Search

Purpose: Genetic counselors (GCs) increasingly play key roles in advancing genomic medicine through innovative research. Here, we examine one large cohort of GCs' evolving contributions to the literature, with the goal of facilitating worldwide professional development for GCs through scholarly activities., Methods: Publications were cataloged by members of the Section of Genetic Counseling (Section), established at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in 2014, including publication year, journal, impact factor, and author position. Data were organized using the "My Bibliography" tool on the National Center for Biotechnology Information website and a Research Electronic Data Capture database created to initially collect manuscripts published through 30 June 2020. A subsequent survey captured publications through 5 February 2024., Results: An amount of 52 of 120 (43%) GCs shared their curriculum vitae/papers. 992 unique publications were identified from 1986 to 2024. Since 2013, no less than 32 papers were published annually by Section members and no less than 10 GCs contributed to publications yearly. Impact factors typically averaged >5.0 per year. Areas of foci diversified considerably since 2015., Conclusions: Here, we establish that GCs indeed contribute to scholarly work as evidenced by the number of publications alone. The establishment of an academic home may have contributed, given publications increased concurrent to launching the Section, providing a model for organizing GCs at institutions nationally and internationally. Highlighting such achievements will foster the expansion of GC roles in the era of precision genomic medicine and therapy. Considering ways to support GCs towards expanding these activities is equally important.

Purpose: To better understand the longitudinal risks and benefits of telephone disclosure of genetic test results in the era of multigene panel testing., Methods: Adults who were proceeding with germline cancer genetic testing were randomized to telephone disclosure (TD) with a genetic counselor or in-person disclosure (IPD) (i.e., usual care) of test results. All participants who received TD were recommended to return to meet with a physician to discuss medical management recommendations., Results: Four hundred seventy-three participants were randomized to TD and 497 to IPD. There were no differences between arms for any cognitive, affective, or behavioral outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Only 50% of participants in the TD arm returned for the medical follow-up appointment. Returning was associated with site (p < 0.0001), being female (p = 0.047), and not having a true negative result (p < 0.002). Mammography was lower at 12 months among those who had TD and did not return for medical follow-up (70%) compared with those who had TD and returned (86%) and those who had IPD (87%, adjusted p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Telephone disclosure of genetic test results is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure, but attention to medical follow-up may remain important for optimizing appropriate use of genetic results.

Demand for cancer genetic counseling has grown rapidly in recent years as germline genomic information has integrated into cancer care. There are currently an insufficient number of genetic counselors (GC) to address genetic testing need through traditional pre- and post-test counseling. Alternative genetic counseling frameworks, discussed here, are under study to increase access to genetic testing while optimizing the skillsets of existent master's-trained GCs.

Background: While there is increasing interest in sharing genetic research results with participants, how best to communicate the risks, benefits and limitations of research results remains unclear., Methods: Participants who received genetic research results answered open and closed-ended questions about their experiences receiving results and interest in and advantages and disadvantages of a web-based alternative to genetic counseling., Results: 107 BRCA1/2 negative women with a personal or family history of breast cancer consented to receive genetic research results and 82% completed survey items about their experience. Most participants reported there was nothing they disliked (74%) or would change (85%) about their predisclosure or disclosure session (78% and 89%). They most frequently reported liking the genetic counselor and learning new information. Only 24% and 26% would not be willing to complete predisclosure counseling or disclosure of results by a web-based alternative, respectively. The most frequently reported advantages included convenience and reduced time. Disadvantages included not being able to ask questions, the risk of misunderstanding and the impersonal nature of the encounter., Conclusion: Most participants receiving genetic research results report high satisfaction with telephone genetic counseling, but some may be willing to consider self-directed web alternatives for both predisclosure genetic education and return of results., (© 2019 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: Multiplex genetic testing, including both moderate- and high-penetrance genes for cancer susceptibility, is associated with greater uncertainty than traditional testing, presenting challenges to informed consent and genetic counseling. We sought to develop a new model for informed consent and genetic counseling for four ongoing studies., Methods: Drawing from professional guidelines, literature, conceptual frameworks, and clinical experience, a multidisciplinary group developed a tiered-binned genetic counseling approach proposed to facilitate informed consent and improve outcomes of cancer susceptibility multiplex testing., Results: In this model, tier 1 "indispensable" information is presented to all patients. More specific tier 2 information is provided to support variable informational needs among diverse patient populations. Clinically relevant information is "binned" into groups to minimize information overload, support informed decision making, and facilitate adaptive responses to testing. Seven essential elements of informed consent are provided to address the unique limitations, risks, and uncertainties of multiplex testing., Conclusion: A tiered-binned model for informed consent and genetic counseling has the potential to address the challenges of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility and to support informed decision making and adaptive responses to testing. Future prospective studies including patient-reported outcomes are needed to inform how to best incorporate multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility into clinical practice.Genet Med 17 6, 485-492.

During the last 30 years, key advances in the field of cancer genetics have improved identification of high-risk families in which cancer risk can be linked to mutations in cancer susceptible genes. Identification of individuals with heritable cancer risk may influence short- and long-term medical management issues. Heightened screening and risk reducing options can offer lifesaving interventions for the woman and family members who are at risk., (© 2014 AWHONN, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses.)

Purpose: Understanding the outcomes of returning individual genetic research results to participants is critical because some genetic variants are found to be associated with health outcomes and have become available for clinical testing. Materials and Methods: BRCA1/2 -negative women with early-onset breast cancer, multiple primary cancers, or a family history of breast cancer who participated in a gene discovery cancer registry were offered the opportunity to learn their individual genetic research results of 24 breast cancer susceptibility genes with a genetic counselor after predisclosure genetic counseling. Outcomes included uptake of research results, knowledge, informed choice, psychosocial adjustment, uncertainty, satisfaction, and uptake of clinical confirmation testing. Results: Four hundred two potential participants were contacted. One hundred ninety-four participants (48%) did not respond despite multiple attempts, and 85 participants (21%) actively or passively declined. One hundred seven participants (27%) elected for predisclosure counseling and were more likely to be younger, married, and white. Ninety percent of participants who had predisclosure counseling elected to receive their genetic research results, and 89% made an informed choice. Knowledge increased significantly after predisclosure counseling, and anxiety, intrusive cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and depression declined significantly after receipt of results. General anxiety and intrusive cancer-specific distress declined significantly for both participants with a positive result and those with a negative result. Sixty-four percent of participants had clinical confirmation testing when recommended, including all participants with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene. Conclusion: Uptake of genetic research results may be lower than anticipated by hypothetical reports and small select studies. Participants who elected to receive research results with genetic providers did not experience increases in distress or uncertainty, but not all patients return for confirmation testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]