Search

This focused revision builds on the expert opinions from the original publications of 'Recommendations for human standardized pedigree nomenclature' published in 1995 and updated in 2008. Our review of medical publications since 2008 did not identify any fundamental systematic alternative pedigree nomenclature. These findings attest to the relevance of most of the nomenclature with the critical exception of the nomenclature used to denote sex assigned at birth and gender. While we are not recommending the creation of any new pedigree symbols, a major focus of this publication is clarification of the use of symbols and language in the description of the distinction between sex and gender, with a view to ensuring safe and inclusive practice for people who are gender-diverse or transgender. In addition, we recommend modifications to the way that carrier status is depicted. Our goal is to respect individual differences and identities while maintaining biologically, clinically, and genetically meaningful information.

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.

Background: To detail two cases of sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma (UC) with rapid progression, disseminated metastases, and early death, detailing the results of somatic tumor profiling using next-generation sequencing (NGS). Case Series: The first case presented is a rare case of UC of the renal pelvis with osteosarcomatous differentiation and venous tumor thrombus in a 65-year-old man found to have a heterozygous germline variant of unknown significance in the neurofibromatosis-1 gene. The second case is a 72-year-old woman with sarcomatoid UC of the bladder. Herein, we discuss the presentation and clinical course, histology, immunohistochemical profiles, and somatic tumor testing results. We then review the literature regarding this rare and aggressive entity, detail options for optimal management, and address the role of molecular profiling in these cases. Conclusion: Sarcomatoid UC is a rare and aggressive entity. NGS may be useful in these cases to guide systemic therapy.

Objective Germline and somatic BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations predict treatment response in patients with epithelial ovarian, peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer (OC), yet only germline testing is routinely pursued or reimbursed at diagnosis. We report our experience with clinical testing of paired tumor and germline DNA for OC mutations. Methods Simultaneous sequencing using the BROCA assay of DNA from paired blood and neoplastic tissue became clinically available at our institution in 2017. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of OC cases tested from 7/2017 to 7/2018. We calculated the rates of known pathogenic germline mutations and actionable somatic mutations, defined as those for which targeted therapies exist. Results We identified 43 women (36 new diagnoses, seven recurrences) who underwent testing. Average age at diagnosis was 60. OC samples came from surgical specimens in 31 cases (72.1%), from biopsy in 11 cases (25.6%), and from cytology in one case (2.3%). We identified pathogenic germline mutations in six cases (14%), actionable somatic mutations in 15 cases (35%), and both a somatic and germline mutation in one case (2%). BRCA mutations accounted for 59% of all mutations. Of 40 cases with sufficient follow-up, providers documented reviewing results of genetic testing in 34 (85%), which influenced clinical decisions in 12 (30%). Conclusions Simultaneous germline and tumor sequencing is an efficient way to provide enhanced information to guide the care of OC patients. This approach can identify somatic BRCA mutations at diagnosis, allowing physicians to provide PARP inhibitor maintenance and improve outcomes for those patients.

The collection of family history has always been a tool for genetic evaluation, but it remains an essential tool even in the age of genomic medicine. Patients may have a risk for a disease based on family history regardless of the results of genetic and genomic tests. How this information is collected is less important than that relevant information is collected in the first place. There are many tools for collecting medical and family history information both by hand and electronically. Genetic and genomic testing should always be interpreted in the context of the personal and family history.

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.

The collection of family history has always been a tool for genetic evaluation, but it remains an essential tool even in the age of genomic medicine. Patients may have a risk for a disease based on family history regardless of the results of genetic and genomic tests. How this information is collected is less important than that relevant information is collected in the first place. There are many tools for collecting medical and family history information both by hand and electronically. Genetic and genomic testing should always be interpreted in the context of the personal and family history.

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.

Healthcare professionals rely on national organizations for guidance; the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have differing guidelines for acceptable pedigree symbols to represent transgender patients and minimal recommendations for gender non-conforming (GNC) patients. Inconsistency in accepted pedigree symbols to represent these patients is a barrier to providing them appropriate care. We assess variability in pedigree practice among genetic counselors and students, as well as reported education on serving the needs of the transgender and GNC communities, through a survey distributed through NSGC. Participants felt symbols similar to NSGC's (41.1%) and NCCN's (29.7%) recommendations for transgender patients are appropriate and emphasized a desire to affirm gender identity. We identified greater variability in symbols representing a GNC patient; 19.2% of participants selected 'other', explaining they were unsure of the appropriate choice. A high interest (99%) in further training demonstrates a recognition of education as an effective strategy for improving awareness and competency. Promotion of existing resources could help address the fact that 81% of participants were unaware of any standardized symbols used to represent transgender individuals. Creating affirming, standardized pedigree nomenclature is necessary for appropriate and consistent care.

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.

Next generation sequencing (NGS) gene panels are increasingly used in medical genetics clinics for the evaluation of common inherited cancer syndromes, but the clinical efficacy of these tests, and the factors driving clinical providers to order them are unclear. We conducted a patterns-of-care study to compare patients evaluated with NGS gene panels with a reference group. We abstracted demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical information in a retrospective cohort of patients referred to a large medical genetics clinic for evaluation of inherited colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes. Patients tested with NGS gene panels were more likely to be insured compared to the reference group (85.3 % vs. 69.2 %, p = 0.0068),less likely to have prior tumor tissue testing (29.4 % vs. 54.3 %, p = 0.0004), and less likely to have an abnormal tumor tissue test result (46.7 % vs. 74.5 %, p = 0.01). No significant differences were found between groups in age, gender, race, employment status, personal history of colorectal cancer, or proportion of patients fulfilling Lynch syndrome clinical criteria. Patients with NGS testing were less likely to have a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant detected (13.7 % vs. 31.9 %, p = 0.002). Patients referred for NGS testing to evaluate inherited colorectal cancer/polyposis risk appear to undergo tumor tissue testing less frequently than non-NGS testing patients. Further studies are needed to assess the most effective and cost-effective approach to genomic diagnosis in this patient population.

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.

As of May 2017, there were 4242 Certified Genetic Counselors (CGC) (American Board of Genetic Counseling, Inc. 2017) and 41 graduate-level genetic counseling training programs (Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling 2017) in North America, and the demand for CGCs continues to increase. In the Fall of 2015 the Genetic Counselor Workforce Working Group, comprised of representatives from the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC), the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC), the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD), the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) commissioned a formal workforce study to project supply of and demand for CGCs through 2026. The data indicate a shortage of genetic counselors engaged in direct patient care. Assuming two scenarios for demand, supply is expected to reach equilibrium between 2024 and 2030. However, given the rate of growth in genetic counseling training programs in the six months since the study was completed, it is reasonable to expect that the number of new programs may be higher than anticipated by 2026. If true, and assuming that growth in programs is matched by equivalent growth in clinical training slots, the supply of CGCs in direct patient care would meet demand earlier than these models predict.

The Code of Ethics (COE) of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) was adopted in 1992 and was later revised and adopted in 2006. In 2016, the NSGC Code of Ethics Review Task Force (COERTF) was convened to review the COE. The COERTF reviewed ethical codes written by other professional organizations and suggested changes that would better reflect the current and evolving nature of the genetic counseling profession. The COERTF received input from the society's legal counsel, Board of Directors, and members-at-large. A revised COE was proposed to the membership and approved and adopted in April 2017. The revisions and rationale for each are presented.

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.

In 1995, the Pedigree Standardization Task Force (PSTF) of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) proposed a system of pedigree nomenclature. Recently, the PSTF (now called the Pedigree Standardization Work Group or PSWG) sought evidence that the published symbols met the needs of health professionals, were incorporated into health professional training and were utilized in publications. We searched PubMed and reference lists of select publications, reviewed the Instructions for Authors of several journals, searched the websites of professional societies, sought comment from the membership of the NSGC, and looked at recommendations and training practices of various health professional organizations. Many journals still do not cite specific standards for pedigrees, but those found cited the PSTF nomenclature. We did not find significant objections or alternatives to the 1995 nomenclature. Based on our review, we propose only a few minor stylistic changes to the pedigree symbols. The pedigree nomenclature of the NSGC is the only consistently acknowledged standard for drawing a family health history. We recommend regular and continued review of these pedigree standards to determine if additional symbols are needed to accommodate changes in clinical practice to ensure that the symbols continue to meet the needs of health professionals and researchers as well as adhere to evolving ethical and privacy standards. All health professionals, trainees, and researchers should be made aware of the utility of using a common pedigree nomenclature in clinical practice and publication. This will become particularly important as electronic medical records become more widely utilized.

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.

Genetic testing for hereditary movement disorders is complex. This chapter reviews the major patterns of inheritance of inherited movement disorders, clues in a family history to suggest an inherited movement disorder, and the pedigree symbols used to record a family history. Some of the common genetic counseling issues facing individuals and their families with hereditary movement disorders are discussed. Pre- and post-test genetic counseling is important in the evaluation of the individual and family with a potential inherited movement disorder.

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 Code of Ethics (COE) of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) was adopted in 1992. In 2004, the NSGC leadership appointed the Code of Ethics Work Group (COEWG) to consider revisions to the NSGC COE based on advice from the NSGC legal counsel, and to consider additional changes given growth in the scope of genetic counseling practice since the adoption of the original COE. After input from the NSGC membership, changes to the COE addressing the recommendations of the NSGC legal counsel were approved in December 2004. The COEWG then reviewed ethical codes and codes of professional conduct from 22 professional organizations, deemed to have similar goals and philosophies to the NSGC, searching for themes that encompassed genetic counseling practice that might not yet be addressed in the NSGC COE. Additional revisions to the COE were proposed, and after feedback from the NSGC membership, the revised COE was approved in January 2006 by majority vote of full members of the NSGC. The explications for the 2004 and 2006 revisions are presented.

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.