Collaboration of Colorado Cancer Genetic Counselors to Integrate Next Generation Sequencing Panels into Clinical Practice

The recent introduction of clinically available next generation sequencing (NGS) cancer panels has presented new challenges for genetic counselors. Determining which patients are appropriate for NGS panel testing is complex. Due to the large number of genes included in the NGS panels, thorough and appropriate pre-test counseling and interpretation of NGS results can be a time-consuming and difficult process. Many of the genes associated with increased cancer risk lack published clinical management guidelines and estimates of cancer risk for individuals with deleterious mutations. In order to efficiently and effectively review the clinical utility of NGS panels, Colorado cancer genetic counselors formed a working group to gain a better understanding of the genes included in NGS cancer panels. This publication reports on the approach of this group, the process used to evaluate a selected NGS panel, future directions for this collaboration, and ideas for other genetic counselors to form similar groups to efficiently evaluate new technologies and improve practice.     

Points to Consider in the Clinical Use of NGS Panels for Mitochondrial Disease: An Analysis of Gene Inclusion and Consent Forms

Mitochondrial next generation sequencing (NGS) panels offer single-step analysis of the numerous nuclear genes involved in the structure, function, and maintenance of mitochondria. However, the complexities of mitochondrial biology and genetics raise points for consideration in clinical use of these tests. To understand the current status of mitochondrial genetic testing, we assessed the gene offerings and consent forms of mitochondrial NGS panels available from seven US-based clinical laboratories. The NGS panels varied markedly in number of genes (101–1204 genes), and the proportion of genes causing “classic” mitochondrial diseases and their phenocopies ranged widely between labs (18 %–94 % of panel contents). All panels included genes not associated with classic mitochondrial diseases (6 %–28 % of panel contents), including genes causing adult-onset neurodegenerative disorders, cancer predisposition, and other genetic syndromes or inborn errors of metabolism. Five of the panels included genes that are not listed in OMIM to be associated with a disease phenotype (5 %–49 % of panel contents). None of the consent documents reviewed had options for patient preference regarding receipt of incidental findings. These findings raise points of discussion applicable to mitochondrial diagnostics, but also to the larger arenas of exome and genome sequencing, including the need to consider the boundaries between clinical and research testing, the necessity of appropriate informed consent, and the responsibilities of clinical laboratories and clinicians. Based on these findings, we recommend careful evaluation by laboratories of the genes offered on NGS panels, clear communication of the predicted phenotypes, and revised consent forms to allow patients to make choices about receiving incidental findings. We hope that our analysis and recommendations will help to maximize the considerable clinical utility of NGS panels for the diagnosis of mitochondrial disease.     

Cancer Risk Assessment Using Genetic Panel Testing: Considerations for Clinical Application

With the completion of the Human Genome Project and the development of high throughput technologies, such as next-generation sequencing, the use of multiplex genetic testing, in which multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously to test for one or more conditions, is growing rapidly. Reflecting underlying heterogeneity where a broad range of genes confer risks for one or more cancers, the development of genetic cancer panels to assess these risks represents just one example of how multiplex testing is being applied clinically. There are a number of issues and challenges to consider when conducting genetic testing for cancer risk assessment, and these issues become exceedingly more complex when moving from the traditional single-gene approach to panel testing. Here, we address the practical considerations for clinical use of panel testing for breast, ovarian, and colon cancers, including the benefits, limitations and challenges, genetic counseling issues, and management guidelines.     

Barriers to and Motivations for Physician Referral of Patients to Cancer Genetics Clinics

Although it is well known that under-referral of colon cancer patients to cancer genetics clinics is a chronic problem, no study has yet examined why physicians may be ordering testing independently rather than referring patients to cancer genetics clinics. The current study explored variables which may impact a physician’s preference for ordering testing independently or referring patients to outside cancer genetics experts. An online questionnaire, distributed to the membership of the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, yielded responses from 298 physicians. Motivations to refer to cancer genetics clinics rather than order testing independently included fear of genetic discrimination and a belief that patients benefit from genetic counseling about the risks, benefits and consequences of testing. These results suggest that in order to increase referrals, genetic counselors must educate physicians about the unique benefits patients receive from participating in genetic counseling.     

Genetic Counselors’ Experiences Regarding Communication of Reproductive Risks with Autosomal Recessive Conditions found on Cancer Panels

The development of hereditary cancer genetic testing panels has altered genetic counseling practice. Mutations within certain genes on cancer panels pose not only a cancer risk, but also a reproductive risk for autosomal recessive conditions such as Fanconi anemia, constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome, and ataxia telangiectasia. This study aimed to determine if genetic counselors discuss reproductive risks for autosomal recessive conditions associated with genes included on cancer panels, and if so, under what circumstances these risks are discussed. An on-line survey was emailed through the NSGC list-serv. The survey assessed 189 cancer genetic counselors' experiences discussing reproductive risks with patients at risk to carry a mutation or variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in a gene associated with both an autosomal dominant cancer risk and an autosomal recessive syndrome. Over half (n = 82, 55 %) reported having discussed reproductive risks; the remainder (n = 66, 45 %) had not. Genetic counselors who reported discussing reproductive risks primarily did so when patients had a positive result and were of reproductive age. Reasons for not discussing these risks included when a patient had completed childbearing or when a VUS was identified. Most counselors discussed reproductive risk after obtaining results and not during the informed consent process. There is inconsistency as to if and when the discussion of reproductive risks is taking place. The wide variation in responses suggests a need to develop professional guidelines for when and how discussions of reproductive risk for autosomal recessive conditions identified through cancer panels should occur with patients.     

Impact of Panel Gene Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer on Patients

Recent advances in next generation sequencing have enabled panel gene testing, or simultaneous testing for mutations in multiple genes for a clinical condition. With more extensive and widespread genetic testing, there will be increased detection of genes with moderate penetrance without established clinical guidelines and of variants of uncertain significance (VUS), or genetic variants unknown to either be disease-causing or benign. This study surveyed 232 patients who underwent genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to examine the impact of panel gene testing on psychological outcomes, patient understanding, and utilization of genetic information. The survey used standardized instruments including the Impact of Event Scale (IES), Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA), Satisfaction with Decision Instrument (SWD), Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (AT-20), genetics knowledge, and utilization of genetic test results. Study results suggested that unaffected individuals with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer who received positive results were most significantly impacted by intrusive thoughts, avoidance, and distress. However, scores were also modestly elevated among unaffected patients with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer who received VUS, highlighting the impact of ambiguous results that are frequent among patients undergoing genetic testing with large panels of genes. Potential risk factors for increased genetic testing-specific distress in this study included younger age, black or African American race, Hispanic origin, lower education level, and lower genetic knowledge and highlight the need for developing strategies to provide effective counseling and education to these communities, particularly when genetic testing utilizes gene panels that more commonly return VUS. More detailed pre-test education and counseling may help patients appreciate the probability of various types of test results and how results would be used clinically, and allow them to make more informed decisions about the type of genetic testing to select.     

The Value of a Genetic Counselor: Improving Identification of Cancer Genetic Counseling Patients with Chart Review

Advances in genetics are changing cancer care and requiring institutions to maximize the unique skills of genetics professionals. The identification of genetic syndromes is vital for prevention and management of families with high cancer risks. Despite this, high risk individuals who qualify are often not referred. Genetic counselors could review oncology charts to improve identification. A genetics assessment tool developed by NCI Community Cancer Centers Program was used to perform self-assessment of the genetics program. A weekly report of all new oncology patients was provided to a genetic counselor for chart review. In 2010, 58 % of all eligible patients (n?=?152) were offered a genetics evaluation. In 2011 this improved to 70 % (n?=?167), which was a statistically significant difference, X ²(1)?=?5.13, p?=?0.02. By cancer site, ovarian cancer referrals also showed statistically significant improvement, X ²(1)?=?6.36, p?=?0.01. Breast and colon referrals were improved but not significant. Over 10 months, 129 patients were identified through the chart review program. Three were confirmed to have a genetic mutation for a hereditary cancer syndrome. An average week included review of 73 charts for 10 medical oncologists, 4 radiation oncologists, and 4 pediatric oncologists which generated 60–80 min of work for the genetic counselor. This program improved patient identification and quality, and allowed physicians to become more aware of opportunities for genetic counseling and more patients to receive genetic counseling and testing.     

Next Generation Sequencing in the Clinic: a Patterns of Care Study in a Retrospective Cohort of Subjects Referred to a Genetic Medicine Clinic for Suspected Lynch Syndrome

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.     

The Ophthalmic Experience: Unanticipated Primary Findings in the Era of Next Generation Sequencing

Next generation sequencing (NGS) technology, with the ability to sequence many genomic regions at once, can provide clinicians with increased information, in the form of more mutations detected. Discussions on broad testing technology have largely been focused on incidental findings, or unanticipated results related to diseases beyond the primary indication for testing. By examining multiple genes that could be responsible for the patient’s presentation, however, there is also the possibility of unexpected results that are related to the reason genetic testing was ordered. We present a case study where multiple potentially causative mutations were detected using NGS technology. This case raises questions of scientific uncertainty, and has important implications for medical management and secondary studies. Clinicians and genetic counselors should be aware of the potential for increased information to affect one’s understanding of genetic risk, and the pre- and post-testing counseling process.     

The Genetic Testing of Children for Cancer Susceptibility: Ethical,Legal, and Social Issues

Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility raises many ethical, legal, and social concerns, particularly when testing children is considered. The complexity of defining medical and psychosocial risks and benefits of genetic predisposition testing for multifactorial disorders, like cancer, is discussed. Presumed incompetence of children and adolescents and questionable ability of many adults to understand complex genetic information raise informed consent questions. Guidelines can aid professionals but there must also be a means of evaluating individual cases. Further research is needed to determine optimal methods of educating children and adults about genetic issues and to discriminate factors which contribute to satisfaction with decision-making about genetic testing. Legal issues and practical considerations are examined involving a duty to warn family members about genetic susceptibility and to re-contact previously-tested individuals as knowledge advances. Recommendations are offered concerning roles for social scientists and legal scholars in ethical integration of genetic testing into our medical and social framework.     

A Clinical Decision Support Tool to Predict Cancer Risk for Commonly Tested Cancer-Related Germline Mutations

The rapid drop in the cost of DNA sequencing led to the availability of multi-gene panels, which test 25 or more cancer susceptibility genes for a low cost. Clinicians and genetic counselors need a tool to interpret results, understand risk of various cancers, and advise on a management strategy. This is challenging as there are multiple studies regarding each gene, and it is not possible for clinicians and genetic counselors to be aware of all publications, nor to appreciate the relative accuracy and importance of each. Through an extensive literature review, we have identified reliable studies and derived estimates of absolute risk. We have also developed a systematic mechanism and informatics tools for (1) data curation, (2) the evaluation of quality of studies, and (3) the statistical analysis necessary to obtain risk. We produced the risk prediction clinical decision support tool ASK2ME (All Syndromes Known to Man Evaluator). It provides absolute cancer risk predictions for various hereditary cancer susceptibility genes. These predictions are specific to patients’ gene carrier status, age, and history of relevant prophylactic surgery. By allowing clinicians to enter patient information and receive patient-specific cancer risks, this tool aims to have a significant impact on the quality of precision cancer prevention and disease management activities relying on panel testing. It is important to note that this tool is dynamic and constantly being updated, and currently, some of its limitations include (1) for many gene-cancer associations risk estimates are based on one study rather than meta-analysis, (2) strong assumptions on prior cancers, (3) lack of uncertainty measures, and (4) risk estimates for a growing set of gene-cancer associations which are not always variant specific. All of these concerns are being addressed on an ongoing basis, aiming to make the tool even more accurate.     

Communication of Information about Genetic Risks: Putting Families at the Center

Genetic information is a family affair. With the expansion of genomic technologies, many new causal genes and variants have been established and the potential for molecular diagnoses increased, with implications not only for patients but also their relatives. The need for genetic counseling and intrafamilial circulation of information on genetic risks grew accordingly. Also, the amount and, particularly, the complexity of the information to convey multiplied. Sharing information about genetic risks with family members, however, has never been an easy matter and often becomes a source of personal and familial conflicts and distress. Ethical requisites generally prevent healthcare professionals from directly contacting their consultands' relatives (affected or still at risk), who often feel unsupported throughout that process. We discuss here the communication of genetic risks to family members. We first consider genomic testing as a basis for family‐centered health care, as opposed to a predominant focus on the individual. We reviewed the literature on sharing genetic risk information with family members, and the associated ethical issues for professionals. Some clinical cases are presented and discussed, and key issues for meeting the needs of individuals and families are addressed. We argue that genetic information is inextricably linked to the family and that communicating about genetic risks is a process grounded within the broader milieu of family relationships and functioning. We conclude for the need for a more family‐centered approach and interventions that can promote sensitive attitudes to the provision of genetic information to and within the family, as well as its inclusion in educational and training programmes for genetic healthcare professionals.     

Genetic Testing Integration Panels (GTIPs): A Novel Approach for Considering Integration of Direct-To-Consumer and Other New Genetic Tests into Patient Care

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of genetic tests available but few tests have practice guidelines. In addition, many tests have become available outside of clinical settings through direct-to-consumer (DTC) companies and several offer tests not considered standard of care. To address several practical challenges associated with the rapid introduction of clinical and DTC genetic tests, we propose that genetic counselors and geneticists organize expert panels in their institutions to discuss the integration of new tests into patient care. We propose the establishment of Genetic Testing Integration Panels (GTIPs) to bring together local experts in medical genetics, genetic counseling, bioethics and law, health communication and clinical laboratory genetics. We describe key features of this approach and consider some of the potential advantages and limitations of using a GTIP to address the many clinical challenges raised by rapidly emerging clinical and DTC genetic tests.     

Review of Commercially Available Epilepsy Genetic Panels

Next generation sequencing panels have revolutionized the diagnostic approach to patients with epilepsy. There are several commercial epilepsy panels available. We assessed the list of genes tested and consent forms for epilepsy panels available at seven laboratories. The panels varied in the number of genes included (70–465 genes). In some panels, genes not currently associated with epilepsy were included (up to 4 % of panel content). The panels also included genes for lysosomal storage disorders (6–12 %), congenital disorders of glycosylation (0–8.5 %), metabolic disorders (3.5–34 %), neurological syndromes (18–43 %) and multisystemic genetic syndromes (6.4–21 %). Informed consents differed significantly between laboratories ranging from basic information about genetic testing and possible results to information about insurance, genetic counseling and familial testing, and incidental findings.Our findings suggest that it is important to consider the range of genes offered on epilepsy panels and their predicted phenotypes in an effort toward improving the informed consent process.     

Privacy and the Human Genome Project

The Human Genome Project has raised many issues regarding the contributions of genetics to a variety of diseases and societal conditions. With genetic testing now easily conducted with lowered costs in nonmedical domains, a variety of privacy issues must be considered. Such testing will result in the loss of significant privacy rights for the individual. Society must now consider such issues as the ownership of genetic data, confidentiality rights to such information, limits placed on genetic screening, and legislation to control genetic testing and its applications. There is often a conflict between individual rights to privacy and the need for societal protection.     

Genetic testing and psychology. New roles, new responsibilities

Advances in genetics and genetic testing promise to catalyze a fundamental change in the practice of medicine. Psychologists have much to offer as psychotherapists, researchers, educators, and policymakers to a society heavily influenced by the genetic revolution. To make the most of new opportunities available to mental health professionals in genetics, psychologists must know basic genetic principles and learn what is new about 21st-century genetics. The core competencies for all health professionals developed by the National Coalition for Health Professional Education in Genetics are related in this article to the significant roles psychologists can play in helping individuals with genetic concerns to cope with vulnerability, optimize family interaction, and improve health behaviors.     

How Might the Genetics Profession Better Utilize Social Media

Social media is a common method of communication in people’s personal lives and professional settings. Gallagher et al. (2016) recommended, “it is time for genetic counselors to embrace social media as a means of communicating with patients or other healthcare professionals.” Full members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) in the USA and Canada and genetics patients in Cleveland, OH, were surveyed to determine interest in using social media for patient-provider interactions. Both cohorts indicated that patient privacy and confidentiality would be a concern; however, survey results indicated patients would be interested in using social media to receive general information about genetic counseling and to learn about genetics services. Genetic counselors indicated privacy issues were not concerning if social media were to be used in this capacity. The majority of genetic counselor participants (88.7%) indicated they would welcome national guidelines for patient-provider social media use. Data from this study demonstrated that sharing what to expect at a genetic counseling appointment, defining genetic counseling, and announcing community outreach events are possible ways genetic counselors could utilize social media to communicate with and educate patients.     

An Investigation of Genetic Counselors’ Testing Recommendations: Pedigree Analysis and the Use of Multiplex Breast Cancer Panel Testing

Genetic testing recommendations for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer involve pedigree analysis and consultation of testing guidelines. The testing landscape for hereditary cancer syndromes is shifting as multiplex panel tests become more widely integrated into clinical practice. The purpose of the current study was to assess how genetic counselors utilize pedigrees to make recommendations for genetic testing, to determine consistency of these recommendations with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines and to explore current use of multiplex panel testing. Sixty-nine genetic counselors were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group’s Discussion Forum. Participation involved pedigree analysis and completion of an online questionnaire assessing testing recommendations and use of multiplex panel testing. Pedigree analysis and test recommendations were scored for consistency with NCCN guidelines. The average score was 12.83/15 indicating strong consistency with NCCN guidelines. Participants were more likely to consider multiplex testing when pedigrees demonstrated highly penetrant dominant inheritance but were not indicative of a particular syndrome. Participant concerns about multiplex panel testing include limited guidelines for both testing eligibility and medical management. This study demonstrates high utilization of pedigree analysis and raises new questions about its use in multiplex genetic testing.     

Parkinson’s Disease: Patients’ Knowledge,Attitudes, and Interest in Genetic Counseling

The objective of this study was to assess the genetics knowledge of patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), and to explore their attitudes on genetic testing and interest in genetic counseling. We surveyed 158 patients from the University of Maryland Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center. Patients averaged a score of 63% on general genetics knowledge and 73% on PD genetics knowledge. Participants had an overall positive attitude toward genetic testing: 80% believed that the use of genetic tests among people should be promoted, and 83% would undertake genetic test for PD if it was available. Patients reported a high interest to discuss the benefits, risks, and impacts of genetic testing for PD (mean sum score?=?26, range?=?9–35), and 43% patients expressed interest in meeting with a genetic counselor. Multivariate regression analysis showed that patients who had more positive attitudes toward genetic testing for PD were more interested in meeting with a genetic counselor (β?=?0.6, p?<?0.001). This study is the first to demonstrate an interest in genetic counseling among patients with PD. Our findings demonstrate a new niche for genetic counselors to support patients in clarifying gaps or misconceptions in knowledge about PD genetics as well as the possible risks, benefits, and limitations of genetic testing.