseling for consanguineous couples and their offspring. This focused revision builds on the expert opinions from the original publication of "Genetic Counseling and Screening of Consanguineous Couples and Their Offspring," based on a review of literature published since 2002.

From its earliest days, the field of human genetics has had a complex, and at times troubling, connection with racist ideologies. Although the modern field of human genetics and genomics has come a long way from those earlier errors, systemic racism remains ingrained in its institutions and practices. Although a variety of efforts are needed to excise systemic racism, we focus in this commentary on the work that must be done in scientific publishing in genetics and genomics. We propose eight principles that are both scientifically grounded and antiracist that we hope will serve as a foundation for the development of policies by publishers and editorial boards that address the unique needs of the field of genetics and genomics. Publishers and journals must go beyond mere policies, however. Editors and reviewers will need training on these policies and principles, and will benefit from resources like rubrics that can be used for evaluating the adherence of submissions to these guidelines.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in academia are leading publishers and journals to re-examine their use of terminology for commonly used scientific variables. This reassessment of language is particularly important for human genetics, which is focused on identifying and explaining differences between individuals and populations. Recent guidance on the use of terms and symbols in clinical practice, research, and publications is beginning to acknowledge the ways that language and concepts of difference can be not only inaccurate but also harmful. To stop perpetuating historical wrongs, those of us who conduct and publish genetic research and provide genetic health care must understand the context of the terms we use and why some usages should be discontinued. In this article, we summarize critiques of terminology describing disability, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and ancestry in research publications, laboratory reports, diagnostic codes, and pedigrees. We also highlight recommendations for alternative language that aims to make genetics more inclusive, rigorous, and ethically sound. Even though norms of acceptable language use are ever changing, it is the responsibility of genetics professionals to uncover biases ingrained in professional practice and training and to continually reassess the words we use to describe human difference because they cause harm to patients.

Despite widespread clinical genetic testing, many individuals with suspected genetic conditions lack a precise diagnosis, limiting their opportunity to take advantage of state-of-the-art treatments. In some cases, testing reveals difficult-to-evaluate structural differences, candidate variants that do not fully explain the phenotype, single pathogenic variants in recessive disorders, or no variants in genes of interest. Thus, there is a need for better tools to identify a precise genetic diagnosis in individuals when conventional testing approaches have been exhausted. We performed targeted long-read sequencing (T-LRS) using adaptive sampling on the Oxford Nanopore platform on 40 individuals, 10 of whom lacked a complete molecular diagnosis. We computationally targeted up to 151 Mbp of sequence per individual and searched for pathogenic substitutions, structural variants, and methylation differences using a single data source. We detected all genomic aberrations-including single-nucleotide variants, copy number changes, repeat expansions, and methylation differences-identified by prior clinical testing. In 8/8 individuals with complex structural rearrangements, T-LRS enabled more precise resolution of the mutation, leading to changes in clinical management in one case. In ten individuals with suspected Mendelian conditions lacking a precise genetic diagnosis, T-LRS identified pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in six and variants of uncertain significance in two others. T-LRS accurately identifies pathogenic structural variants, resolves complex rearrangements, and identifies Mendelian variants not detected by other technologies. T-LRS represents an efficient and cost-effective strategy to evaluate high-priority genes and regions or complex clinical testing results.

BACKGROUNDDespite widespread availability of clinical genetic testing, many individuals with suspected genetic conditions do not have a precise diagnosis. This limits their opportunity to take advantage of state-of-the-art treatments. In such instances, testing sometimes reveals difficult-to-evaluate complex structural differences, candidate variants that do not fully explain the phenotype, single pathogenic variants in recessive disorders, or no variants in specific genes of interest. Thus, there is a need for better tools to identify a precise genetic diagnosis in individuals when conventional testing approaches have been exhausted.METHODSTargeted long-read sequencing (T-LRS) was performed on 33 individuals using Read Until on the Oxford Nanopore platform. This method allowed us to computationally target up to 100 Mbp of sequence per experiment, resulting in an average of 20x coverage of target regions, a 500% increase over background. We analyzed patient DNA for pathogenic substitutions, structural variants, and methylation differences using a single data source.RESULTSThe effectiveness of T-LRS was validated by detecting all genomic aberrations, including single-nucleotide variants, copy number changes, repeat expansions, and methylation differences, previously identified by prior clinical testing. In 6/7 individuals who had complex structural rearrangements, T-LRS enabled more precise resolution of the mutation, which led, in one case, to a change in clinical management. In nine individuals with suspected Mendelian conditions who lacked a precise genetic diagnosis, T-LRS identified pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in five and variants of uncertain significance in two others.CONCLUSIONST-LRS can accurately predict pathogenic copy number variants and triplet repeat expansions, resolve complex rearrangements, and identify single-nucleotide variants not detected by other technologies, including short-read sequencing. T-LRS represents an efficient and cost-effective strategy to evaluate high-priority candidate genes and regions or to further evaluate complex clinical testing results. The application of T-LRS will likely increase the diagnostic rate of rare disorders.

From its earliest days, the field of human genetics has had a complex, and at times troubling, connection with racist ideologies. Although the modern field of human genetics and genomics has come a long way from those earlier errors, systemic racism remains ingrained in its institutions and practices. Although a variety of efforts are needed to excise systemic racism, we focus in this commentary on the work that must be done in scientific publishing in genetics and genomics. We propose eight principles that are both scientifically grounded and antiracist that we hope will serve as a foundation for the development of policies by publishers and editorial boards that address the unique needs of the field of genetics and genomics. Publishers and journals must go beyond mere policies, however. Editors and reviewers will need training on these policies and principles, and will benefit from resources like rubrics that can be used for evaluating the adherence of submissions to these guidelines.

In this work, we explore the results of germline cancer genetic tests in individuals whose insurance would not cover this testing. We enrolled 31 patients with a personal history of cancer whose health insurer denied coverage for a clinical germline cancer panel genetic test recommended by a medical genetics provider into a study providing exome sequencing and return of cancer-related results. Five participants (16%) had a pathogenic variant identified related to increased cancer risk. Three participants (10%) had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in a gene related to their cancer history. These rates are not significantly different than the 12% rate of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants and VUS in 1,462 patients approved by insurance to have a similar clinical germline cancer test (p = .59 for P/LP variants; p = .87 for VUS; Shirts et al., Genet Med, 18:974, 2016). Health insurance guidelines may not meaningfully differentiate between patients with cancer who are likely to benefit from germline cancer genetic testing and those who will not. Failure to identify pathogenic variants in this research cohort would have led to suboptimal care. Strategic evaluation of current germline cancer genetic testing coverage policies is needed to appropriately deliver precision medicine.

Background Clinical exome sequencing (CES) provides the advantage of assessing genetic variation across the human exome compared to a traditional stepwise diagnostic approach or multi-gene panels. Comparative effectiveness research methods offer an approach to better understand the patient-centered and economic outcomes of CES. Purpose To evaluate CES compared to usual care (UC) in the diagnostic work-up of inherited colorectal cancer/polyposis (CRCP) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods The primary outcome was clinical sensitivity for the diagnosis of inherited CRCP; secondary outcomes included psychosocial outcomes, family communication, and healthcare resource utilization. Participants were surveyed 2 and 4 weeks after results return and at 3-month intervals up to 1 year. Results Evolving outcome measures and standard of care presented critical challenges. The majority of participants in the UC arm received multi-gene panels [94.73%]. Rates of genetic findings supporting the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP were 7.5% [7/93] vs. 5.4% [5/93] in the CES and UC arms, respectively (P = 0.28). Differences in privacy concerns after receiving CRCP results were identified (0.88 in UC vs 0.38 in CES, P = 0.05); however, healthcare resource utilization, family communication and psychosocial outcomes were similar between the two arms. More participants with positive results (17.7%) intended to change their life insurance 1 month after the first return visit compared to participants returned a variant of uncertain significance (9.1%) or negative result (4.8%) (P = 0.09). Conclusion Our results suggest that CES provides similar clinical benefits to multi-gene panels in the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP.

Screening multiple genes for inherited cancer predisposition expands opportunities for cancer prevention; however, reports of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) may limit clinical usefulness. We used an expert-driven approach, exploiting all available information, to evaluate multigene panels for inherited cancer predisposition in a clinical series that included multiple cancer types and complex family histories. For 1,462 sequential patients referred for testing by BROCA or ColoSeq multigene panels, genomic DNA was sequenced and variants were interpreted by multiple experts using International Agency for Research on Cancer guidelines and incorporating evolutionary conservation, known and predicted variant consequences, and personal and family cancer history. Diagnostic yield was evaluated for various presenting conditions and family-history profiles. Of 1,462 patients, 12% carried damaging mutations in established cancer genes. Diagnostic yield varied by clinical presentation. Actionable results were identified for 13% of breast and colorectal cancer patients and for 4% of cancer-free subjects, based on their family histories of cancer. Incidental findings explaining cancer in neither the patient nor the family were present in 1.7% of subjects. Less than 1% of patients carried VUS in BRCA1 or BRCA2. For all genes combined, initial reports contained VUS for 10.5% of patients, which declined to 7.5% of patients after reclassification based on additional information. Individualized interpretation of gene panels is a complex medical activity. Interpretation by multiple experts in the context of personal and family histories maximizes actionable results and minimizes reports of VUS. Genet Med 18 10, 974–981.

Multi-gene cancer panels often identify variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) that pose a challenge to health care providers in managing a patient's cancer risk. Family segregation analysis can yield powerful data to re-classify a VUS (as either benign or pathogenic). However, financial and personnel resources to coordinate these studies are limited. In an informal assessment we found that family studies for variant classification are done by most clinical genetics laboratories that offer hereditary cancer panel testing. The process for family studies differs substantially across laboratories. One near universal limitation is that families usually have too few individuals for an informative co-segregation analysis. A unique and potential resource-saving approach is to engage patients and their families in expanding their own pedigrees for segregation analysis of their VUS. We describe a novel public educational tool ( FindMyVariant.org ) designed to inform patients and genetic counselors about strategies to improve the probability of variant classification using familial segregation. While the web tool is designed to be useful for any gene, the project was primarily focused on VUS's returned in cancer risk genes. FindMyVariant.org is a resource for genetic providers to offer motivated families who are willing to gather information about their family relationships and history. Working alongside clinical or research genetic laboratories, the information they collect may help reclassify their VUS using segregation analysis.

Medical genetics and genomics education: how do we define success? Where do we focus our resources?

We analyzed the patients served by the University of Washington Adult Genetic Medicine Clinic (UWAGMC) over a 42-year period to determine how clinical services have changed and to evaluate the contributing factors. We conducted a retrospective survey of patients seen by UWAGMC that included patients seen from 1975 to 2016. Variables considered included referral indication, disease status, and clinic visit date. Indications for referral were then binned into clinical categories for descriptive analysis. Of 30,780 patient visits during the 39 years for which data were available, 57.3% occurred in the last decade. Referrals for breast/ovarian cancer or colon/endometrial cancer account for 74.8% of cancer referrals since 1998. Huntington disease patients made up 46% of neurological referral indications. Telephone screening implemented in 2013 has reduced the number of referrals for hypermobile Ehlers–Danlos syndrome. Referral indications increased with clinical testing availability and because of the academic programs of UWAGMC providers. With increased public awareness of heritable conditions, prescreening self-referrals were used to allocate limited resources. These trends demonstrate the need for more geneticists in adult medicine to expand centers of excellence for rare diseases and to serve the increasing numbers of adult patients with genetic conditions.

BACKGROUND Lynch syndrome confers a hereditary predisposition to colorectal and other cancers. Universal tumor screening (UTS) for Lynch syndrome is recommended by several professional societies, but the implementation can be complex. This article describes the evaluation, process development, and initiation of Lynch syndrome UTS at a tertiary referral cancer center. METHODS A multidisciplinary team developed the new process design. Issues in 5 themes were noted: timing, funding, second-opinion patients, result processing, and the role of genetics providers. A committee approach was used to examine each issue for process-improvement development. RESULTS The issues related to testing were addressed individually for the successful implementation of UTS at the institutional level. In the conventional-care period, 9 of 30 cases (30%) received Lynch syndrome screening, and 4 cases were referred to medical genetics. During the 6 months following the implementation of UTS, 32 of 44 patients (73%) received Lynch syndrome screening. The 13 unscreened patients all had identified reasons for nonscreening (eg, financial limitations). Ten patients were referred to medical genetics, which identified no new cases of Lynch syndrome, but a low-risk adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) variant was detected in 1 individual. CONCLUSIONS The implementation of effective Lynch syndrome UTS can feasibly alter practice at the institutional level. This experience with the assessment and management of issues relevant to the successful implementation of a new clinical care paradigm based on emerging technology has implications for the uptake of advances across molecular oncology into clinical practice, and this is highly relevant in the current era of rapidly evolving genomic technology. Cancer 2016;122:393–401. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

The practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) are developed by members of the ACMG and NSGC to assist medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and other health-care providers in making decisions about appropriate management of genetic concerns, including access to and/or delivery of services. Each practice guideline focuses on a clinical or practice-based issue and is the result of a review and analysis of current professional literature believed to be reliable. As such, information and recommendations within the ACMG and NSGC joint practice guidelines reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge at the time of publication, are current only as of their publication date, and are subject to change without notice as advances emerge. In addition, variations in practice, which take into account the needs of the individual patient and the resources and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice, may warrant approaches, treatments, and/or procedures that differ from the recommendations outlined in this guideline. Therefore, these recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. Genetic counseling practice guidelines are never intended to displace a health-care provider's best medical judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular patient or patient population. Practice guidelines are published by the ACMG or the NSGC for educational and informational purposes only, and neither the ACMG nor the NSGC "approve" or "endorse" any specific methods, practices, or sources of information.Cancer genetic consultation is an important aspect of the care of individuals at increased risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome. Yet several patient, clinician, and system-level barriers hinder identification of individuals appropriate for cancer genetics referral. Thus, the purpose of this practice guideline is to present a single set of comprehensive personal and family history criteria to facilitate identification and maximize appropriate referral of at-risk individuals for cancer genetic consultation. To develop this guideline, a literature search for hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes was conducted using PubMed. In addition, GeneReviews and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were reviewed when applicable. When conflicting guidelines were identified, the evidence was ranked as follows: position papers from national and professional organizations ranked highest, followed by consortium guidelines, and then peer-reviewed publications from single institutions. The criteria for cancer genetic consultation referral are provided in two formats: (i) tables that list the tumor type along with the criteria that, if met, would warrant a referral for a cancer genetic consultation and (ii) an alphabetical list of the syndromes, including a brief summary of each and the rationale for the referral criteria that were selected. Consider referral for a cancer genetic consultation if your patient or any of their first-degree relatives meet any of these referral criteria.

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently issued recommendations for reporting incidental findings from clinical whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. The recommendations call for evaluating a specific set of genes as part of all whole-genome sequencing/whole-exome sequencing and reporting all pathogenic variants irrespective of patient age. The genes are associated with highly penetrant disorders for which treatment or prevention is available. The effort to generate a list of genes with actionable findings is commendable, but the recommendations raise several concerns. They constitute a call for opportunistic screening, through intentional effort to identify pathogenic variants in specified genes unrelated to the clinical concern that prompted testing. Yet for most of the genes, we lack evidence about the predictive value of testing, genotype penetrance, spectrum of phenotypes, and efficacy of interventions in unselected populations. Furthermore, the recommendations do not allow patients to decline the additional findings, a position inconsistent with established norms. Finally, the recommendation to return adult-onset disease findings when children are tested is inconsistent with current professional consensus, including other policy statements of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Instead of premature practice recommendations, we call for robust dialogue among stakeholders to define a pathway to normatively sound, evidence-based guidelines.

The incorporation of genomics into medicine is stimulating interest on the return of incidental findings (IFs) from exome and genome sequencing. However, no large-scale study has yet estimated the number of expected actionable findings per individual; therefore, we classified actionable pathogenic single-nucleotide variants in 500 European- and 500 African-descent participants randomly selected from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Exome Sequencing Project. The 1,000 individuals were screened for variants in 114 genes selected by an expert panel for their association with medically actionable genetic conditions possibly undiagnosed in adults. Among the 1,000 participants, 585 instances of 239 unique variants were identified as disease causing in the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). The primary literature supporting the variants' pathogenicity was reviewed. Of the identified IFs, only 16 unique autosomal-dominant variants in 17 individuals were assessed to be pathogenic or likely pathogenic, and one participant had two pathogenic variants for an autosomal-recessive disease. Furthermore, one pathogenic and four likely pathogenic variants not listed as disease causing in HGMD were identified. These data can provide an estimate of the frequency (∼3.4% for European descent and ∼1.2% for African descent) of the high-penetrance actionable pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in adults. The 23 participants with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were disproportionately of European (17) versus African (6) descent. The process of classifying these variants underscores the need for a more comprehensive and diverse centralized resource to provide curated information on pathogenicity for clinical use to minimize health disparities in genomic medicine.

Many individuals do not proceed with cancer predisposition testing due to fears of genetic discrimination (GD). We report the results of a survey of 47 unaffected, mutation positive individuals regarding insurance outcomes. Participants recruited from six different Cancer Risk Programs across the country were queried about their experiences with health, life, and disability insurance, as well as employment issues. Eighty-seven percent of participants carried a BRCA mutation and 87% were part of a group insurance plan at the time of testing. Forty-seven percent of participants self-paid for testing. Less than 10% of participants reported that their results were placed in the general medical record, while 43% did not know where their results were placed. Due to concerns about GD, 13% of participants stated they avoided changing jobs. Thirteen percent stated that their at-risk relatives had not undergone testing for the familial mutation due to fears about GD. Adverse events following genetic testing included two denials from private health insurers, one denial for average life insurance coverage and one denial for additional disability insurance. There were no reports of job discrimination. Results suggest fear of GD is prevalent, yet data do not support evidence that GD exists.

Disclaimer: This guideline is designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other healthcare providers to help them provide quality medical genetic services. Adherence to this guideline does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. This guideline should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. It may be prudent, however, to document in the patient's record the rationale for any significant deviation from this guideline.

There are currently multiple paths through which genetic counselors can acquire advanced knowledge and skills. However, outside of continuing education opportunities, there are few formal training programs designed specifically for the advanced training of genetic counselors. In the genetic counseling profession, there is currently considerable debate about the paths that should be available to attain advanced skills, as well as the skills that might be needed for practice in the future. The Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) convened a national committee, the Committee on Advanced Training for Certified Genetic Counselors (CATCGC), to investigate varied paths to post-master's training and career development. The committee began its work by developing three related grids that view career advancement from the viewpoints of the skills needed to advance (skills), ways to obtain these skills (paths), and existing genetic counselor positions that offer career change or advancement (positions). Here we describe previous work related to genetic counselor career advancement, the charge of the CATCGC, our preliminary work in developing a model through which to view genetic counselor advanced training and career advancement opportunities, and our next steps in further developing and disseminating the model.

Presented as the annual education conference of the National Society of Genetic Counselors in Phoenix, Arizona on November 11, 2002.

Recommendations for laboratories to report incidental findings from genomic tests have stimulated interest in such results. In order to investigate the criteria and processes for assigning the pathogenicity of specific variants and to estimate the frequency of such incidental findings in patients of European and African ancestry, we classified potentially actionable pathogenic single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in all 4300 European- and 2203 African-ancestry participants sequenced by the NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project (ESP). We considered 112 gene-disease pairs selected by an expert panel as associated with medically actionable genetic disorders that may be undiagnosed in adults. The resulting classifications were compared to classifications from other clinical and research genetic testing laboratories, as well as with in silico pathogenicity scores. Among European-ancestry participants, 30 of 4300 (0.7%) had a pathogenic SNV and six (0.1%) had a disruptive variant that was expected to be pathogenic, whereas 52 (1.2%) had likely pathogenic SNVs. For African-ancestry participants, six of 2203 (0.3%) had a pathogenic SNV and six (0.3%) had an expected pathogenic disruptive variant, whereas 13 (0.6%) had likely pathogenic SNVs. Genomic Evolutionary Rate Profiling mammalian conservation score and the Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion summary score of conservation, substitution, regulation, and other evidence were compared across pathogenicity assignments and appear to have utility in variant classification. This work provides a refined estimate of the burden of adult onset, medically actionable incidental findings expected from exome sequencing, highlights challenges in variant classification, and demonstrates the need for a better curated variant interpretation knowledge base.

Serine is a nonessential amino acid that plays a vital role in proper development and functioning of the central nervous system (CNS). Serine deficiency leads to microcephaly, intellectual disability, seizures, and psychomotor retardation in children and severe axonal neuropathy in adults. Serine deficiency syndrome is due to a deficiency of one of three enzymes in the endogenous serine biosynthesis pathway: phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase, phosphoserine transaminase, or, most rarely, phosphoserine phosphatase. Of critical importance to clinical care, serine deficiency syndrome is treatable. Herein, we describe the novel presentation of phosphoserine phosphatase deficiency in an adult. The patient had intrauterine growth restriction, lifelong intellectual disability, childhood onset epilepsy, and borderline microcephaly. In adulthood, she developed progressively severe lower extremity hypertonia, axonal neuropathy, and hand contractures. Neuropathy was complicated by non-healing wounds. Fasting plasma amino acids showed low serine and glycine. Molecular analysis revealed compound heterozygous mutations in phosphoserine phosphatase (PSPH). Treatment with oral serine resulted in improvement of plasma serine levels, decreased neuropathic pain, and subjective improvement in energy level. Although the first case of phosphoserine phosphatase deficiency was described nearly 20 years ago, only eight cases have been reported, all in children. This is the first report of phosphoserine phosphatase deficiency in an adult.

The Genetic Counseling Definition Task Force of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) developed the following definition of genetic counseling that was approved by the NSGC Board of Directors: Genetic counseling is the process of helping people understand and adapt to the medical, psychological and familial implications of genetic contributions to disease. This process integrates the following: Interpretation of family and medical histories to assess the chance of disease occurrence or recurrence. Education about inheritance, testing, management, prevention, resources and research. Counseling to promote informed choices and adaptation to the risk or condition. The definition was approved after a peer review process with input from the NSGC membership, genetic professional organizations, the NSGC legal counsel, and leaders of several national genetic advocacy groups.

These cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of identifying at-risk individuals through cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Genetic Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provide information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Key components include the intake (medical and family histories), psychosocial assessment (assessment of risk perception), cancer risk assessment (determination and communication of risk), molecular testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (regulations, informed consent, and counseling process), and follow-up considerations. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.

In a time of emerging genetic tests and technologies, genetic counselors are faced with the challenge of translating complex genomic data into information that will aid their client's ability to learn about, understand, make, and cope with decisions relating to genetic diagnoses. The first of two companion articles in this issue examines the role of the genetic counselor, particularly in counseling individuals at risk for or diagnosed with breast cancer, in an era of high-tech health care and gene patents.

The National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) supports the development of practice recommendations (guidelines) in the field of genetic counseling. This paper reviews the basic components of NSGC genetic counseling practice recommendations as well as the process for formal adoption of such documents, as approved by the Board of Directors of the NSGC.

The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for genetic counseling and screening for consanguineous couples (related as second cousins or closer) and their offspring with the goals of1. providing preconception reproductive options2. improving pregnancy outcome and identifying reproductive choices3. reducing morbidity and mortality in the 1st years of life, and4. respecting psychosocial and multicultural issues.The recommendations are the opinions of a multicenter working group (the Consanguinity Working Group (CWG)) with expertise in genetic counseling, medical genetics, biochemical genetics, genetic epidemiology, pediatrics, perinatology, and public health genetics, which was convened by the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). The consensus of the CWG and NSGC reviewers is that beyond a thorough medical family history with follow-up of significant findings, no additional preconception screening is recommended for consanguineous couples. Consanguineous couples should be offered similar genetic screening as suggested for any couple of their ethnic group. During pregnancy, consanguineous couples should be offered maternal-fetal serum marker screening and high-resolution fetal ultrasonography. Newborns should be screened for impaired hearing and detection of treatable inborn errors of metabolism. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. The professional judgment of a health care provider, familiar with the facts and circumstances of a specific case, will always supersede these recommendations.

Whole exome and whole genome sequencing are applications of next generation sequencing transforming clinical care, but there is little evidence whether these tests improve patient outcomes or if they are cost effective compared to current standard of care. These gaps in knowledge can be addressed by comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. We designed a randomized controlled trial that incorporates these research methods to evaluate whole exome sequencing compared to usual care in patients being evaluated for hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes. Approximately 220 patients will be randomized and followed for 12 months after return of genomic findings. Patients will receive findings associated with colorectal cancer in a first return of results visit, and findings not associated with colorectal cancer (incidental findings) during a second return of results visit. The primary outcome is efficacy to detect mutations associated with these syndromes; secondary outcomes include psychosocial impact, cost-effectiveness and comparative costs. The secondary outcomes will be obtained via surveys before and after each return visit. The expected challenges in conducting this randomized controlled trial include the relatively low prevalence of genetic disease, difficult interpretation of some genetic variants, and uncertainty about which incidental findings should be returned to patients. The approaches utilized in this study may help guide other investigators in clinical genomics to identify useful outcome measures and strategies to address comparative effectiveness questions about the clinical implementation of genomic sequencing in clinical care.

Martha A. Nance, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis (cochair); William Seltzer, Athena Diagnostics, Worcester, Massachusetts (cochair); Tetsuo Ashizawa, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; Robin Bennett, University of Washington, Seattle; Nathalie McIntosh, DIANON Systems, Stratford, Connecticut; Richard H. Myers, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston; Nicholas T. Potter, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; and David K. Shea, Foundation for the Care and Cure of Huntington Disease, Islamorada, Florida.

The construction of an accurate family pedigree is a fundamental component of a clinical genetic evaluation and of human genetic research. Previous surveys of genetic counselors and human genetic publications have demonstrated significant inconsistencies in the usage of common pedigree symbols representing situations such as pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, miscarriage, and adoption, as well as less common scenarios such as pregnancies conceived through assisted reproductive technologies. The Pedigree Standardization Task Force (PSTF) was organized through the Professional Issues Committee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, to establish recommendations for universal standards in human pedigree nomenclature. Nomenclature was chosen based on current usage, consistency among symbols, computer compatibility, and the adaptability of symbols to reflect the rapid technical advances in human genetics. Preliminary recommendations were presented for review at three national meetings of human genetic professionals and sent to >100 human genetic professionals for review. On the basis of this review process, the recommendations of the PSTF for standardized human pedigree nomenclature are presented here. By incorporating these recommendations into medical genetics professional training programs, board examinations, genetic publications, and pedigree software, the adoption of uniform pedigree nomenclature can begin. Usage of standardized pedigree nomenclature will reduce the chances for incorrect interpretation of patient and family medical and genetic information. It may also improve the quality of patient care provided by genetic professionals and facilitate communication between researchers involved with genetic family studies.

Mosaic PTEN mutations are not well described in Cowden syndrome. We report a 40-year-old woman with a clinical diagnosis of Cowden syndrome including Lhermitte–Duclos disease, who had a mosaic PTEN mutation detected by next-generation deep sequencing. Complete PTEN gene sequencing by the Sanger method and deletion/duplication analysis performed on DNA extracted from blood leukocytes at a commercial clinical laboratory did not identify a mutation. Because of high suspicion of a PTEN mutation, we repeated testing by next-generation sequencing using the ColoSeq assay, which sequences the entire PTEN locus at >320-fold average coverage. ColoSeq identified a frameshift PTEN mutation (c.767_768delAG) in 1.7% of sequencing reads from peripheral blood leukocytes (21/1,184 reads), which is below the limit of detection of most Sanger sequencing methods. The mutation was detected at full heterozygous levels in skin fibroblasts and a cerebellar tumor, and at approximately the 25% level in colonic and endocervical mucosa, confirming somatic mosaicism. Our report highlights the power of deep next-generation sequencing to identify mosaic mutations that can be missed by traditional less sensitive approaches. We speculate that mosaic PTEN mutations are more common in Cowden syndrome than previously described. Genet Med 15 12, 1004–1007.

We report a large pedigree in which pancreatic cancer is inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion. Diabetes and exocrine insufficiency was observed in all family members who eventually developed pancreatic cancer. The presence of diabetes, often years before the diagnosis of cancer, allowed identification of those people who had inherited the predisposing allele and who were thus at high risk for the development of malignancy. This family shows that genetic factors can have a striking effect on the development of pancreatic malignancy and diabetes mellitus. Moreover, preclinical diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in family members provided a unique opportunity to study early molecular changes that accompany the development of human pancreatic cancer. Finally, the molecular approach applied here to the early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer may prove valuable in this family for identification of subjects at risk.

A multigenerational medical family history graphically recorded as a pedigree or family tree is a cost-effective tool in preconception counseling to identify couples at risk to have offspring with inherited disorders and to identify if either partner has a personal risk for a disorder with a genetic etiology. Interpretation of a medical family history can provide risk assessment for reproductive planning and choices, inform a diagnosis to help identify a patient’s medical screening needs and clinical management, and build rapport with the patient or couple. The use of standardized pedigree nomenclature is paramount to healthcare delivery as electronic medical records become universal. The trend towards having patients prepare a medical family history in advance of the first clinic visit is a way to empower patients to take charge of their health, and also allow health professionals to spend more focused time in confirming and interpreting family history at the visit instead of constructing family history. This article reviews standardized pedigree symbols, clues to identifying “red flags” in family history (with a focus on preconception genetic counseling), the pedigree as a psychosocial tool, and resources for obtaining a medical family history.

Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is one of several clinical disorders associated with mutations in the X-linked Fragile X Mental Retardation-1 (FMR1) gene. With evolving knowledge about the phenotypic consequences of FMR1 transcription and translation, sharp clinical distinctions between pre- and full mutations have become more fluid. The complexity of the issues surrounding genetic testing and management of FMR1-associated disorders has increased; and several aspects of genetic counseling for FMR1 mutations remain challenging, including risk assessment for intermediate alleles and the widely variable clinical prognosis for females with full mutations. FMR1 mutation testing is increasingly being offered to women without known risk factors, and newborn screening for FXS is underway in research-based pilot studies. Each diagnosis of an FMR1 mutation has far-reaching clinical and reproductive implications for the extended family. The interest in large-scale population screening is likely to increase due to patient demand and awareness, and as targeted pharmaceutical treatments for FXS become available over the next decade. Given these developments and the likelihood of more widespread screening, genetic counselors across a variety of healthcare settings will increasingly be called upon to address complex diagnostic, psychosocial, and management issues related to FMR1 gene mutations. The following guidelines are intended to assist genetic counselors in providing accurate risk assessment and appropriate educational and supportive counseling for individuals with positive test results and families affected by FMR1-associated disorders.

Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer) and adenomatous polyposis syndromes frequently have overlapping clinical features. Current approaches for molecular genetic testing are often stepwise, taking a best-candidate gene approach with testing of additional genes if initial results are negative. We report a comprehensive assay called ColoSeq that detects all classes of mutations in Lynch and polyposis syndrome genes using targeted capture and massively parallel next-generation sequencing on the Illumina HiSeq2000 instrument. In blinded specimens and colon cancer cell lines with defined mutations, ColoSeq correctly identified 28/28 (100%) pathogenic mutations in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM, APC, and MUTYH, including single nucleotide variants (SNVs), small insertions and deletions, and large copy number variants. There was 100% reproducibility of mutation detection between independent runs. The assay correctly identified 222 of 224 heterozygous SNVs (99.4%) in HapMap samples, demonstrating high sensitivity of calling all variants across each captured gene. Average coverage was greater than 320 reads per base pair when the maximum of 96 index samples with barcodes were pooled. In a specificity study of 19 control patients without cancer from different ethnic backgrounds, we did not find any pathogenic mutations but detected two variants of uncertain significance. ColoSeq offers a powerful, cost-effective means of genetic testing for Lynch and polyposis syndromes that eliminates the need for stepwise testing and multiple follow-up clinical visits.

Purpose: Approximately 5–10% of patients who undergo genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 receive a variant of unknown significance (VUS) result. The ambiguous nature of a VUS may increase difficulty in patient understanding and decision making regarding risk reduction and surveillance options, including cancer risk-reducing surgeries. VUS reclassification to benign or deleterious may occur in time; however, clinical decisions may need to be made expeditiously, and some patients may pursue irreversible treatments before VUS reclassification. Methods: We reviewed the surgical decisions of 107 women postdisclosure of a BRCA VUS result counseled at our institute between 1998 and 2009. Conclusion: Among women receiving a BRCA VUS result at our center, 11 of 107 (10.3%) pursued cancer risk-reducing mastectomy and 22 of 107 (20.6%) pursued cancer risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Reclassification of VUS occurred up to 9 years after testing, and 5 of 22 (22.7%) women followed up for 8 or more years continue to have a VUS result. We discuss considerations for providers of genetic services to discuss with patients who receive a VUS result.

Approximately 1.1 billion people currently live in countries where consanguineous marriages are customary, and among them one in every three marriages is between cousins. Opinions diverge between those warning of the possible health risks to offspring and others who highlight the social benefits of consanguineous marriages. A consanguinity study group of international experts and counselors met at the Geneva International Consanguinity Workshop from May 3 2010, to May 7, 2010, to discuss the known and presumptive risks and benefits of close kin marriages and to identify important future areas for research on consanguinity. The group highlighted the importance of evidence-based counseling recommendations for consanguineous marriages and of undertaking both genomic and social research in defining the various influences and outcomes of consanguinity. Technological advances in rapid high-throughput genome sequencing and for the identification of copy number variants by comparative genomic hybridization offer a significant opportunity to identify genotype-phenotype correlations focusing on autozygosity, the hallmark of consanguinity. The ongoing strong preferential culture of close kin marriages in many societies, and among migrant communities in Western countries, merits an equivalently detailed assessment of the social and genetic benefits of consanguinity in future studies. Genet Med 2011:13(9):841-847.

These recommendations describe the minimum standard criteria for genetic counseling and testing of individuals and families with fragile X syndrome, as well as carriers and potential carriers of a fragile X mutation. The original guidelines (published in 2000) have been revised, replacing a stratified pre- and full mutation model of fragile X syndrome with one based on a continuum of gene effects across the full spectrum of FMR1 CGG trinucleotide repeat expansion. This document reviews the molecular genetics of fragile X syndrome, clinical phenotype (including the spectrum of premature ovarian failure and fragile X-associated tremor-ataxia syndrome), indications for genetic testing and interpretation of results, risks of transmission, family planning options, psychosocial issues, and references for professional and patient resources. These recommendations are the opinions of a multicenter working group of genetic counselors with expertise in fragile X syndrome genetic counseling, and they are based on clinical experience, review of pertinent English language articles, and reports of expert committees. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. The professional judgment of a health care provider, familiar with the facts and circumstances of a specific case, will always supersede these recommendations.

The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for genetic evaluation and counseling of couples with recurrent miscarriage (RM). The recommendations are the opinions of the multidisciplinary Inherited Pregnancy Loss Working Group (IPLWG), with expertise in genetic counseling, medical genetics, maternal fetal medicine, internal medicine, infectious disease, cytogenetics, and coagulation disorders. The IPLWG defines RM as three or more clinically recognized consecutive or non-consecutive pregnancy losses occurring prior to fetal viability (

As the definition of genetic counseling continues to evolve , so does the application of genetic counseling services in all areas of medicine and throughout the human life cycle. While governmental policy, economics, ethics, and religion continue to influence society’s views regarding the necessity of testing germ cells for mutations to prevent the birth of an affected child or predicting whether healthy adults will develop future life-threatening illness, patient autonomy in the choice of whether to know, or not know, one’s genetic make-up remains a core principle of genetic counseling.

Purpose: To determine current practices of genetic counseling and screening for consanguineous couples, their pregnancies and children, and to compare these practices to recommendations in the literature. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to 1582 board certified genetic counselors and medical geneticists in the United States. Results: The return rate was 20% (n = 309). There was wide variation in the risk figures quoted to consanguineous couples to have offspring with birth defects and mental retardations (1 to 75 for incest between first-degree relatives, and 0.25 to 20% for first cousin unions). Suggested screening practices differed for consanguineous unions before conception, during pregnancy, following birth, and for children placed for adoption. Most respondents recommended screening based on ethnicity, yet disagreed as to which genetic disorders to include. Conclusions: To standardize genetic services, guidelines for screening the offspring of consanguineous unions are needed. A consensus should be reached as to the empirical risks for genetic disorders, birth defects, and mental retardation that may impair the offspring of consanguineous unions, with definitions as to what these disorders are, and if the data applies to global populations. Guidelines should consider costs, the sensitivity and specificity of DNA and biochemical testing, and current practices of prenatal and newborn screening. Consideration should be given to screening based on ethnicity, particularly in populations where consanguineous unions are common, while remaining sensitive to cultural belief systems. Recommendations for screening healthy children from consanguineous unions to be placed for adoption pose ethical challenges.