Exploring uncertainties regarding unsolicited findings in genetic testing

Objectives: Non-normative uncertainty (uncertainty about empirical facts) and normative uncertainty (uncertainty about moral values or beliefs) regarding unsolicited findings (UFs) might play an important role in clinical genetics. Identifying normative uncertainty is of special interest since it might guide towards novel directions for counseling practice. This study aims to gain insight into the role of non-normative and normative uncertainty regarding UFs, as expressed by counselees and counselors. Methods: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with counselees (n = 20) and counselors (n = 20) who had been confronted with UFs. Following a deductive approach, we used Han et al.’s existing theoretical framework of uncertainty, in which we additionally incorporated normative uncertainty. Results: Major issues of non-normative uncertainty were practical and personal for counselees, whilst counselors’ uncertainty pertained mainly to scientific issues. Normative uncertainty was a major theme throughout the interviews. We encountered the moral conflicts of autonomy vs. beneficence and non-maleficence and of autonomy vs. truthfulness. Conclusion: Non-normative uncertainty regarding UFs highlights the need to gain more insight in their penetrance and clinical utility. This study suggests moral conflicts are a major source of feelings of uncertainty in clinical genetics. Practice implications: Exploring counselees’ non-normative uncertainties and normative conflicts seems a prerequisite to optimize genetic counseling.</p

Clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with unsolicited findings in next-generation sequencing: “A great technology creating new dilemmas”

Unsolicited findings (UFs) from diagnostic genetic testing are a subject of debate. The emerging consensus is that some UFs from genetic testing should be disclosed, but recommendations on UF disclosure generally leave room for variation in practice. This study aimed to explore clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with UFs during pretest counseling and UF disclosure. We interviewed 20 certified clinical genetics medical specialists and clinical genetics residents, working in 7 Dutch genetic centers. Participants indicated that discussing the probability of detecting UFs is an integral part of pretest counseling and informed consent. However, they expressed doubts about the degree to which this discussion should occur and about what information they should share with patients. They argued that the contents of their counseling should depend on the individual patient's capacity to understand information. These results endorse the importance of tailored pretest counseling alongside informed consent for optimal genetic consultations. While “medical actionability” is broadly accepted as an important criterion for the disclosure of UFs, participants experienced substantial uncertainty regarding this concept. This study underscores the need for further demarcation of what exactly constitutes medical actionability. Installation of an expert panel to help healthcare professionals decide what variants to disclose will support them when facing the dilemmas presented by UFs

Exploring uncertainties regarding unsolicited findings in genetic testing

OBJECTIVES: Non-normative uncertainty (uncertainty about empirical facts) and normative uncertainty (uncertainty about moral values or beliefs) regarding unsolicited findings (UFs) might play an important role in clinical genetics. Identifying normative uncertainty is of special interest since it might guide towards novel directions for counseling practice. This study aims to gain insight into the role of non-normative and normative uncertainty regarding UFs, as expressed by counselees and counselors. METHODS: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with counselees (n = 20) and counselors (n = 20) who had been confronted with UFs. Following a deductive approach, we used Han et al.'s existing theoretical framework of uncertainty, in which we additionally incorporated normative uncertainty. RESULTS: Major issues of non-normative uncertainty were practical and personal for counselees, whilst counselors' uncertainty pertained mainly to scientific issues. Normative uncertainty was a major theme throughout the interviews. We encountered the moral conflicts of autonomy vs. beneficence and non-maleficence and of autonomy vs. truthfulness. CONCLUSION: Non-normative uncertainty regarding UFs highlights the need to gain more insight in their penetrance and clinical utility. This study suggests moral conflicts are a major source of feelings of uncertainty in clinical genetics. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Exploring counselees' non-normative uncertainties and normative conflicts seems a prerequisite to optimize genetic counseling

Challenges and Pragmatic Solutions in Pre-Test and Post-Test Genetic Counseling for Prenatal Exome Sequencing

The yield of genetic prenatal diagnosis has been notably improved by introducing whole genome chromosomal microarray (CMA) and prenatal exome sequencing (pES). However, together with increased numbers of diagnoses made, the need to manage challenging findings such as variants of unknown significance (VUS) and incidental findings (IF) also increased. We have summarized the current guidelines and recommendations and we have shown current solutions used in our tertiary center in the Netherlands. We discuss four of the most common clinical situations: fetus with normal pES results, fetus with a pathogenic finding explaining the fetal phenotype, fetus with a variant of uncertain clinical significance fitting the phenotype and fetus with a variant leading to an incidental diagnosis. Additionally, we reflect on solutions in order to facilitate genetic counseling in an NGS-era

De novo mutations in the SET nuclear proto-oncogene, encoding a component of the inhibitor of histone acetyltransferases (INHAT) complex in patients with nonsyndromic intellectual disability

Contains fulltext : 192556.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

1 in 38 individuals at risk of a dominant medically actionable disease

Contains fulltext : 200879.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

Limited additional value of karyotyping cultured amniotic fluid cell colonies in addition to microarray on uncultured cells for confirmation of abnormal non-invasive prenatal testing results

Objectives: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) allows the detection of placental chromosome aberrations. To verify whether the fetus also has the chromosome aberration, diagnostic follow-up testing is required. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the added value of analyzing amniotic fluid (AF) cell cultures in addition to uncultured AF cells for the detection of fetal mosaicism. Method: NIPT was performed as part of the Dutch TRIDENT study. Cytogenetic studies in uncultured AF were performed using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-array. Cultured AF cell colonies (in situ method) were investigated with fluorescent in situ hybridization and/or karyotyping. Clinical outcome data were collected in cases with discordant results. Results: Between April 2014 and December 2021, 368 amniocenteses were performed after a chromosomal aberration was detected with NIPT. Excluding 134 cases of common aneuploidies (confirmed by quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction), 29 cases with investigation of uncultured cells only and 1 case without informed consent, 204 cases were eligible for this study. In 196 (96%) cases, the results in uncultured and cultured cells were concordant normal, abnormal or mosaic. Five cases (2%) showed mosaicism in cultured AF cells, whereas uncultured AF cells were normal. Two (1%) of these, one mosaic trisomy 13 and one mosaic trisomy 16, were considered true fetal mosaics. Conclusion: The added value of investigating AF cell cultures in addition to uncultured cells is limited to two of 204 (1%) cases in which true fetal mosaicsm would otherwise be missed. The clinical relevance of one (trisomy 13) remained unknown and the other case also showed ultrasound anomalies, which determined pregnancy management. This seems to justify limiting prenatal cytogenetic confirmatory testing to SNP arrays on uncultured AF cells, considerably shortening the reporting time.</p

The role of a multidisciplinary team in managing variants of uncertain clinical significance in prenatal genetic diagnosis

Background: Although in general prenatal exome sequencing only reports (likely) pathogenic variants, in some cases a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) is disclosed. The aims of this retrospective study were to evaluate the types of VUS that have been reported to prospective parents, possible reclassification and to design a standard flow chart to determine which types of VUS could be considered for reporting in prenatal settings. Furthermore, we investigated what the crucial elements are to facilitate rapid management of uncertain results in a prenatal setting. Material and methods: We reviewed exome results from 451 pregnancies performed in 2019–2021. We analyzed which factors that were taken into account by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) contributed towards decision making on reporting VUS after prenatal exome sequencing. Results: In 9/451 (2%) pregnancies tested with exome sequencing using a broad panel analysis a VUS was reported. After birth 3/9 VUS could be reclassified to likely pathogenic variants based on new clinical follow up data. We considered reporting VUS in genes: 1) matching the fetal phenotype, 2) associated with a severe disorder when a functional test is available or 3) possibly associated with a disorder where early post-partum diagnosis and treatment are crucial for a better prognosis. Two flowcharts were designed to guide first the laboratory specialist and then the MDT in decisions on reporting VUS. The crucial elements that enabled timely decisions on VUS disclosure were regular meetings, appropriate expertise, professional connections with other experts and psychological safety within the MDT. Conclusion: In this study three out of nine VUS could be re-classified as likely pathogenic after clinical follow-up. In order to protect pregnant couples from the burden of uncertain results, the genetic professionals have to take the responsibility to limit the reporting of VUS. This can be done not only by automated filtering of data, by following professional guidelines and by building standardized decision flows, but also by discussing individual cases considering personal situations and the involved disease and by sharing professional experience and responsibility in a multidisciplinary prenatal team setting.</p