Reproductive Endocrinologists’ Utilization of Genetic Counselors for Oncofertility and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Treatment of <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA1/2</Emphasis> Mutation Carriers

Genetic counselors believe fertility preservation and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) discussions to be a part of their role when counseling BRCA1/2 mutation-positive patients. This study is the first to explore reproductive endocrinologists’ (REI) practices and attitudes regarding involvement of genetic counselors in the care of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers seeking fertility preservation and PGD. A survey was mailed to 1000 REIs from Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility (SREI), an American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) affiliate group. A 14.5 % response rate was achieved; data was analyzed using SPSS software. The majority of participating REIs were found to recommend genetic counseling to cancer patients considering fertility preservation (82 %) and consult with a genetic counselor regarding PGD for hereditary cancer syndromes (92 %). Additionally, REIs consult genetic counselors regarding PGD patient counseling (88 %), genetic testing (78 %), and general genetics questions (66 %). Two areas genetic counselors may further aid REIs are: elicitation of family history, which is useful to determine fertility preservation and PGD intervention timing (32 % of REIs utilize a cancer family history to determine intervention timing); and, interpretation of variants of uncertain significance (VOUS) as cancer panel genetic testing becomes more common (36 % of REIs are unfamiliar with VOUS). Given our findings, the Oncofertility Consortium® created an online resource for genetic counselors focused on fertility preservation education and communication strategies.     

Patient Perspectives on Intimate Partner Violence Discussion during Genetic Counseling Sessions

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major health concern in the United States (ACOG 2013). The World Health Organization (WHO) describes IPV as any physical, sexual, psychological harm by a current or former intimate partner (WHO 2016). Due to the psychosocial depth and nature of discussions within genetic counseling sessions, patients may disclose and/or discuss IPV as it relates to sexual well-being, reproductive and overall health. This study aims to assess the role for IPV screening, counseling and intervention in genetic counseling practice by investigating the incidence, experiences and attitudes about IPV among genetic counseling patients. Patients receiving genetic counseling at an urban metropolitan hospital were anonymously surveyed about experiences and perspectives on IPV as a topic of discussion during genetic counseling sessions. Among 60 eligible patients, 50 completed the survey (49 females, 1 male, of which, 5 identified as LGBT) ages 20 to 66. The incidence of IPV in this group was 16.0 % (n = 8). Majority of participants had never been asked about IPV by a healthcare provider (n = 32; 64.0%), would have felt comfortable answering questions about IPV by their healthcare provider (n = 34; 68.0%), and would have felt comfortable answering questions about IPV by their genetic counselor (n = 39; 78.0%). Perspectives from all participants, notably those with IPV history, provided insights to the role of genetic counselors in areas for IPV screening and counseling training.     

Linking Genetic Counseling Content to Short-Term Outcomes in Individuals at Elevated Breast Cancer Risk

Few studies have linked actual genetic counseling content to short-term outcomes. Using the Self-regulation Model, the impact of cognitive and affective content in genetic counseling on short-term outcomes was studied in individuals at elevated risk of familial breast-ovarian cancer. Surveys assessed dependent variables: distress, perceived risk, and 6 knowledge measures (Meaning of Positive Test; Meaning of Negative Test; Personal Behavior; Practitioner Knowledge; Mechanisms of Cancer Inheritance; Frequency of Inherited Cancer) measured at pre- and post-counseling. Proportion of participant cognitive and affective and counselor cognitive and affective content during sessions (using LIWC software) were predictors in regressions. Knowledge increased for 5 measures and decreased for Personal Behavior, Distress and Perceived Risk. Controlling for age and education, results were significant/marginally significant for three measures. More counselor content was associated with decreases in knowledge of Personal Behavior. More participant and less counselor affective content was associated with gains in Practitioner Knowledge. More counselor cognitive, and interaction of counselor cognitive and affective content, were associated with higher perceived risk. Genetic counselors dominate the content of counseling sessions. Therefore, their content is tied more closely to short term outcomes than participant content. A lack of patient communication in sessions may pose problems for understanding of complex concepts.     

The Experience of Genetic Counselors Working with Patients Facing the Decision of Pregnancy Termination after 24 Weeks Gestation

Prenatal genetic counselors are health care professionals who counsel women making reproductive decisions which include decisions such as terminating pregnancies due to fetal anomalies. Little is known about the experiences and practices of prenatal genetic counselors working with women who have the option of termination after 24 weeks gestation. In this national survey of 168 genetic counselors who have practiced prenatal genetic counseling, we asked about their general practice patterns, including indications for which termination is offered and types of abortion care services that are coordinated by genetic counselors. We report respondents’ self-assessments of level of understanding of federal abortion law and abortion procedures. Seventy-six percent of respondents have offered and counseled on termination after 24 weeks and 93% of respondents believe it is the responsibility of the counselor to discuss this option with patients. However, one-third report that they have some or no understanding of the procedures and three-quarters report that they have some or no understanding of federal abortion law. The results of this study provide insight into knowledge and experiences of genetic counselors working with these patients, allowing for improved genetic counselor training and continuing education to provide better guidance and develop more effective means of assisting patients.     

The Effect of Genetic Counseling for Adult Offspring of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes on Attitudes Toward Diabetes and its Heredity: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of diabetes genetic counseling on attitudes toward diabetes and its heredity in relatives of type 2 diabetes patients. This study was an unmasked, randomized controlled trial at a medical check-up center in Japan. Subjects in this study are healthy adults between 30 and 60 years of age who have a family history of type 2 diabetes in their first degree relatives. Participants in the intervention group received a brief genetic counseling session for approximately 10 min. Genetic counseling was structured based on the Health Belief Model. Both intervention and control groups received a booklet for general diabetes prevention. Risk perception and recognition of diabetes, and attitude towards its prevention were measured at baseline, 1 week and 1 year after genetic counseling. Participants who received genetic counseling showed significantly higher recognition about their sense of control over diabetes onset than control group both at 1 week and 1 year after the session. On the other hand, anxiety about diabetes did not change significantly. The findings show that genetic counseling for diabetes at a medical check center helped adults with diabetes family history understand they are able to exert control over the onset of their disease through lifestyle modification.     

Lifestyle Risk Factors Among People Who Have Had Cancer Genetic Testing

Hereditary cancer genetic counseling often focuses on medically intensive risk-reduction strategies, like imaging and risk-reducing surgeries. Lifestyle factors also influence cancer risk, but health behavior counseling is not common in genetic counseling. Information about typical lifestyle risk factors among patients seeking hereditary cancer risk is sparse. The current study describes cancer risk-relevant lifestyle factors for people who have had cancer genetic testing. Data came from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 4) collected in 2013. Analytic variables represented American Cancer Society nutrition and physical activity guidelines. Lifestyle factors were assessed for people who had undergone testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, or Lynch Syndrome genes. Among 3016 HINTS respondents, 135 had cancer genetic testing. Of these, 58 % were overweight or obese. Eighteen percent reported no moderate-intensity physical activity. Average sedentary screen-time was 3.4 h (SE = 0.472) daily. Sixty-three percent drank non-diet soda, and 23 % of these people drank soda every day. Between 18 and 36 % consumed less than 2 ½ cups fruits/vegetables daily. Twenty-four percent were current smokers. Lifestyle risk factors were not different between people who had genetic testing and those who had not. In conclusion, most people who had genetic testing for cancer susceptibility have at least one modifiable risk factor. Genetic counselors have opportunities to impact a counselee’s cancer risk not only through risk-tailored medical procedures, but also through lifestyle modification recommendations. Results of the current study may foster a broader discussion of genetic counselors’ roles in healthy lifestyle education.     

Consideration of Genetic Counseling as a Career: Implications for Diversifying the Genetic Counseling Field

Under-representation of racial/ethnic minority counselors has been an ongoing issue in the genetic counseling field. A better understanding of genetic counseling awareness and career consideration may help to increase the number of applicants to genetic counseling training programs from racial/ethnic minorities. This study sampled high school and college students (n = 233) to examine their awareness and perceptions of genetic counseling. Ethnicity, gender, parental level of education, and interest in biology were significant predictors of a subjects genetic counseling awareness; previous awareness of genetic counseling, interest in psychology, and level of education were significant predictors of whether a subject would consider genetic counseling as a career. The findings suggest that knowledge of genetic counseling is lower among racial/ethnic minorities, but that racial/ethnic minorities are just as likely to consider genetic counseling as a career. Awareness of genetic counseling prior to university education may increase racial/ethnic minority representation among potential applicants to genetic counseling training programs.     

An Exploration of Genetic Counselors’ Needs and Experiences with Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Testing

Because of the higher yield over traditional chromosomal analysis, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is being used increasingly in prenatal diagnosis. Unfortunately, the clinical implication of many copy number variants found on prenatal CMA is uncertain, complicating genetic counseling. Recognizing that uncertain results will be encountered frequently as more of the genome is assayed prenatally, we set out to understand the experiences and needs of genetic counselors when counseling patients about uncertain prenatal microarray results, their comfort with various aspects of prenatal genetic counseling, and their interest in additional education and training about prenatal microarray testing. We first interviewed 10 genetic counselors about their experiences of providing pre- and post-test genetic counseling about prenatal CMA. Based on the findings from the counselor interviews, we developed items for a survey to assess the prevalence of genetic counselors’ attitudes towards, experience and comfort with, and educational needs regarding prenatal CMA. Based on surveys completed by 193 prenatal genetic counselors, we found that when there is an uncertain CMA result, only 59 % would be comfortable providing genetic counseling and only 43 % would be comfortable helping a patient make a decision about pregnancy termination. Being less comfortable was associated with seeing fewer patients having prenatal CMA testing. Respondents expressed a high degree of interest in additional education about prenatal CMA and counseling about uncertain results. Further genetic counselor education and training aimed at improving counselors’ personal comfort with uncertain results and communicating about them with patients is needed.     

Clinical Cardiovascular Genetic Counselors Take a Leading Role in Team-based Variant Classification

We sought to delineate the genetic test review and interpretation practices of clinical cardiovascular genetic counselors. A one-time anonymous online survey was taken by 46 clinical cardiovascular genetic counselors recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cardiovascular Special Interest Group. Nearly all (95.7%) gather additional information on variants reported on clinical genetic test reports and most (81.4%) assess the classification of such variants. Clinical cardiovascular genetic counselors typically (81.0%) classify variants in collaboration with cardiologist and/or geneticist colleagues, with the genetic counselor as the team member who is primarily responsible. Variant classification is a relatively recent (mean 3.2 years) addition to practice. Most genetic counselors learned classification skills on the job from clinical and laboratory colleagues. Recent graduates were more likely to have learned this in graduate school (p?<?0.001). Genetic counselors are motivated to take responsibility for the classification of variants because of prior experiences with variant reclassification, inconsistencies between laboratories, and incomplete laboratory reports. They are also driven by a sense of professional duty and their proximity to the clinical context. This practice represents a broadening of the skill set of clinical cardiovascular genetic counselors and a unique expertise that they contribute to the interdisciplinary teams in which they work.     

Genetic Counseling for Fanconi Anemia: Crosslinking Disciplines

Fanconi anemia (FA) is the most common of the inherited bone marrow failure syndromes with an incidence of approximately 1/100,000 to 1/200,000 live births. FA is a genetically complex and phenotypically heterogeneous condition involving birth defects, bone marrow failure, and cancer predisposition. This rare disease became well known in the genetic counseling community in 2002, when it was identified that biallelic mutations in BRCA2 can cause FA. Knowledge gained from the growing association between FA and breast cancer pathways has brought even more light to the complex genetic issues that arise when counseling families affected by this disease. Genetic counseling issues surrounding a diagnosis of FA affect many different disciplines. This review will serve as a way to cross-link the various topics important to genetic counselors that arise throughout the life of a patient with FA. Issues covered will include: an overview of FA, phenotypic presentation, management and treatment, the genetics and inheritance of FA, cytogenetic and molecular testing options, and the risks to family members of an individual with FA.     

Elucidating Genetic Counseling Outcomes from the Perspective of Genetic Counselors

Outcomes in the field of genetic counseling have not been well-defined or categorized, despite pressures to provide evidence-based measures in all areas of healthcare. This study describes a process to elucidate and categorize a wide-ranging set of outcomes as characterized by diverse groups of practicing genetic counselors. Semi-structured focus groups were conducted at the National Society of Genetic Counselors 2013 NSGC Annual Education Conference during an educational breakout session. A general inductive qualitative research approach was utilized to code focus group notes, categorize them into themes, and compare them across specialty groups. A total of 107 individuals participated in 14 focus groups, consisting of specialists in cancer (n = 20), general genetics (n = 40), prenatal genetics (n = 11), and “other” (n = 36). Of the twelve genetic counseling outcomes themes identified, the most common across focus groups included: 1) appropriateness of testing and accuracy of results interpretation; 2) psychosocial outcomes; 3) adherence to or receipt of appropriate medical management; and 4) patient and provider knowledge. Data assessed by specialty demonstrated similarities in outcomes themes, suggesting that a common set of genetic counseling outcomes would likely be appropriate to cover the majority of needs for the profession. Results can serve as a platform from which to build a more well-defined and comprehensive set of outcomes.     

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.     

Assessment of Current Genetic Counselor Practices in Post-Visit Written Communications to Patients

Providing patients with post-visit written communication (PVWC) is a long-standing component of genetic counseling. However the depiction of this practice in today’s clinical landscape is limited. To better describe this practice, we surveyed practicing clinical genetic counselors to ask if they send post-visit communications to patients and if so, what are the types, the average length, and the average time spent writing. They were also asked the perceived purpose of providing PVWC, if/how the practice has changed over time, and factors influencing the practice. Eighty three percent (233/280) of participants reported sending patients PVWC. Of those, 93% sent at least one communication written in patient-friendly language. The type of communication varied by specialty. Prenatal genetic counselors were less likely to send patient-specific letters and hybrid letters (defined as letters with content intended for both a physician and a patient) than those in cancer genetics (p = 0.010, p = 0.001, respectively) or pediatric genetics (p = 0.001, p = 0.004, respectively). Prenatal genetic counselors spent less time on average writing post-visit communications (19.0 min) relative to those in cancer and pediatric genetics (30.6 min, p = 0.027 and 37.7 min, p = 0.001, respectively). The most commonly cited purpose for sending PVWC was to provide patients a formal account of what happened during the appointment. These data suggest PWVC are still regularly sent to patients but the practice is variable and is influenced by numerous factors including specialty, years of experience, and time constraints.     

Genetic Counseling in the Era of Genomics: What’s all the Fuss about?

As genomic sequencing becomes more widely available in clinical settings for diagnostic purposes, a number of genetic counseling issues are gaining precedence. The ability to manage these issues will be paramount as genetic and non-genetic healthcare professionals navigate the complexities of using genomic technologies to facilitate diagnosis and inform patient management. Counseling issues arising when counseling for diagnostic genomic sequencing were identified by four genetic counselors with 10 years of collective experience providing genetic counseling in this setting. These issues were discussed and refined at a meeting of genetic counselors working in clinical genomics settings in Melbourne, Australia. Emerging counseling issues, or variations of established counseling issues, were identified from the issues raised. Illustrative cases were selected where pre- and post-test genetic counseling was provided in clinical settings to individuals who received singleton or trio WES with targeted analysis. Counseling issues discussed in this paper include a reappraisal of how genetic counselors manage hope in the genomic era, informed consent for secondary use of genomic data, clinical reanalysis of genomic data, unexpected or unsolicited secondary findings, and trio sequencing. The authors seek to contribute to the evolving understanding of genetic counseling for diagnostic genomic sequencing through considering the applicability of existing genetic counseling competencies to managing emerging counseling issues and discussing genetic counseling practice implications.     

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.     

Clinical and Counseling Experiences of Early Adopters of Whole Exome Sequencing

Currently, there are limited data regarding the practice of genetic counseling for whole exome sequencing (WES). Improved understanding of how genetic counselors and other providers are educating, counseling, and communicating results may identify practice trends, and patient or provider needs. Between April 2013 and December 2014, we surveyed providers who ordered WES testing from GeneDx, a CLIA-certified laboratory. Forty-nine respondents completed the survey; 41 % of participants reported board certification in genetic counseling. Pre-test and post-test counseling was completed in all but one case each. Pre-test counseling lasted less than 1 h for 53 % of cases and 1 to 2 h for 43 %. Topics discussed with all patients included consent for testing, and incidental findings; other topics were variable. In contrast to pre-test counseling, 59 % reported post-test counseling lasting 1 to 2 h and 33 % less than an hour; post-testing counseling was significantly longer in cases with a definitive diagnosis than those without (p?=?0.0129). The survey findings indicate some variability regarding the amount of time spent on counseling and the topics discussed during pre-test counseling. Additional exploration, patient and provider educational resources, and potentially more specific guidelines regarding counseling for WES may be warranted.     

Genetic Counselor Workforce Issues: a Survey of Genetic Counselors Licensed in the State of Indiana

The aims of this study were to document movement of genetic counselors (GCs) out of clinical positions and identify factors that might help employers attract and retain clinical GCs. A confidential on-line survey of GCs ever licensed in the state of Indiana was conducted. Of the 46 respondents, most provide direct patient care (69.6 %), have worked in their current position for 5 years or less (72.1 %), and are experienced genetic counselors, having graduated between 6 and 15 years ago (43.5 %). One-third (32.6 %) reported thinking about leaving their current position at least monthly. GCs were more likely to think about leaving their current position when they provided direct patient care (p = 0.04) and worked in a hospital/clinic setting (p = 0.01). Among the 18 respondents that changed jobs in the past two years, 55.6 % currently work in a laboratory/industry setting and 44.4 % provide direct patient care, compared to 8 % of those in a stable position (N = 25) who work in a laboratory/industry setting (p < 0.01) and 88 % who provide direct patient care (p < 0.01). Genetic counselors who have changed jobs within the past 2 years were more satisfied with the possibility for advancement (p = 0.01), the recognition for work they do (p = 0.03) and feeling value from the organization (p = 0.04) in their current positions than those who have not changed jobs. Salary and flexibility were most often reported as reasons for changing jobs. This is the first documentation of the movement of GCs out of clinical roles into industry positions. This changing landscape may impact the access to clinical services and the training of genetic counseling students. This data will provide employers with data to help attract and retain GCs in clinical roles.