Medical costs of children admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit: The role and possible economic impact of WES in early diagnosis

Contains fulltext : 250182.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

[European Reference Networks for rare diseases]

Item does not contain fulltextApproximately one million patients in the Netherlands and 27-36 million patients in Europe have one of the 5,000-8,000 known rare diseases. These patients often do not receive the care they need or with a substantial delay from diagnosis to treatment. As of March 2017, 24 European Reference Networks (ERNs) were launched with the aim to improve the care for these patients through cross-border healthcare, where in principle the knowledge travels and not the patient. It is expected that through the ERNs, European patients with a rare disease get more often and more quickly access to expert care and that it will accelerate guideline development and research. In each of the 24 ERNs, one or more Dutch expertise centres for rare diseases participate, and 5 ERNs are coordinated by centres from the Netherlands

Clinical exome sequencing in daily practice: 1,000 patients and beyond

Contains fulltext : 127567.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Easy-to-use online referral test detects most patients with a high familial risk of colorectal cancer

AIM: Currently only 12-30% of individuals with a high risk of Lynch syndrome, the most common hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome, are referred for genetic counselling. We assessed the sensitivity, usability and user experiences of a new online referral test aimed at improving referral of high-risk individuals for genetic counselling. METHOD: Sensitivity was assessed by entering pedigree data from high-risk individuals (i.e. Lynch syndrome mutation carriers) into the referral test to determine whether genetic counselling was recommended. For usability, we assessed nonmedical staff members' ability to determine referral, according to guidelines, in seven fictive clinical cases using the referral test after minimal training. Real-life users answered questions about their experience with the referral test. RESULT: Sensitivity of the referral test was 91% for mutation carriers with CRC (n = 164) and 73% for all affected and nonaffected mutation carriers (n = 420). Nonmedical staff members (n = 20) determined referral according to guidelines in 84% of cases using the referral test. Ten per cent (256/2470) of real-life users provided feedback about experiences; of those, 71% reported that the referral test increased reassurance, certainty about their familial risk and/or certainty about referral. CONCLUSION: The referral test has a high sensitivity in detecting individuals with a high risk of Lynch syndrome and is suitable for use in clinical practice. Widespread use of the referral test should improve cancer prevention in high-risk patients and their relatives

Patient experiences with gene panels based on exome sequencing in clinical diagnostics: high acceptance and low distress

Contains fulltext : 153601.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)The Radboud University Medical Center was among the first to implement two-step exome sequencing in clinical genetic diagnostics. This study is the first to evaluate patient experiences with gene panels based on exome sequencing, using quantified psychological variables: acceptance, psychological distress, expectations of heredity and unsolicited findings. Between August 2011 and July 2012, 177 patients diagnosed with early-onset colorectal/kidney cancer, deafness, blindness or movement disorder consented to diagnostic exome sequencing offered by clinical geneticists. Baseline questionnaires were sent to 141 adults, returned by 111 with median age of 49 [22-79] years and positive family history in 81%. Follow-up included 91 responders at median 4 [2-22] weeks after results from known gene panels per diagnosis group; exome-wide analysis is ongoing. Confirmed or possibly pathogenic mutations were found in 31% with one unsolicited finding (oncogenetic panel). Most patients (92%) were satisfied. There were no significant changes in heredity-specific distress (18% at baseline, 17% at follow-up) and expectations of heredity. Fewer patients expected unsolicited findings at follow-up (29% vs 18%, p = 0.01). Satisfaction and distress were equal in those with vs without mutations. In conclusion, most adults accepted and were satisfied with gene panels based on diagnostic exome sequencing, few reporting distress

Somatic Nonepigenetic Mismatch Repair Gene Aberrations Underly Most Mismatch Repair-Deficient Lynch-Like Tumors

Contains fulltext : 231707.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

[CHEK2-mutation in Dutch breast cancer families: expanding genetic testing for breast cancer]

Item does not contain fulltext- In the majority of breast cancer families, DNA testing does not show BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and the genetic cause of breast cancer remains unexplained. - Routine testing for the CHEK2*1100delC mutation has recently been introduced in breast cancer families in the Netherlands. - The 1100delC mutation in the CHEK2-gene may explain the occurrence of breast cancer in about 5% of non-BRCA1/2 families in the Netherlands. - In the general population the CHEK2*1100delC mutation confers a slightly increased breast cancer risk, but in a familial breast cancer setting this risk is between 35-55% for first degree female carriers. - Female breast cancer patients with the CHEK2*1100delC mutation are at increased risk of contralateral breast cancer and may have a less favourable prognosis. - Female heterozygous CHEK2*1100delC mutation carriers are offered annual mammography and specialist breast surveillance between the ages of 35-60 years.- Prospective research in CHEK2-positive families is essential in order to develop more specific treatment and screening strategies

Congenital anomalies and genetic disorders in neonates and infants: a single-center observational cohort study

Neonates with genetic disorders or congenital anomalies (CA) contribute considerably to morbidity and mortality in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). The objective of this study is to study the prevalence of genetic disorders in an academic level IV NICU. We retrospective collected and analyzed both clinical and genetic data of all 1444 infants admitted to the NICU of the Radboudumc (October 2013 to October 2015). Data were collected until infants reached at least 2 years of age. A total of 13% (194/1444) of the patients were genetically tested, and 32% (461/1444) had a CA. A total of 37% (72/194) had a laboratory-confirmed genetic diagnosis. In 53%, the diagnosis was made post-neonatally (median age = 209 days) using assays including exome sequencing. Exactly 63% (291/461) of the patients with CA, however, never received genetic testing, despite being clinically similar those who did.Conclusions: Genetic disorders were suspected in 13% of the cohort, but only confirmed in 5%. Most received their genetic diagnosis in the post-neonatal period. Extrapolation of the diagnostic yield suggests that up to 6% of our cohort may have remained genetically undiagnosed. Our data show the need to improve genetic care in the NICU for more inclusive, earlier, and faster genetic diagnosis to enable tailored management. What is Known: • Genetic disorders are suspected in many neonates but only genetically confirmed in a minority. • The presence of a genetic disorder can be easily missed and will often lead to a diagnostic odyssey requiring extensive evaluations, both clinically and genetically. What is New: • Different aspects of the clinical features and uptake of genetic test in a NICU cohort. • The need to improve genetic care in the NICU for more inclusive, earlier, and faster genetic diagnosis to enable tailored management

Improving recognition and referral of patients with an increased familial risk of colorectal cancer: results from a randomized controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 153120.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)AIM: Only 12-49% of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and their first-degree relatives with an increased familial CRC risk are referred for cancer prevention measures (surveillance colonoscopies or genetic counselling). The study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel strategy to improve the uptake of genetic counselling for high risk individuals and surveillance colonoscopy for moderate risk groups. METHOD: Eighteen hospitals participated in a clustered randomized controlled trial. Patients in nine hospitals received usual care (group A). Nine other hospitals received the novel strategy (group B) including access to a website for patients and clinicians, patient-targeted brochures and clinician-targeted education and pocket referral cards. Data before and after dissemination of the strategy were collected from questionnaires and medical records. RESULTS: Data were complete for 358 (44%) of 820 CRC patients and 50 (36%) of 137 clinicians before dissemination of the strategy and 392/862 patients (45%) and 47/137 clinicians (34%) after. Referral for cancer prevention measures was assessed at a median of 8 (2-12) months after CRC diagnosis in groups A and B before the dissemination of the strategy and in group A after. In group B referral was assessed at a median of 9 (4-11) months after the dissemination of the strategy. Uptake of genetic counselling by high risk patients was equal in groups A and B, being 33% before and 15% after (P = 0.003). Uptake of surveillance colonoscopy by moderate risk relatives did not change significantly (group A, 36% before vs 41% after; group B, 33% before vs 19% after). In group B 94/140 patients (67%) and 25/72 clinicians (35%) visited the website and 34/140 (24%) patients read the brochure. Patients valued clinicians' information as most useful, followed by the patient brochure. Clinicians preferred pocket cards and education. CONCLUSION: Our strategy did not improve referral for cancer prevention measures. Although the newly offered strategy elements were appreciated, patients preferred clinicians' advice regarding referral for cancer prevention measures. It may be useful to aim future interventions at healthcare professionals rather than patients to improve the prevention of familial cancer