Genomic Testing: a Genetic Counselor’s Personal Reflection on Three Years of Consenting and Testing

Whole exome sequencing (WES) is increasingly used in research and clinical genetics as the cost of sequencing decreases and the interpretation improves. Genetic counselors need to be prepared to counsel a diverse patient population for this complex test. This commentary is a reflection of one genetic counselor’s experiences in counseling, consenting, and returning results for clinical and research WES for over 120 participants and patients. She reflects on how she overcame the initial challenges and concerns of counseling for WES and how her counseling evolved from a teaching based counseling model to an interactive patient-center counseling model. Her insights are offered to prepare other genetic counselors for the growing use of genomic testing.     

Primary Care Physicians’ Awareness, Experience and Opinions of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

The purpose of this study was to assess primary care physicians’ awareness, experience, opinions and preparedness to answer patients’ questions regarding direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. An anonymous survey was mailed to 2,402 family and internal medicine providers in North Carolina. Of the 382 respondents, 38.7% (n = 148) were aware of and 15% (n = 59) felt prepared to answer questions about DTC genetic tests. Respondents aged 50 or older were more likely to be aware of DTC genetic testing than those less than 40 years old (OR = 2.42). Male providers were more likely to feel prepared to answer questions than female providers (OR = 2.65). Among respondents who reportedly were aware, family practitioners were more likely than internists (OR = 3.30) to think DTC testing was clinically useful, and 18.9% had patients ask questions or bring in test results. The small percent of physicians who were aware of DTC genetic testing or felt prepared to answer questions about it suggests that education of providers will be necessary if testing becomes more widespread.     

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.     

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.     

Facilitating Family Communication About Predictive Genetic Testing: Probands’ Perceptions

The responsibility of informing relatives that predictive genetic testing is available often falls to the proband. Support is required during this process, however the perceived utility of genetic counseling and other strategies to facilitate communication have not been explored. We investigated the experiences of 12 individuals with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) in a semistructured telephone interview. Respondents informed their immediate family about the availability of genetic testing, however many more-distant relatives were not directly informed. Respondents were mostly satisfied with the way they told family members about testing and had mixed views about the usefulness of genetic counseling. Gender differences were observed, with most men expressing a need for guidance or support in communicating to relatives. Letters and booklets were thought to enhance the quality of information but the provision of further aids is unlikely to increase the number of relatives made aware of predictive testing by the proband.     

Genetic Counselors’ Current Use of Personal Health Records-Based Family Histories in Genetic Clinics and Considerations for Their Future Adoption

Given the widespread adoption of electronic medical records and recent emergence of electronic family history tools, we examined genetic counselors’ perspectives on the emerging technology of the personal health record (PHR)-based family history tool that links to an electronic medical record (EMR). Two-hundred thirty-three genetic counselors responded to an on-line survey eliciting current use of electronic family history (EFH) tools and familiarity with PHR-based family history tools. Additionally, after being shown a series of screen shots of a newly developed PHR-based family history tool based on the U.S. Surgeon General’s My Family Health Portrait (United States Department of Health and Human Services 2009), participants were surveyed about the perceived usefulness, ease of use, and impact on current workflow that this kind of tool would have in their practices. Eighty-three percent reported that their institution has an EMR, yet only 35 % have a dedicated space for family history. Eighty-two percent reported that less than 5 % of their patients have a PHR, and only 16 % have worked with patients who have a PHR. Seventy-two percent or more agreed that a PHR-based family history tool would facilitate communication, increase accuracy of information, ensure consistency in recording information, increase focus on actual counseling, reduce repetitive questions, improve efficiency, and increase the legibility and clarity. Our findings suggest that participants were familiar with existing EFH tools, but that the majority did not use them in practice. Genetic counselors’ adoption of such tools is limited due to non-existence of this kind of technology or inability to integrate it into their clinics. They are also strongly in favor of adopting a PHR-based family history tool in genetics clinics, but have practical concerns that must be addressed before the tool can be implemented.     

Are Patient Rights to Information and Self-Determination in Diagnostic Genetic Testing Upheld? A Comparison Of Patients’ and Providers’ Perceptions

This study assessed how the patient’s right to receive information and the right to self-determination were followed during diagnostic testing, according to the perceptions of patients and parents of tested children (group 1, n = 106) and healthcare personnel (group 2, n = 162). Data were collected in three Finnish university hospitals using a questionnaire. Results revealed one between group difference: patients/parents agreed more strongly than did personnel that self-determination was followed before testing. Within groups included: patients/parents had stronger agreement that self-determination was followed before testing than after testing; personnel had stronger agreement about information received after testing than before testing, and they had weaker agreement about how well self-determination was followed before testing than after testing. Received information was experienced as similar both before and after testing and by patients/parents and by personnel. Providing adequate time to consider whether or not to be tested and giving more support to patients after testing would promote the rights of patients. Furthermore, assessment of personnel characteristics is needed to determine, for example, the kinds of value conflicts that exist between personnel’s own values and patients’ values.     

Changes in Specialists’ Perspectives on Cancer Genetic Testing,Prophylactic Surgery and Insurance Discrimination: Then and Now

We surveyed cancer genetics specialists in 1998 to learn what they would do if at 50 % risk to carry a BRCA or Lynch syndrome mutation. We chose to repeat our study 14 years later, to examine how perspectives have changed with the extensive data now available. In July 2012 we surveyed the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Cancer Special Interest Group via an internet based survey. We found statistically significant increases in the percentage of specialists who: would undergo BRCA testing (p?=?0.0006), opt for prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (p =0.0001), opt for prophylactic removal of their uterus and ovaries for Lynch syndrome (p =0.0057 and P?=?0.0090, respectively), and bill testing to insurance (p >0.0001). There were also statistically significant decreases in the percentage of participants who would have their colon removed for Lynch syndrome (p?=?0.0002) and use an alias when pursuing testing (p?>?0.0001). Over the past 14 years there has been a major change in perspective amongst cancer genetic specialists regarding genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination.     

Women’s Understanding and Attitudes towards Down Syndrome and Other Genetic Conditions in the Context of Prenatal Screening

In order to explore the impact of potential new technologies in the area of prenatal screening, we conducted a baseline study using qualitative interviews to explore women’s attitudes and knowledge regarding current and future prenatal screening technology and methods. Three cohorts were interviewed, including healthy women without children, healthy women with healthy children, and healthy women with children who have de novo genetic disorders. This study aimed to assess the baseline understanding and attitudes of women in Western Australia. Women from each cohort demonstrated adequate knowledge of the differences between screening and diagnostic tests, but were mostly unaware of the conditions for which screening is currently available except Down syndrome. Women who had children with de novo genetic conditions were generally aware of more genetic conditions than women with or without healthy children. Most women recognised the genetic basis for the conditions mentioned. Two thirds of women understood that Down syndrome is a chromosomal condition; just one third recognised that the phenotype is variable. Most women expressed a positive attitude towards Down syndrome. Social acceptance of children with Down syndrome was commonly mentioned as a concern. While the majority of women with children supported screening for Down syndrome, they emphasised that it must be an autonomous choice. General knowledge of genetic conditions illustrated that women are exposed to diverse conditions from lived experience as well as the media.     

A Collaborative Approach to Genetic Testing: A Community Hospital’s Experience

The field of cancer genetics is evolving rapidly, and much has changed over the past ten years in the way services are being provided and by whom they are being provided. We recount here our experience with the evolution of cancer genetic services in a community setting, focusing on collaboration with non-genetics providers to offer genetic testing for hereditary cancer. This approach allows for the most effective use of genetic counselors’ expertise for challenging cases, and enables the patient to remain within their community to allow for better access to resources for long-term follow-up.     

Genetic Counselors’ Perceived Responsibilities Regarding Reproductive Issues for Patients at Risk for Huntington Disease

Research indicates that health care professionals’ attitudes may affect patients’ decisions regarding prenatal Huntington Disease testing, but few studies have sampled genetic counselors. In this qualitative study, genetic counselors described their experiences counseling individuals at risk for HD regarding reproductive decision-making. Five major research questions were investigated: 1) What are genetic counselor responsibilities? 2) What issues arise for patients and counselors? 3) How do counselors reconcile prenatal testing with presymptomatic testing? 4) To what extent are counselors’ initial expectations of at-risk patients’ beliefs and behaviors met? and 5) What advice would counselors offer to novice practitioners about working with this patient population? Fifteen genetic counselors experienced in counseling individuals at risk for HD participated in a semi-structured phone interview that yielded several themes. For example, participants identified their primary responsibility as information provision; less prevalent were psychosocial support and facilitating decision making. The most common ethical challenge was testing prenatally for HD which also results in presymptomatic testing of minors. Participants were divided about how directive to be in response to this ethical issue and about termination of a gene positive pregnancy.     

Development of a Streamlined Work Flow for Handling Patients’ Genetic Testing Insurance Authorizations

Obtaining genetic testing insurance authorizations for patients is a complex, time-involved process often requiring genetic counselor (GC) and physician involvement. In an effort to mitigate this complexity and meet the increasing number of genetic testing insurance authorization requests, GCs formed a novel partnership with an industrial engineer (IE) and a patient services associate (PSA) to develop a streamlined work flow. Eight genetics clinics and five specialty clinics at the University of Michigan were surveyed to obtain benchmarking data. Tasks needed for genetic testing insurance authorization were outlined and time-saving work flow changes were introduced including 1) creation of an Excel password-protected shared database between GCs and PSAs, used for initiating insurance authorization requests, tracking and follow-up 2) instituting the PSAs sending GCs a pre-clinic email noting each patients’ genetic testing insurance coverage 3) inclusion of test medical necessity documentation in the clinic visit summary note instead of writing a separate insurance letter and 4) PSAs development of a manual with insurance providers and genetic testing laboratories information. These work flow changes made it more efficient to request and track genetic testing insurance authorizations for patients, enhanced GCs and PSAs communication, and reduced tasks done by clinicians.     

Genetic Testing Likelihood: The Impact of Abortion Views and Quality of Life Information on Women’s Decisions

Little is known about factors predicting the likelihood of choosing genetic testing in college aged women versus older women, including knowledge of quality of life (QOL) associated with a disorder. Using vignettes with female college students (Experiment 1: n = 257, mean age = 19.70 yrs) and female faculty/staff/alumni (Experiment 2: n _nulliparous = 83, mean age = 30.20 yrs; n _mothers = 53, mean age = 33.77 yrs), we examined the contribution of multiple factors to predicting genetic testing likelihood for cystic fibrosis. We investigated malleable situational factors (style of genetic risk presentation and providing QOL information including physical and social aspects) and stable dispositional factors (abortion views). Parity (i.e., prior births) was more influential in women’s genetic testing likelihood than was age. Greater acceptability of abortion for oneself and self-assessed knowledge following QOL information were predictors of higher testing likelihood for college students. Greater acceptability of abortion for another person was a predictor for nulliparous women. Abortion views moderated the effect of predictors for nulliparous women and mothers. Findings encourage genetic counselors to utilize QOL information to promote informed decision making through genetic testing.     

Midwives’ Approach to Genetic Diseases and Genetic Counseling in Denizli, Turkey

The purpose of this study was to evaluate Denizli midwives’ self-reported knowledge of genetic diseases and genetic counseling. Data was collected on forms that obtained information about midwives approaches to basic genetics, genetic disorders, and genetic counseling (response rate = 70.1%). The highest response rate of midwives describing themselves as “knowledgeable” about basic genetic information was for mitosis and meiosis with 4.8%, about genetic disorders was for phenylketonuria with 61.1%, and about genetic counseling was for recommending ultrasonography during pregnancy with 98.1%. The source for basic genetics information for 56.4% of participants was in their school level classes. None of the midwives felt that they had sufficient knowledge about genetic counseling or screening and 76.4% would like to attend an educational course. Even though the midwives have recognized their knowledge deficit they occasionally give genetic counseling. As a result of this study a genetics course is planned for midwives so they can actively participate in the prevention and early diagnosis of genetic diseases.     

A Comparison of Telephone Genetic Counseling and In-Person Genetic Counseling from the Genetic Counselor’s Perspective

Growing demand for and limited geographic access to genetic counseling services is increasing the need for alternative service delivery models (SDM) like telephone genetic counseling (TGC). Little research has been done on genetic counselors’ perspectives of the practice of TGC. We created an anonymous online survey to assess whether telephone genetic counselors believed the tasks identified in the ABGC (American Board of Genetic Counseling) Practice Analysis were performed similarly or differently in TGC compared to in person genetic counseling (IPGC). If there were differences noted, we sought to determine the nature of the differences and if additional training might be needed to address them. Eighty eight genetic counselors with experience in TGC completed some or all of the survey. Respondents identified differences in 13 (14.8 %) of the 88 tasks studied. The tasks identified as most different in TGC were: “establishing rapport through verbal and nonverbal interactions” (60.2 %; 50/83 respondents identified the task as different), “recognizing factors affecting the counseling interaction” (47.8 %; 32/67), “assessing client/family emotions, support, etc.” (40.1 %; 27/66) and “educating clients about basic genetic concepts” (35.6 %; 26/73). A slight majority (53.8 %; 35/65) felt additional training was needed to communicate information without visual aids and more effectively perform psychosocial assessments. In summary, although a majority of genetic counseling tasks are performed similarly between TGC and IPGC, TGC counselors recognize that specific training in the TGC model may be needed to address the key differences.