Search

With the introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques increasing numbers of disease-associated variants are being identified. This ongoing progress might lead to diagnoses in formerly undiagnosed patients and novel insights in already solved cases. Therefore, many studies suggest introducing systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics. Introduction will, however, also have ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social (ELSI) implications that Genetic Health Professionals (GHPs) from laboratories should consider before possible implementation of systematic reanalysis. To get a first impression we performed a scoping literature review. Our findings show that for the vast majority of included articles ELSI aspects were not mentioned as such. However, often these issues were raised implicitly. In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. Some important aspects are not well explored yet. For example, our study shows GHPs see the values of systematic reanalysis but also experience barriers, often mentioned as being practical or financial only, but in fact also being ethical or psychosocial. Engagement of these GHPs in further research on ELSI aspects is important for sustainable implementation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

News stories and patient-facing material about genetic tests are often illustrated by images, but the content of such images and the messages they propagate are rarely scrutinised. Stock image banks were searched to identify a hundred images relating to genetic tests and analysed using a multimodal critical discourse approach, aiming to identify what the images featured, how they were composed, and what they communicated about genetic testing. We found that images tended to focus on technical aspects of sample processing (for example, pipetting) and drew on older technologies (for example slab gel electrophoresis) when representing data arising from genetic tests. Composition choices like focussing images around pipette tips, or emphasising colour or brightness of electrophoretic bands, represented genetic testing as precise, unambiguous and illuminating. Only 7% of images featured a person having a genetic test, and only one image alluded to communication of genetic results. Current popular visual representations of genetic testing rarely highlight the possibility of uncertain or non-diagnostic outcomes, and may contribute to high public expectations of informativeness and certainty from such tests., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Whilst the finding of heritable susceptibility to disease was once relatively rare, mainstreaming of genetic testing has resulted in a steady increase. Patients are often encouraged to share their genetic test results with relevant relatives, but relatives may not receive this information, leaving them without knowledge of their own risk. Therefore, strategies to help communicate such information are important. This review aimed to explore the efficacy of existing interventions to improve the sharing of genetic test results. A synthesis without meta-analysis design was used. A systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and AMED was conducted, and five studies were identified worldwide. Data were extracted for each study regarding study aim, participant characteristics, condition, intervention details, comparison, study duration, outcome measures, theory and behaviour change techniques used. Limited efficacy and application of theory was found. Knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy were not increased in any intervention. No gender differences in communication behaviour were encountered in interventions that recruited men and women. Two studies reported an evaluation of acceptability, which showed that the interventions were well received by patients and health professionals. No study reported the involvement of the target population in any phase of intervention development. Given the lack of health psychology-informed interventions in this area of clinical genetics, we recommend genetic health professionals, health psychologists and patients collaborate on all stages of future interventions that involve the cascading of genetic health information within families. We also provide guidance regarding use of theory and intervention elements for future intervention development., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

As ambitions to 'mainstream' genetic and genomic medicine in the UK advance, patients are increasingly exposed to information about genomic data. Unlike the results of many other medical investigations which are linked to the time of sample collection, genomic testing provides immortal data that do not change across time, and may have relevance for relatives and generations far beyond the patient's own lifespan. This immortality raises new ethical challenges for healthcare professionals, patients and families alike, such as ensuring consent for possible future interpretations; determining when genomic data are best sought (at birth, on illness etc) and reinterpreted; and balancing the confidentiality of patients and duties of care towards others. This paper reports on qualitative work exploring the perspectives of patients and relatives participating in genomic testing, and suggests that their engagements with this immortality are shaped by: the contrast between the simplicity of sample provision and information gathered; understandings of heritability; and notions of genomic data as a collective resource. We discuss the implications this holds for practice and argue that the immortality of genomic data must take a more prominent position in patient and healthcare professional interactions., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Prenatal genetic testing and analysis in the past was usually only offered when a particular fetal phenotype was noted or suspected, meaning that filtering and interpretation of genetic variants identified could be anchored in attempts to explain an existing health concern. Advanced genomic testing is now increasingly used in "low-risk" pregnancies, producing information on genotype adrift of the phenotypic data that is necessary to give it meaning, thus increasing the difficulty in predicting whether and how particular genetic variants might affect future development and health. A challenge to healthcare scientists, clinicians, and parents therefore is deciding what qualities prenatal genotypic variation should have in order to be constructed as a 'result.' At the same time, such tests are often re requested in order to make binary decisions about whether to continue a pregnancy or not. As a range of professional organizations develop guidelines on the use of advanced genomic testing during pregnancy, we highlight the particular difficulties of discovering ambiguous findings such as variants with uncertain clinical significance, susceptibility loci for neurodevelopmental problems and susceptibility to adult-onset diseases. We aim to foster international discussions about how decisions around disclosure are made and how uncertainty is communicated.

We performed a large outcome study at group and individual level in which the goals of genetic counselling were operationalized into cognitive and affective outcomes: empowerment, perceived personal control and anxiety. We then examined which socio-demographic and clinical variables were associated with changes in these outcomes. Data came from 1479 counselees who completed questionnaires (GCOS-18, PPC and STAI) at three time points: before the start of genetic counselling, after the first consultation and after the results of genetic counselling were disclosed. Results showed that at group level empowerment, perceived personal control and anxiety improved significantly after the whole genetic counselling process. Effect-sizes were medium for empowerment and small for the other outcomes. At individual level, 48% of counselees improved in empowerment, 21% in perceived personal control and 17% in anxiety. Around 10% of counselees worsened on all outcomes. Only 'reason for referral' and 'genetic test result' were significantly associated with changes in outcomes. This study demonstrated improvements among counselees in cognitive and affective outcomes after genetic counselling at group level. However, our results also suggest that there are opportunities for improvement at individual level, as many counselees remained stable and some even worsened on all outcomes. Routine outcome monitoring could help to explore the needs of counselees and could help to identify counselees who worsen.

The 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP)-a hybrid clinical-research initiative-was set up to analyse whole-genome sequences (WGS) from patients living with a rare disease or cancer. The project positioned participant consent as being of central importance, but consent in the context of genomic testing raises challenging issues. In this mixed method study, we surveyed 1337 100kGP participants regarding their experiences of taking part in the project and conducted in-depth interviews with 24 survey respondents to explore these findings further. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and interview data were analysed thematically. The consent approach of the 100kGP resulted in a proportion of our study's participants not understanding the complexities of the project and what types of results they might receive; for example, 20% of participants who we surveyed from the cancer arm did not recall what decisions they had made regarding additional findings. It is not surprising that a project such as this, with such diverse aims and participant groups, would throw up at least some challenges. However, participants reported being satisfied with their experience of the project to date. Our study highlights that in the context of consent for more complex endeavours, such as the 100kGP, it is important to assess (and document) an agreement to take part, but complicated decisions about what and when to communicate may need revisiting over time in response to changing contexts. We discuss the implications of our findings with reference to participants of the 100kGP and the newly formed NHS Genomic Medicine Service.

Technological advances have seen the offer of genome sequencing becoming part of mainstream medical practice. Research has elicited patient and health professional views on the ethical issues genome sequencing raises, however, we know little about the general public's views. These views offer an insight into people's faith in such technologies, informing discussion regarding the approach to consent in clinic. We aimed to garner public views regarding genome sequencing, incidental findings (IFs), and sharing genetic information with relatives. Participants (n = 1954) from the British general public completed a survey, distributed via email. Overall, the public had a positive view of genomic sequencing, choosing 'informative' as the most popular word (52%) and 'family legacy' as the most popular analogy (33%) representing genomic sequencing for them. Fifty-three percent  agree that their relative had the right to be told about genetic information relevant to them. Fifty-four percent would expect to be told about IFs whether they had asked for them or not. Clinical practice needs to acknowledge these perspectives and expectations in order to facilitate meaningful discussion during the consent process for genomic tests. We suggest that: (a) optimistic perspectives on the usefulness of genomic tests need to be tempered by discussion in clinic about the likelihood that genomic results might be uninformative, uncertain or unexpected; (b) discussions regarding the familial nature of results are needed before testing: the majority of patients will welcome this and any concerns can be explored further; and (c) a wider discussion is required regarding the consent approach for genomic testing.

Next generation sequencing has enabled fast and relatively inexpensive expanded carrier screening (ECS) that can inform couples' reproductive decisions before conception and during pregnancy. We previously showed that a couple-based approach to ECS for autosomal recessive (AR) conditions was acceptable and feasible for both health care professionals and the non-pregnant target population in the Netherlands. This paper describes the acceptance of this free test-offer of preconception ECS for 50 severe conditions, the characteristics of test-offer acceptors and decliners, their views on couple-based ECS and reasons for accepting or declining the test-offer. We used a survey that included self-rated health, intention to accept the test-offer, barriers to test-participation and arguments for and against test-participation. Fifteen percent of the expected target population-couples potentially planning a pregnancy-attended pre-test counselling and 90% of these couples proceeded with testing. Test-offer acceptors and decliners differed in their reproductive characteristics (e.g. how soon they wanted to conceive), educational level and stated barriers to test-participation. Sparing a child a life with a severe genetic condition was the most important reason to accept ECS. The most important reason for declining was that the test-result would not affect participants' reproductive decisions. Our results demonstrate that previously uninformed couples of reproductive age, albeit a selective part, were interested in and chose to have couple-based ECS. Alleviating practical barriers, which prevented some interested couples from participating, is recommended before nationwide implementation.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for 10-20% of total mortality, i.e., one in five individuals will eventually die suddenly. Given the substantial genetic component of SCD in younger cases, postmortem genetic testing may be particularly useful in elucidating etiological factors in the cause of death in this subset. The identification of genes responsible for inherited cardiac diseases have led to the organization of cardiogenetic consultations in many countries worldwide. Expert recommendations are available, emphasizing the importance of genetic testing and appropriate information provision of affected individuals, as well as their relatives. However, the context of postmortem genetic testing raises some particular ethical, legal, and practical (including economic or financial) challenges. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with international experts, developed recommendations on management of SCD after a workshop sponsored by the Brocher Foundation and ESHG in November 2016. These recommendations have been endorsed by the ESHG Board, the European Council of Legal Medicine, the European Society of Cardiology working group on myocardial and pericardial diseases, the ERN GUARD-HEART, and the Association for European Cardiovascular Pathology. They emphasize the importance of increasing the proportion of both medical and medicolegal autopsies and educating the professionals. Multidisciplinary collaboration is of utmost importance. Public funding should be allocated to reach these goals and allow public health evaluation.

Patient empowerment has been identified as a key outcome goal in genetic counselling, and a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) has been developed to measure empowerment in genetic services: the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS). Here we validate the GCOS for a large and diverse Dutch study sample of 2194 patients referred to two clinical genetic centres for counselling about a wide range of conditions (heart disease, neurological disorders, cancer, congenital syndromes, intellectual disability and prenatal pathology). Our results suggest that the GCOS consists of a hierarchical 6-factor structure, with a main scale for empowerment and six subscales: uncertainty about heredity, hope, negative emotions, knowledge about the condition, knowledge about genetic services and uncertainty about the treatment. Six of the original 24 GCOS items were removed due to low factor loadings and small inter-item correlations. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the main scale and most subscales were satisfactory. Convergent validity was confirmed by moderate positive and moderate/strong negative associations between the GCOS main scale and other validated outcome measures. Responsiveness was comparable to that of other validated outcome measures. We saw significant improvement in the GCOS main scale and all the subscales after the first genetic counselling session. This study contributes to the international validation process of the GCOS, with the ultimate goal of using this instrument as a PROM, with empowerment as an outcome measure, to evaluate and improve the quality of genetic counselling in various clinical genetics settings.

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) aims to inform couples' reproductive choice, preferably before conception. As part of an implementation study in which trained general practitioners (GPs) offered a population-based ECS couple-test, we evaluated the feasibility of the test-offer and degree of participant informed choice (IC). Trained GPs from nine practices in the northern Netherlands invited 4295 female patients aged 18-40 to take part in couple-based ECS. Inclusion criteria were having a male partner, planning for children and not being pregnant. We evaluated the feasibility of the organizational aspects, GP competence and the content of the pre-test counselling. Participant satisfaction, evaluation of pre-test counselling and degree of IC were measured using a longitudinal survey. We explored GP experiences and their views on future implementation through semi-structured interviews. 130 consultations took place. All participating GPs were assessed by genetic professionals to be competent to conduct pre-test counselling. Most (63/108 (58%)) consultations took place within the planned 20 min (median 20, IQR 18-28). GPs considered couples' prior knowledge level an important determinant of consultation length. 91% of patients were (very) satisfied with the GP counselling. After pre-test counselling, 231/237(97%) participants had sufficient knowledge and 206/231(88%) had a positive attitude and proceeded with testing. Our pilot demonstrates that offering couple-based ECS through trained and motivated GPs is feasible. Future large-scale implementation requires a well-informed general public and a discussion about appropriate reimbursement for GPs and health care coverage for couples. Providing (more) test information pre-appointment may help reduce average consultation time.

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.

The use of genetic and genomic testing is becoming more widespread in healthcare and more inherited explanations for family history of diseases or conditions are being uncovered. Currently, relevant genetic information is not always used in the care of family members who might benefit from it, because of health professionals' fears of inappropriately breaching another family member's confidence. Such examples are likely to increase as testing possibilities expand. Here we present the case for use of familial information in the care and treatment of family members. We argue that whilst a clinical diagnosis in person A is confidential, the discovery of a familial factor that led to this diagnosis should be available for use in depersonalised form by health professionals to inform the testing and clinical care of other family members. The possibility of such use should be made clear in clinical practice at the time of initial testing, but should not require consent from the person in whom the familial factor was first identified. We call for further debate on these questions in the wake of high profile non-disclosure of genetic information cases, and forthcoming Data Protection legislation changes.

Advances in genomic medicine are improving diagnosis and treatment of some health conditions, and the question of whether former patients should be recontacted is therefore timely. The issue of recontacting is becoming more important with increased integration of genomics in 'mainstream' medicine. Empirical evidence is needed to advance the discussion over whether and how recontacting should be implemented. We administered a web-based survey to genetic services in European countries to collect information about existing infrastructures and practices relevant to recontacting patients. The majority of the centres stated they had recontacted patients to update them about new significant information; however, there were no standardised practices or systems in place. There was also a multiplicity of understandings of the term 'recontacting', which respondents conflated with routine follow-up programmes, or even with post-test counselling. Participants thought that recontacting systems should be implemented to provide the best service to the patients and families. Nevertheless, many barriers to implementation were mentioned. These included: lack of resources and infrastructure, concerns about potential negative psychological consequences of recontacting, unclear operational definitions of recontacting, policies that prevent healthcare professionals from recontacting, and difficulties in locating patients after their last contact. These barriers are also intensified by the highly variable development (and establishment) of the specialties of medical genetics and genetic counselling across different European countries. Future recommendations about recontacting need to consider these barriers. It is also important to reach an 'operational definition' that can be useful in different countries.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.271.

This paper explores the views and expectations of patients concerning recontacting in clinical practice. It is based on 41 semi-structured interviews conducted in the United Kingdom. The sample comprised patients or parents of patients: without a diagnosis; recently offered a test for a condition or carrier risk; with a rare condition; with a variant of unknown significance - some of whom had been recontacted. Participants were recruited both via the National Health Service (NHS) and through online, condition-specific support groups. Most respondents viewed recontacting as desirable, however there were different opinions and expectations about what type of new information should trigger recontacting. An awareness of the potential psychological impact of receiving new information led some to suggest that recontacting should be planned, and tailored to the nature of the new information and the specific situation of patients and families. The lack of clarity about lines of responsibility for recontacting and perceptions of resource constraints in the NHS tended to mitigate respondents' favourable positions towards recontacting and their preferences. Some respondents argued that recontacting could have a preventative value and reduce the cost of healthcare. Others challenged the idea that resources should be used to implement formalised recontacting systems - via arguments that there are 'more pressing' public health priorities, and for the need for healthcare services to offer care to new patients.

Next-generation sequencing enabled us to create a population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) test that simultaneously tests for 50 serious autosomal recessive diseases. Before offering this test universally, we wanted to know what factors are related to intended participation and how the general public can be informed about the test without being influenced in their intention to participate. We studied this by measuring to what extent 'message framing' and 'narrative information' can influence people's intended participation. Data were collected by means of an online survey of 504 potential users, and the factors examined were based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and on previous research on intended participation in preconception carrier screening. Message framing was manipulated by explaining the risk of couple carriership in different ways, while narrative information was provided to only half of the respondents. The factors most positively related to intended participation were perceiving benefits of the screening, having a positive attitude towards the screening, having no religion, having an actual child wish and experiencing the choice to participate as easy. Perceived benefits and a positive attitude were most influential factors by far. Message framing and narrative information had no significant effect on intended participation, reinforcing that message framing and narrative information can help to inform the general public about ECS without influencing their intended participation. Future research should study if the importance of perceived benefits and a positive attitude can be replicated when other factors are included and when actual participation is measured instead of intended participation.

This article explores the views and experiences of healthcare professionals and clinical scientists in genetics about the existence of a duty and/or responsibility to recontact former patients when the genetic information relevant to their health, or that of family members, changes in a potentially important manner. It is based on N=30 semi-structured interviews guided by vignettes of recontacting scenarios. The sample included healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom from different medical specialties (clinical genetics, other 'mainstream' specialties now offering genetic testing), and scientists from regional genetics laboratories. While viewing recontacting as desirable under certain circumstances, most respondents expressed concerns about its feasibility within the current constraints of the National Health Service (NHS). The main barriers identified were insufficient resources (time, staff, and suitable IT infrastructures) and lack of clarity about role boundaries and responsibilities. All of these are further complicated by genetic testing being increasingly offered by mainstream specialties. Reaching a consensus about roles and responsibilities of clinical specialties with regard to recontacting former patients in the light of evolving genetic information, and about what resources and infrastructures would be needed, was generally seen as a pre-requisite to developing guidelines about recontact.

With the increased international focus on personalized health care and preventive medicine, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has substantially expanded the options for carrier screening of serious, recessively inherited diseases. NGS screening tests not only offer reproductive options not previously available to couples, but they may also ultimately reduce the number of children born with devastating disorders. To date, preconception carrier screening (PCS) has largely targeted single diseases such as cystic fibrosis, but NGS allows the testing of many genes or diseases simultaneously. We have developed an expanded NGS PCS test for couples; simultaneously it covers 50 very serious, early-onset, autosomal recessive diseases that are untreatable. This is the first, noncommercial, population-based, expanded PCS test to be offered prospectively to couples in a health-care setting in Europe. So far, little is known about how potential users view such a PCS test. We therefore performed an online survey in 2014 among 500 people from the target population in the Netherlands. We enquired about their intention to take an expanded PCS test if one was offered, and through which provider they would like to see it offered. One-third of the respondents said they would take such a test were it to be offered. The majority (44%) preferred the test to be offered via their general practitioner (GP) and 58% would be willing to pay for the test, with a median cost of [euro ]75. Our next step is to perform an implementation study in which this PCS test will be provided via selected GPs in the Northern Netherlands.

This document of the European Society of Human Genetics contains recommendations regarding responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Carrier screening is defined here as the detection of carrier status of recessive diseases in couples or persons who do not have an a priori increased risk of being a carrier based on their or their partners' personal or family history. Expanded carrier screening offers carrier screening for multiple autosomal and X-linked recessive disorders, facilitated by new genetic testing technologies, and allows testing of individuals regardless of ancestry or geographic origin. Carrier screening aims to identify couples who have an increased risk of having an affected child in order to facilitate informed reproductive decision making. In previous decades, carrier screening was typically performed for one or few relatively common recessive disorders associated with significant morbidity, reduced life-expectancy and often because of a considerable higher carrier frequency in a specific population for certain diseases. New genetic testing technologies enable the expansion of screening to multiple conditions, genes or sequence variants. Expanded carrier screening panels that have been introduced to date have been advertised and offered to health care professionals and the public on a commercial basis. This document discusses the challenges that expanded carrier screening might pose in the context of the lessons learnt from decades of population-based carrier screening and in the context of existing screening criteria. It aims to contribute to the public and professional discussion and to arrive at better clinical and laboratory practice guidelines.

Today's economic challenges and the changing landscape of clinical genetics are forcing us to consider alternative ways of providing genetic services, to comply with budget limitations and at the same time meeting the demands of increasing patient numbers and patient-centered care delivery. Telegenetics could be an effective and efficient way of counseling, but its use in Europe is not widely reported, nor is there evidence of international collaboration. We conducted an online survey among 929 genetics professionals, to explore the current availability and use of different telegenetics modalities in Europe. Our questionnaire was completed by 104 clinically active European genetics professionals. Telephone genetic counseling was used by 17% of respondents. Videoconferencing facilities were available to 24%, but only 9% of them used these for patient counseling. Various barriers to availability and use were cited, ranging from practical constraints, lack of professional support/knowledge, to lack of perceived suitability and need. The results show that telegenetics modalities are not currently in widespread use by our respondents, in part due to perceived barriers. To meet the changing economic, genetic, and societal circumstances, we recommend consideration of greater integration of telegenetics into regular clinical genetic care, to supplement existing care modalities. Professional cooperation, sharing knowledge, and establishing guidelines on a national and international level could contribute to successful and more widespread implementation of telegenetics. However, the perceived practical and regulatory barriers have to be overcome.

This paper contains a joint ESHG/ASHG position document with recommendations regarding responsible innovation in prenatal screening with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). By virtue of its greater accuracy and safety with respect to prenatal screening for common autosomal aneuploidies, NIPT has the potential of helping the practice better achieve its aim of facilitating autonomous reproductive choices, provided that balanced pretest information and non-directive counseling are available as part of the screening offer. Depending on the health-care setting, different scenarios for NIPT-based screening for common autosomal aneuploidies are possible. The trade-offs involved in these scenarios should be assessed in light of the aim of screening, the balance of benefits and burdens for pregnant women and their partners and considerations of cost-effectiveness and justice. With improving screening technologies and decreasing costs of sequencing and analysis, it will become possible in the near future to significantly expand the scope of prenatal screening beyond common autosomal aneuploidies. Commercial providers have already begun expanding their tests to include sex-chromosomal abnormalities and microdeletions. However, multiple false positives may undermine the main achievement of NIPT in the context of prenatal screening: the significant reduction of the invasive testing rate. This document argues for a cautious expansion of the scope of prenatal screening to serious congenital and childhood disorders, only following sound validation studies and a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant aspects. A further core message of this document is that in countries where prenatal screening is offered as a public health programme, governments and public health authorities should adopt an active role to ensure the responsible innovation of prenatal screening on the basis of ethical principles. Crucial elements are the quality of the screening process as a whole (including non-laboratory aspects such as information and counseling), education of professionals, systematic evaluation of all aspects of prenatal screening, development of better evaluation tools in the light of the aim of the practice, accountability to all stakeholders including children born from screened pregnancies and persons living with the conditions targeted in prenatal screening and promotion of equity of access.

This study set out to explore the attitudes of a representative sample of the British public towards genetic testing in children to predict disease in the future. We sought opinions about genetic testing for adult-onset conditions for which no prevention/treatment is available during childhood, and about genetic 'carrier' status to assess future reproductive risks. The study also examined participants' level of agreement with the reasons professional organisations give in favour of deferring such testing. Participants (n=2998) completed a specially designed questionnaire, distributed by email. Nearly half of the sample (47%) agreed that parents should be able to test their child for adult-onset conditions, even if there is no treatment or prevention at time of testing. This runs contrary to professional guidance about genetic testing in children. Testing for carrier status was supported by a larger proportion (60%). A child's future ability to decide for her/himself if and when to be tested was the least supported argument in favour of deferring testing.

The participation of minors in biobank research can offer great benefits for science and health care. However, as minors are a vulnerable population they are also in need of adequate protective measures when they are enrolled in research. Research using biobanked biological samples from children poses additional ethical issues to those raised by research using adult biobanks. For example, small children have only limited capacity, if any, to understand the meaning and implications of the research and to give a documented agreement to it. Older minors are gradually acquiring this capacity. We describe principles for good practice related to the inclusion of minors in biobank research, focusing on issues related to benefits and subsidiarity, consent, proportionality and return of results. Some of these issues are currently heavily debated, and we conclude by providing principles for good practice for policy makers of biobanks, researchers and anyone involved in dealing with stored tissue samples from children. Actual implementation of the principles will vary according to different jurisdictions.

Previously we have localized to chromosome 3q21-q24, a predisposition locus for colorectal cancer (CRC), through a genome-wide linkage screen (GWLS) of 69 families without familial adenomatous polyposis or hereditary non-polyposis CRC. To further investigate Mendelian susceptibility to CRC, we extended our screen to include a further GWLS of an additional 34 CRC families. We also searched for a disease gene at 3q21-q24 by linkage disequilibrium mapping in 620 familial CRC cases and 960 controls by genotyping 1676 tagging SNPs and sequencing 30 candidate genes from the region. Linkage analysis was conducted using the Affymetrix 10K SNP array. Data from both GWLSs were pooled and multipoint linkage statistics computed. The maximum NPL score (3.01; P=0.0013) across all families was at 3q22, maximal evidence for linkage coming from families segregating rectal CRC. The same genomic position also yielded the highest multipoint heterogeneity LOD (HLOD) score under a dominant model (HLOD=2.79; P=0.00034), with an estimated 43% of families linked. In the case-control analysis, the strongest association was obtained at rs698675 (P=0.0029), but this was not significant after adjusting for multiple testing. Analysis of candidate gene mapping to the region of maximal linkage on 3q22 failed to identify a causal mutation. There was no evidence for linkage to the previously reported 9q CRC locus (NPL=0.95, P=0.23; HLOD(dominant)=0.40, HLOD(recessive)=0.20). Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that variation at 3q22 contributes to the risk of CRC, but this is unlikely to be mediated through a restricted set of alleles.

Patients attending genetic clinics are often the main gatekeepers of information for other family members. There has been much debate about the circumstances under which professionals may have an obligation, or may be permitted, to pass on personal genetic information about their clients but without their consent to other family members. We report findings from the first prospective study investigating the frequency with which genetics professionals become concerned about the failure of clients to pass on such information to their relatives. In all, 12 UK and two Australian regional genetic services reported such cases over 12 months, including details of actions taken by professionals in response to the clients' failure to disclose information. A total of 65 cases of non-disclosure were reported, representing <1% of the genetic clinic consultations in the collaborating centres during the study period. These included 39 cases of the failure of parents not passing full information to their adult offspring, 22 cases where siblings or other relatives were not given information and four cases where information was withheld from partners -- including former and prospective partners. Professionals reported clients' reasons for withholding information as complex, more often citing concern and the desire to shield relatives from distress rather than poor family relationships. In most cases, the professionals took further steps to persuade their clients to make a disclosure but in no instance did the professional force a disclosure without the client's consent.

Genetics can pose special challenges to the principle of confidentiality within the health professional-patient relationship, since genetic information is by its nature both individual and familial. Most professional guidelines allow confidentiality to be broken in rare circumstances, where it will prevent a 'serious', 'imminent' and 'likely' harm. We argue that the types of harms that may result from genetic medicine are particularly diverse. Using clinical examples, we explore ethical issues that arise when balancing individual and family member interests. As genetic testing becomes more, widespread situations will arise where clinicians are faced with a choice between preserving the confidentiality of one patient and preventing harm to another. Professionals need to incorporate the notion of familial implications in their counseling of individuals. Since such dilemmas have been relatively rare in the pre-genetic age, we call for a wider debate on the balance between confidentiality and harm to others.