Next Generation Genetic Counseling: Introduction to the Special Issue

The genesis of the idea for this special issue, as well as its title, “Next Generation Genetic Counseling,” originated in January 2012. As the newly hired project manager for the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium project, NCGENES, Myra had begun speculating just how the adaptation of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) would affect genetic counseling practice (Roche 2012). Later that spring, at the American College of Medical Genetics meeting, the message that NGS would have an unprecedented impact on genetic counseling was delivered loudly and clearly but it seemed that too few of the voices sending that message belonged to genetic counselors. The idea behind this Special Issue is simply this: tap into the collective wisdom of the genetic counseling community to explore how NGS's clinical application would impact current genetic counseling practices and ponder future implications by providing a platform on which the voices of genetic counselors could be heard. Since it was still early in the adaptation phase, we suspected that few empirical studies analyzing NGS and genetic counseling would be completed in time for our submission deadline. Therefore, we decided to cast a wide net in order to capture a broader swath of the early adaptation experiences of genetic counselors as they transitioned from traditional approaches in testing, counseling, and training to what promised to be an exciting, if uncertain, future. We challenged our colleagues to think, discuss, and write about what they saw as the critical emerging issues facing our profession. We wanted to “crowd source” their ideas and hear about strategies to combine the essence of what our profession has always contributed with new, best practices for the future as we moved together towards Next Generation Genetic Counseling (NGGC). Our call for papers invited submissions describing the evolution of genetic counseling and education strategies relevant to whole genome or whole exome sequencing; counseling and ELSI issues specifically related to return of diagnostic and incidental results; and the role of the genetic counselor on multidisciplinary teams offering this testing. The diverse submissions in this issue successfully answered our call. They range from empirical studies analyzing such bread and butter topics as informed consent and return of results to case studies describing how practicing genetic counselors are grappling with these same issues in their clinics. Throughout, we have kept the focus on the genetic counselors themselves as they adapt to expanded niches and actively create new ones. In response to the initial concern that this call for papers might be a bit premature and thus might receive a muted response, this hefty issue delivers a resounding reply squashing any doubts that NGGC has become a hot topic in the genetic counseling community. We are pleased that so many genetic counselors and their colleague have answered this call. This completed issue includes an astonishing number of papers, 28 in all, representing both US and Canada. It includes 14 original research studies, ten professional development pieces, two case studies, one literature review and a book review. Submissions span both clinical and research populations, studying those that are healthy and those that are not, and they peer into the future though multiple lenses including those of practitioners, students, and program directors. Although the effects predicted by the adoption of genomic medicine have been likened to a tsunami, setting aside the hyperbole for a moment, how can we best measure and describe the magnitude of changes that will be required to adapt genetic counseling practice? Are the set of practices needed for successful NGGC so qualitatively different that a fundamental rebooting should be done, or are the bedrock issues sound enough that this newest technology can, once again, be incorporated with only a minimum amount of fuss? In the lead off article, Hooker and colleagues argue the predicted impact of this technology is unprecedented and they foresee far-ranging ripples that will touch our core counseling skills in areas such as facilitating informed consent, managing patient expectations, and tailoring results. In the second article, Wicklund and Trepanier choose, instead, to emphasize the soundness of our core skills, confident that these will enable us to navigate through the upcoming Class III rapids, but only if we also increase our dexterity and maneuverability. They foresee several threatening eddies along the way; namely, managing the increased volume of test results, developing new, reimbursable service delivery models, expanding the workforce, and ensuring an adequate foundation of outcomes research upon which to base our practice. One looming iceberg, already sighted by many as a formidable barrier blocking the smooth integration of NGS into clinical practice, is the massive effort required for variant analysis and interpretation that has, thus far, remained stubbornly resistant to a high throughput pace. Facio, Lee, and O'Daniel explore the largely uncharted territory surrounding current NGS technologies as they illustrate the clinical applications and predict their impact on the practice of genetic counseling. Their guide is particularly useful for genetic counselors who are beginning to populate the specialized niche of the molecular analyst but also serves as a useful reminder for everyone else that deeper knowledge of genomic sequencing will be essential for the competent practitioner of NGGC. We then turn to examine key issues that arise as genetic counseling practice transitions from experiences with genomic tests such as microarrays to clinical genomic sequencing. We open this section with a review article by Lohn et al. who examine one of the most contentious topics in clinical genomics; the return of incidental findings. Defined as “discoveries made as a result of genetic testing that are unrelated to the indication for the test,” the authors conclude that, although a consensus mandating the return of analytically valid and medically actionable incidental findings has begun to form, criteria about which types should be returned, and how to address the accompanying logistical and counseling issues, are still very much in flux. Their call for empirical studies to help guide these difficult decisions is answered, in part, in the next article by Reiff et al. in their study of health care providers. These voices capture the double-edged sword nature of the Faustian bargain we strike when we eagerly seize genomic testing's promise of increased diagnostic capability while blithely trying to ignore the growing millstone of obtaining informed consent for an increasing range of incidental findings. And though the scope of incidental findings grows with each technological advance, the case studies by Helm et al. gently remind us that one of the most fraught-laden pieces of genetic information is, incidentally, the type that could be revealed by very early techniques: the attribution of paternity. Their experiences of disclosing chromosomal microarray results consistent with first degree parental consanguinity is instructive both in what it tells us about families expectations about the true scope of potential results that genomic testing can reveal but also, sadly, about our often limited ability to adequately prepare them for this information. Machini and colleagues then whisk us away from the intimacy of the clinic to survey genetic counseling practice from 50,000 ft up. They examine ways in which clinical sequencing can be expected to impact our service delivery system and note several barriers to clinical adaptation. These obstacles range from a painfully familiar one (billing and reimbursement) to speculation about the degree to which our limited workforce capacity is exacerbated by our reliance on service delivery models that do not scale. In their calls for student and practitioner training, they also worry about the meager expertise in variant analysis and interpretation. Nardini et al. push the settings envelope one step further, to our next frontier; newborn screening. The authors optimistically conclude that, although experience with clinical sequencing in this setting has been limited, thus far, genetic counselors’ experience with sequencing in other settings should pave the way for a smoother learning curve when rolled out in the newborn setting. We then conclude with two analyses of genetic counseling practice. At the micro level, Williams et al. present a time analysis of one step in the process: that of acquiring and reviewing participants’ medical records prior to sequencing. Their estimates, an average of four months per participant and ranging between three and nine months, should surprise no one who has ever requested medical records in the US. As genomic sequencing intercalates itself into clinical practice, the relative value of this traditional approach will merit a re-evaluation, especially if sequencing costs precipitously decline. In contrast, Radford et al. focus on macro level issues and predict that access to services, insufficient reimbursement, and the threat of genetic discrimination will only worsen as demand for genetic testing grows. They propose that genetic counselors position themselves as information hubs and extend dendritically out to form community partnerships in order to magnify the limited availability of genetic expertise. Returning again to the high profile issue of establishing criteria for the return of incidental results, we next hear from both professionals and patients about how these decisions should be guided. For the professionals, the devil is indeed in the details. Asked by Grove and colleagues to “bin” or categorize several gene-variant pairs, professionals struggled to make consistent decisions about which results would merit obligatory return vs. those that would not. Although the study was completed before the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recommendations were released (Green et al. 2013), it confirms that criteria have evolved with clinical adaptation and that lack of unanimity amongst professionals is the rule rather than the exception. In developing evidence-based professional guidelines to help establish standards of care, we may need to re-define processes such as informed consent and result disclosure as events that occur over time and over the lifespan of the patient. Although professionals may be conflicted, patients, apparently, are not. Hitch et al. found that their Lynch syndrome patients, all who had received uninformative genetic testing results by traditional testing methods, held nearly unanimous preferences as to which types of genomic sequencing results should be returned: as one patient so colorfully phrased it, “Bring it on!” Levenseller et al. queried both professionals and families and identified similar discrepancies as professionals expressed much more hesitancy about the return of some findings. In an interesting twist, professionals aligned themselves more closely with the adolescents than the parents in this study believing that teens should be actively involved in decisions about disclosures pertaining to them. The parents surveyed by Erickson et al. likewise, took a similarly protective stance when asked about their interest in a hypothetical test that could tell them with 20–90 % accuracy the chance that their child would develop a mood disorder. While favoring testing if results were highly predictive, most responded that they would not communicate the results to the child at all (17 %), until symptoms began (17 %) or until the “child” turned 18 (25 %). Studies addressing if, when, and how parents communicate results to their children are sorely needed to determine if this will be one of those rare cases where hypothetical intention matches actual behavior. Even with wide open communication lines it can be instructive to learn which parts of a message are more likely to be garbled especially when relying on information delivery models that deviate from the traditional face-to-face encounter with a genetics professional. Schmindlen et al. uncovered evidence of several misunderstandings in their retrospective study of an on-line personalized medicine site that analyzed queries posted to the genetic counselors. Although only a small proportion of the tested population posed questions, those that did had trouble distinguishing between absolute and relative risks and showed a tendency to over-estimate the predictive power of the results. The understandings of those who did not post questions in this study remain unknown but these data would be useful in evaluating an on-line approach. Circling back to the clinic, we learn about a case described by Huang et al. that illustrates both the tantalizing potential and the messy realities of sequencing and interpreting multiple genes simultaneously. They identified potentially causative variants in, not one, but two genes in a patient with cone-rod dystrophy. As is true for many such variants, however, the avenues by which pathogenicity could be assessed were limited leaving the patient with ambiguous results and unclear recommendations. This predicament, uncomfortable as it is for both patient and counselor, will likely become more common as our skills in variant interpretation continue to lag far behind those in variant identification. The successful adoption of a new technology can depend upon the clinical setting and, as Machini et al. observed in their study, genomic sequencing was more likely to be ordered in a pediatric setting than in an oncology or a prenatal one. One reason for this discrepancy could stem from the traditions and goals of a practice within a discipline. In pediatrics, the primary goal is to identify the etiology of a condition and so diagnostic technologies, such as genome sequencing, are more readily accepted irrespective of their often-limited clinical utility. There also seems to be a higher tolerance for ambiguous results, as many more variants are reported than can ever be satisfactorily adjudicated. Casting such a wide net is also indulged because our knowledge of the spectrum of genetic variants associated with disruptions of growth and development is still woefully under-developed. However, in disciplines whose primary purpose has been treatment, such as oncology, historically, only tests with robust clinical utility have gained traction, been translated into practice guidelines, and have shaped the training and practice of genetic counselors. With these distinct disciplinary traditions serving as a background, the next series of articles describe the genetic counseling implications of the rapid clinical adoption of gene panels. Gene panels can be regarded as occupying a middle ground between the one-gene-at-a-time approach and comprehensive genomic sequencing. Ideally, they target specific sets of genes/mutations with established clinical relevance to a phenotype. In the best of all possible worlds, panels reap the bounty of increasing diagnostic sensitivity yet manage to sidestep much of the cost in interpretation and return of incidental findings commonly encountered in a whole genome approach. Just as our experiences with microarrays have illuminated what to expect on the clinical path to genomic sequencing, experiences with panels can also be instructive as we calculate at which point increasing the number of genes on a panel meets the point of diminishing clinical returns. Platt et al. ignite this series of articles with an eye-opening look at how the composition of large mitochondrial gene panels can translate into unsuspected and undesired clinical dilemmas to nearly the same degree as occurs using a whole genome approach. They examined panels, ranging in size from 100 to 1024 genes, offered by seven US laboratories. As might be expected, there was a direct relationship between the size of the panel and the number of genes whose analysis would be of limited, or no, clinical diagnostic use. Arguably worse, panels were constructed that could return incidental findings that neither the counselor nor the patient were expecting including results that predicted substantial risks for cancer and for untreatable, adult-onset, neurological disorders. Their analysis of the corresponding consent forms showed little or no mention of these worrisome downstream risks; only one mentioned the possibility of incidental findings and none provided a mechanism to allow patients to opt out of learning information. The authors recommended that clinicians, including genetic counselors, take responsibility for examining the contents of panels and encouraged clearer communication by the laboratories about the spectrum of results that could be returned. Hiraki et al. then review the characteristics that make a gene a good candidate for inclusion on a panel for assessing the risk of breast, ovarian and colon cancers. Unlike those of mitochondrial panels, designers of cancer panels have greatly benefitted from a broad consensus as to which genes should be included. The authors focus on panels that assess individuals who are at high or moderately increased risk and caution that pedigree analysis alone fails to identify some who are at significant risk. Due to its increased sensitivity, cancer panel testing can extend genetic risk assessment to a broader population and can provide information that helps clinicians and patients weigh the pros and cons of various interventions. But the genetic heterogeneity that makes panel testing so attractive comes at an exacting, albeit familiar, cost; more variants of uncertain clinical significance are identified, multiple potentially causative mutations may be found, and pleiotropic mutations confer risks for different cancers, some of which are amenable to effective treatment while others are not. Cancer genetic counselors have been navigating the transition from a practice guideline, single gene testing approach to one based on the broader use of cancer gene panels even as surveillance and management recommendations fluctuate. Lundy et al. measured the level of congruence between cancer genetic counselors’ evaluation of prototypical cancer pedigrees with recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Although counselors demonstrated high concordance between their choice of a single gene test and NCCN guidelines, they were more likely to consider cancer panel use for highly penetrant cases that lacked defining features of a particular even in the of current practice guidelines to this While for new practice guidelines to patients still be and One issue how to best informed consent the heterogeneity of the genes on a cancer panel and the limited time a In an to the informed consent and result disclosure et al. propose a of to categorize two critical of identified the degree of risk and the degree to which management guidelines one step of the patient in this can be difficult for the a “crowd source” a of counselors, described by et a to their understandings of the panel assess their clinical and help for testing. This a approach by which genes were to individuals for review and and then As Platt and colleagues demonstrated in their study, to establish a of responsibility to the risks and and potential downstream effects of testing is to patient offering genomic sequencing have more robust consent forms over time but these continue to as more experience is And as new are to patient decisions about result the of what adequate informed consent, and how that can best be will Genetic counselors have that can the of tests by which downstream effects demand into counseling and patients make decisions about return of results. It should as no that as clinical testing laboratories have they have become of one of the growing niches for genetic counselors. et al. describe the and in this and predict that the counselors in these will help the limited amount of genetic expertise as the demand for testing grows. the common of core counseling skills with their clinical the between them in their The increase in the number of clinical genomic research such as the Sequencing described by et al. has the development of the second niche for genetic counselors. As in genetic counselors the are within such ranging from project to as molecular in interpreting variants, in to the more traditional of obtaining consent and disclosing results. and colleagues provide evidence that the role for genetic counselors in traditional research settings is also for though the about the return of results began in the research the and of genetic counseling in many remain even when significant results are The analysis of informed consent and guidelines by review showed in how these the return of results and when and how genetic counseling would be made to They that the and of these would the informed consent and could result in genetic counseling provided to more In the papers thus far, we have a of NGGC practice in its into the we might just a of which changes in the future. But what might NGGC look in the The technologies may our at a as a But we can capture one of the future by studying current genetic student training and if, when, and how genomic topics have their way into the and colleagues surveyed genetic counselors who between and to how personalized genetic testing, as testing to assess a or of developing a with a or suspected genetic was that They found a significant increase in the amount of about whole genome sequencing, Studies and testing. In their that a on clinical including test interpretation and testing would have been even more and colleagues asked a similar to those on the other of the the program directors. all the that genomic medicine was into program even more by its inclusion on the The number of to this topic from between to and adoption of this would have been even had it not been by limited access to and to clinical We the papers in this issue will to that did program genetic counselor in the they would be similar to current while others predicted a towards other settings such as primary care or to other settings such as and however, that, of the the core skills would the ability to genetic technologies, data and translate it into communicate and, the for the how much and which information to with The two stem from a common in the of the same personalized In the and predict that the of genetic counseling will be but foresee changes to its delivery These by the of and the types of for which testing will could the nature of genetic counselors’ expertise from an on those that risks to those that risk. The delivery of this in would a more stance as counselors healthy about and and in their new power to The promise of personalized in this issue by between the magnitude of changes are as or back with the of the next we might conclude that the of as first described by and serves as a when we are to step back and take of which have remained the current of we to the that we upon to translate our of this special issue into a we to all of the authors who We this issue as a beginning and it colleagues to write about their experiences with NGGC to that genetic counselor voices are heard. we would to all of the at who their time and expertise to the of this also to and the for their help and We the in this issue will provide for and and and genetic counselors to and how we can best together towards next genetic counseling. is by the National Research of the National of and with from the Cancer Research and the Comprehensive Cancer Myra and that they have no of

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.