Search

The government-funded 'Punjab Thalassaemia Prevention Project' (PTPP) in Pakistan includes cascade screening for biological relatives of children with beta-Thalassaemia Major (β-TM). However, there is low uptake of cascade screening. This paper presents the (i) development of a paper-based 'decision support intervention for relatives' (DeSIRe) to enable PTPP Field Officers to facilitate informed decision making about carrier testing, and (ii) assessment of the feasibility and acceptability of the DeSIRe. The intervention was developed using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards quality criteria and Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Twelve focus groups were conducted (September and October 2020) to explore the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and relatives of children with β-TM, in six cities. The focus groups were attended by 117 participants (60 HCPs and 57 relatives). Thematic analysis showed that the DeSIRe was considered acceptable for supporting relatives to make informed decisions about cascade screening, and potentially feasible for use in clinical practice. Suggestions for changing some words, the structure and adding information about how carrier testing relates to consanguineous marriages will enable further development of the DeSIRe. Participants generally welcomed the DeSIRe; however, they highlighted the perceived need to use more directive language, hence showed a cultural preference for directive genetic counselling. The findings highlight challenges for researchers using western theories, frameworks, policies and clinical guidelines to develop decision support interventions for implementation more globally. Future research is needed to evaluate the use of the DeSIRe in routine practice and whether it enables relatives to make informed decisions., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The demand for genetic testing of hereditary breast cancer genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 has continued to increase with the lowering costs of testing, raised awareness in the general public, and implications for breast cancer treatment when a patient is identified as having a germline pathogenic variant. Historically within Australia, patients affected by high genetic risk breast cancers have been referred to a familial cancer centre (FCC) for assessment and testing, resulting in wait times for an appointment for pre- and post-test genetic counselling and an increased demand on the public-funded FCC. To improve patient access and pace of genetic testing, as well as refocus FCC resources, a mainstream clinical genetic testing program was rolled out in September 2017 through the Parkville FCC (PFCC) in Australia at 10 hospital sites. This program enables specialist doctors of eligible patients affected by breast cancer to arrange genetic testing directly at an oncology/surgical appointment and follow up the results as part of the patients' routine clinical care. In this model, the specialist doctor is responsible for any treatment implications of the genetic test result, and the PFCC is responsible for result interpretation, future cancer risk, family cascade testing and segregation testing where warranted. To date the program has had successful uptake, a notable pathogenic variant detection rate, reduced the burden on the PFCC enabling a reallocation of resources and has streamlined the process of genetic testing for eligible patients. Investigation into the patient and clinician experiences of the mainstream program is required.

Predictive BRCA testing is offered to asymptomatic individuals to predict future risk where a variant has been identified in a relative. It is uncertain whether all eligible relatives access testing, and whether this is related to health care inequalities. Our aim was to analyse trends and inequalities in uptake of testing, and identify predictors of testing and time-to-receipt of testing. A database from April 2010 to March 2017 was collated. Multivariate analysis explored individual associations with testing. Predictor variables included gender, BRCA test type, cancer history, Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and education status. To evaluate factors associated with time-to-testing, a Cox proportional-hazards (CP) model was used. Of 779 tests undertaken, 336 (43.1%) were identified with a BRCA variant. A total of 537 (68.9%) were female and in 83.4% (387/464) of probands, predictive testing was received by relatives. Analysis identified inequalities since decreased testing was found when the proband was unaffected by cancer (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.33). Median time-to-testing was 390 days (range, 0-7090 days) and the CP model also identified inequalities in the hazard ratio (HR) for testing for people aged >40 was higher than for aged <40 (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.67) and BRCA2 testing was higher than for BRCA1 testing (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.18-1.64). Reduced testing was found when probands were unaffected by cancer and time-to-testing was found to vary by age and BRCA1/2 test. Given limited study sample size, further research is recommended to examine inequalities in predictive BRCA testing.

There is an increased pressure to return results from research studies. In Iceland, deCODE Genetics has emphasised the importance of returning results to research participants, particularly the founder pathogenic BRCA2 variant; NM&#95;000059.3:c.771&#95;775del. To do so, they opened the website www.arfgerd.is . Individuals who received positive results via the website were offered genetic counselling (GC) at Landspitali in Reykjavik. At the end of May 2019, over 46.000 (19% of adults of Icelandic origin) had registered at the website and 352 (0.77%) received text message informing them about their positive results. Of those, 195 (55%) contacted the GC unit. Additionally, 129 relatives asked for GC and confirmatory testing, a total of 324 individuals. Various information such as gender and age, prior knowledge of the variant and perceived emotional impact, was collected. Of the BRCA2 positive individuals from the website, 74 (38%) had prior knowledge of the pathogenic variant (PV) in the family. The majority initially stated worries, anxiety or other negative emotion but later in the process many communicated gratitude for the knowledge gained. Males represented 41% of counsellees as opposed to less than 30% in the regular hereditary breast and ovarian (HBOC) clinic. It appears that counselling in clinical settings was more reassuring for worried counsellees. In this article, we describe one-year experience of the GC service to those who received positive results via the website. This experience offers a unique opportunity to study the public response of a successful method of the return of genetic results from research.

The profession of genetic counseling (also called genetic counselling in many countries) began nearly 50 years ago in the United States, and has grown internationally in the past 30 years. While there have been many papers describing the profession of genetic counseling in individual countries or regions, data remains incomplete and has been published in diverse journals with limited access. As a result of the 2016 Transnational Alliance of Genetic Counseling (TAGC) conference in Barcelona, Spain, and the 2017 World Congress of Genetic Counselling in the UK, we endeavor to describe as fully as possible the global state of genetic counseling as a profession. We estimate that in 2018 there are nearly 7000 genetic counselors with the profession established or developing in no less than 28 countries.

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.

Patients who might benefit from genetic services may be denied access through failure to be referred. To investigate the evidence on barriers to referral to genetic services, we conducted a systematic review of empirical evidence on this topic. Nine studies were included in the review. Barriers related to non-genetic healthcare professionals were: lack of awareness of patient risk factors, failure to obtain adequate family history, lack of knowledge of genetics and genetic conditions, lack of awareness of genetic services, inadequate coordination of referral and lack of genetics workforce. Those related to individuals affected by or at risk of a genetic condition were: lack of awareness of personal risk, lack of knowledge and/or awareness of medical history of family members and lack of knowledge of genetic services. Research on access to genetic services is heterogeneous; stronger empirical evidence is needed on factors that are barriers, and further research is needed to develop 'targeted interventions' for equitable access to genetic services in a range of populations.

Prenatal diagnosis for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) was introduced in the Netherlands in 1984. We have investigated the impact of 26 years (1984-2009) of prenatal testing. Of the 635 prenatal diagnoses, 51% were males; nearly half (46%) of these were affected or had an increased risk of DMD. As a result 145 male fetuses were aborted and 174 unaffected boys were born. The vast majority (78%) of females, now 16 years or older, who were identified prenatally have not been tested for carrier status. Their average risk of being a carrier is 28%. We compared the incidences of DMD in the periods 1961-1974 and 1993-2002. The incidence of DMD did not decline but the percentage of first affected boys increased from 62 to 88%. We conclude that a high proportion of families with de novo mutations in the DMD gene cannot make use of prenatal diagnosis, partly because the older affected boys are not diagnosed before the age of five. Current policy, widely accepted in the genetic community, dictates that female fetuses are not tested for carrier status. These females remain untested as adults and risk having affected offspring as well as progressive cardiac disease. We see an urgent need for a change in policy to improve the chances of prevention of DMD. The first step would be to introduce neonatal screening of males. The next is to test females for carrier status if requested, prenatally if fetal DNA is available or postnatally even before adulthood.

A comprehensive and long-range monitoring of genetic testing is ongoing in Italy starting from 1987. The data collected by the last survey of year 2004, on behalf of the Italian Society of Human Genetics, included the activities of 88 clinical centres and 160 cytogenetic and 183 molecular genetic laboratories, hosted by 256 structures. Only 42% of them fulfilled the requirements of current Italian legislation. Genetic tests included 283,601 cytogenetic analyses. There have been 120,238 invasive prenatal samplings, 84% of which were amniocenteses. A significant north-to-south decreasing gradient was evident for all activities. This study has also surveyed 190,610 molecular genetic tests. CFTR gene analysis accounted for 23% of prenatal and 29% of postnatal molecular tests. In total, 420 different genes have been investigated, 10 of which comprised three-quarters of the whole activity. More than 10% of molecular tests were performed on fetal samples, the analysis of CFTR, DMD, FMR1, FMR2, and GJB2 genes accounting for 83% of all prenatal tests. In years 1997-2004, the demand of cytogenetic tests has increased two-fold and that of molecular tests has increased four-fold. Only 16% of cytogenetic and 12.5% of molecular tests have been followed by genetic counselling. This survey highlights the need for a major basic intervention in the general organisation of genetic structures in Italy, which should be rationalised in accordance with the national guidelines, and the necessity of constant training of general practitioners and education of consumers to the appropriate use of genetic testing.

Differences in reported uptake of genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 can largely be accounted for by different methodologies and by studying research vs nonresearch families. In our joint study of 75 nonresearch families from two UK centres in which at least 3 years had elapsed since the initial proband had been informed of the availability of testing, only 45 and 34% of eligible individuals from Manchester and London, respectively, had come forward for counselling. Final uptake rates using a non-proactive approach were 53 and 29% for women and 11-12% for men, but the figure among those attending clinic was 73 and 62%, respectively. Unlike previous studies, we did not find that uptake had stabilised after a year with 25% of those being tested more than 2 years after the family was informed, and several delaying a considerable time between genetics appointments. We believe that the particularly low uptake even of counselling in men may need to be addressed by improving family communication or providing information sheets for family members to disseminate.

The principle of non-directiveness in genetic counselling is embraced by all relevant professional bodies. Little is known about the extent to which it is endorsed by geneticists, or incorporated into their clinical practice. The aim of the current study is to document how geneticists in three European countries, Germany, Portugal and the UK, report counselling women at risk for having children with a range of conditions. While geneticists in all three countries reported counselling in a largely non-directive style, this varied both across genetic conditions and between countries. German and Portuguese geneticists were significantly more directive than UK geneticists, although they differed in the way in which they were directive. German geneticists were more likely to encourage continuation of pregnancies, while Portuguese geneticists were more likely to encourage termination of affected pregnancies. There was no strong consensus on approaches to counselling for any of the genetic conditions, defined as agreement between 70% of all three groups of geneticists. Despite strong professional codes of non-directiveness, geneticists report being somewhat directive in some counselling situations. Future research needs to focus on what geneticists are trying to achieve in genetic counselling, how they actually counsel, and with what effects.