Angela Trepanier

Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

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 extensivereview 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 provid 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 providers professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.

Essential Elements of Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment, Counseling, and Testing: Updated Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Updated from their original publication in 2004, these cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of counseling at-risk individuals through genetic 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 Familial Cancer Risk 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. Essential components include the intake, cancer risk assessment, genetic testing for an inherited cancer syndrome, informed consent, disclosure of genetic test results, and psychosocial assessment. 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.

The Scientific Foundation for Personal Genomics: Recommendations from a National Institutes of Health–Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Multidisciplinary Workshop

The increasing availability of personal genomic tests has led to discussions about the validity and utility of such tests and the balance of benefits and harms. A multidisciplinary workshop was convened by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the scientific foundation for using personal genomics in risk assessment and disease prevention and to develop recommendations for targeted research. The clinical validity and utility of personal genomics is a moving target with rapidly developing discoveries but little translation research to close the gap between discoveries and health impact. Workshop participants made recommendations in five domains: (1) developing and applying scientific standards for assessing personal genomic tests; (2) developing and applying a multidisciplinary research agenda, including observational studies and clinical trials to fill knowledge gaps in clinical validity and utility; (3) enhancing credible knowledge synthesis and information dissemination to clinicians and consumers; (4) linking scientific findings to evidence-based recommendations for use of personal genomics; and (5) assessing how the concept of personal utility can affect health benefits, costs, and risks by developing appropriate metrics for evaluation. To fulfill the promise of personal genomics, a rigorous multidisciplinary research agenda is needed.

Quantifying the carrier female phenotype in Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease.

Purpose: Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease and spastic paraplegia type 2 are allelic X-linked disorders that principally affect males and are caused by mutations in the proteolipid protein 1 gene. Neurologic symptoms are occasionally observed in carrier females, and anecdotal evidence suggests that these clinical signs are more likely in families with affected males. We analyze 40 pedigrees to determine whether such a link exists.Methods: From a chart review of patients from Wayne State University, we categorize patients according to disease severity and type of genetic lesion within the proteolipid protein 1 gene. We then analyze the clinical data using nonparametric t tests and analyses of variance.Results: Our analyses formally demonstrate the link between mild disease in males and symptoms in carrier female relatives. Conversely, mutations causing severe disease in males rarely cause clinical signs in carrier females. The greatest risk of disease in females is found for nonsense/indel or null mutations. Missense mutations carry moderate risk. The lowest risk, which represents the bulk of families with Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease, is associated with proteolipid protein 1 gene duplications.Conclusions: Effective genetic counseling of Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease and spastic paraplegia carrier females must include an assessment of disease severity in affected male relatives.

Neuroradiologic correlates of clinical disability and progression in the X-linked leukodystrophy Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease.

OBJECTIVE To determine whether quantitative measure of magnetic resonance imaging data from patients with the inherited leukodystrophy, Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease (PMD) correlates with clinical severity or progression. METHODS In our current work we have analyzed the clinical phenotypes and MRI scans of 51 male patients with PMD and 10 female carriers for whom the PLP1 genotype had been determined. In addition, we developed a 32-point functional disability scoring (FDS) system for PMD, and validated it for inter-rater reliability. Using conventional T1- and T2-weighted MRI images of the whole brain, we measured white matter and total brain volume (WMV and TBV), inter-caudate ratio (ICR), and corpus callosum area. RESULTS There was a significant positive correlation of FDS with white matter fraction (WMV/TBV) and corpus callosum area. Also, when applying a median split based on FDS, patients with lower FDS showed reduced white matter fraction and corpus callosum area, and increased ICR compared to patients with relatively higher FDS, regardless of age. CONCLUSION Although this patient population is heterogeneous, with multiple genetic and molecular mechanisms causing PMD, these data imply that white matter atrophy is a major pathological determinant of the clinical disability in most patients. Development of reliable non-invasive quantitative biomarkers of disease activity would be useful not only for following the natural history of the disease, but also raising the potential for evaluating future therapies.

A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling

As healthcare reimbursement is increasingly tied to value-of-service, it is critical for the genetic counselor (GC) profession to demonstrate the value added by GCs through outcomes research. We conducted a rapid systematic literature review to identify outcomes of genetic counseling. Web of Science (including PubMed) and CINAHL databases were systematically searched to identify articles meeting the following criteria: 1) measures were assessed before and after genetic counseling (pre-post design) or comparisons were made between a GC group vs. a non-GC group (comparative cohort design); 2) genetic counseling outcomes could be assessed independently of genetic testing outcomes, and 3) genetic counseling was conducted by masters-level genetic counselors, or non-physician providers. Twenty-three papers met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were in the cancer genetic setting and the most commonly measured outcomes included knowledge, anxiety or distress, satisfaction, perceived risk, genetic testing (intentions or receipt), health behaviors, and decisional conflict. Results suggest that genetic counseling can lead to increased knowledge, perceived personal control, positive health behaviors, and improved risk perception accuracy as well as decreases in anxiety, cancer-related worry, and decisional conflict. However, further studies are needed to evaluate a wider array of outcomes in more diverse genetic counseling settings.

Adapting genetic counseling training to the genomic era: more an evolution than a revolution.

Genetic counselors, like other healthcare professionals, are continually challenged to keep abreast of up-todate, evidence-based information regarding their practice. In particular, we are tasked with trying to keep pace with technological advancements in genomics. Without a doubt, the content covered in our graduate and continuing education curriculum with regard to genetic screening and testing has significantly changed over time. In 20 years, we have seen maternal serum screening for aneuploidy transition from a single analyte second trimester blood test to a multi-analyte first and/or second trimester test that can include a nuchal translucency measurement to DNA-based non-invasive prenatal screening. We have seen cytogenetic analysis move beyond the identification of aneuploidies and large structural defects to comprehensive chromosomal microarray analyses. Testing for relatively common single gene disorders like Fragile X syndrome, Huntington disease, and cystic fibrosis has changed dramatically. Furthermore, gone are the days of having to wait months for the results of the Sanger sequence analysis of a single gene. Now, next-generation panel tests can provide a plethora of information in just a few short weeks. The introduction of each of these technological advances required adjustments to our genetic counseling curriculum and continuing education programs. But one of the strengths of our profession is that we are trained in fundamental core genetic counseling competencies that can be applied across diverse practice settings and readily adapted to changes in practice brought forth by new technologies. As a result, even in the face of these rather significant changes, the four domains that define the competencies of genetic counselors: genetics expertise and analysis; interpersonal, psychosocial, and counseling skills; education; and professional development and practice (Accreditation Council of Genetic Counseling 2013a, b) have remained largely the same. As new technology is adopted, it is critically important for program directors and practicing professionals to evaluate whether fundamental changes in genetic counselors’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and ultimately genetic counseling practice, are required. In this issue Hooker et al. (2013) discuss the significant challenges of integrating genomics into the training of genetic counseling students and practicing professionals. We agree with many of the points made by the authors, however, we assert that these are no more significant than the other challenges we have faced with incorporating new content in the program curriculum. In addition, Hooker et al. discuss that large-scale, clinical genomic sequencing results in a paradigm shift in the practice of medical genetics. We struggle with the term “paradigm shift” given that the definition of a paradigm shift is “a radical change in underlying beliefs or theories,” (Collins English Dictionary 2014). The scale of information provided by genomic sequencing definitely poses challenges in areas such as pre-test informed consent as well as interpretation and disclosure of test results. But do these challenges truly constitute a paradigm shift or are these just the same issues we have faced in the past but on a much larger scale and in a slightly different context? We believe that it is the latter. Anytime new technology is implemented in clinical care, new content must be added to the existing training curriculum and continuing education programs. It may be important to expand specific topics, change the emphasis, and/or present information from a different frame of reference, but the foundation to do so should already be in place. For instance with C. Wicklund (*) Center for Genetic Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 676 N. St. Clair, Suite 1280, Chicago, IL 60611, USA e-mail: c-wicklund@northwestern.edu

Genetic testing practices for Charcot–Marie–Tooth type 1A disease

Introduction: Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease type 1A (CMT1A) is caused by a PMP22 gene duplication. CMT1A has a robust electrical phenotype that can be used to direct genetic testing. We compared specialty CMT center CMT1A diagnosis rates to those of outside physicians. Methods: Charts were reviewed for 102 patients with CMT1A seen at a specialty CMT clinic between 2001 and 2009. Nerve conduction studies, family history, date of genetic testing, and type of genetic testing (single gene vs. panel) were collected. Results: Although the specialty clinic ordered more PMP22 duplication testing alone beginning at an earlier year, thereby reducing costs, both the specialty clinic and outside physicians began the decade doing panel testing and ended the decade looking at only PMP22. Conclusions: Specialty centers adapt earlier to changes in testing practice than non‐specialty centers. As the landscape of genetic testing changes, the algorithms for testing will also likely change. Muscle Nerve 49:478–482, 2014

Perceptions of Licensure: A Survey of Michigan Genetic Counselors

This study by the Michigan Genetic Counselor Licensure Committee is the first known published documentation of genetic counselors’ beliefs and attitudes about licensure. The response rate from genetic counselors in Michigan was 66% (41/62). Ninety-five percent of respondents were supportive of licensure. Respondents believed licensure would legitimize genetic counseling as a distinct allied healthcare profession (97.5%), increase the public’s protection (75%), and allow genetic counselors to practice independently (67%). While 45% felt licensure would increase counselor involvement in lawsuits, this did not impact licensure support (p = 0.744). Opinions were split regarding physician supervision and ordering tests. Even though 28% favored physician supervision, there was overwhelming support for genetic counselors performing some components of genetic testing (95%) and ordering some types of genetic tests (82%) independent of a physician. Use of this survey may be helpful in other states to assess genetic counselors’ interest in licensure and for drafting legislation.

Developing a Model of Advanced Training to Promote Career Advancement for Certified Genetic Counselors: An Investigation of Expanded Skills, Advanced Training Paths, and Professional Opportunities

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.