Defining the genotypic and phenotypic spectrum of X-linked MSL3-related disorder.

PURPOSE: We sought to delineate the genotypic and phenotypic spectrum of female and male individuals with X-linked, MSL3-related disorder (Basilicata-Akhtar syndrome). METHODS: Twenty-five individuals (15 males, 10 females) with causative variants in MSL3 were ascertained through exome or genome sequencing at ten different sequencing centers. RESULTS: We identified multiple variant types in MSL3 (ten nonsense, six frameshift, four splice site, three missense, one in-frame-deletion, one multi-exon deletion), most proven to be de novo, and clustering in the terminal eight exons suggesting that truncating variants in the first five exons might be compensated by an alternative MSL3 transcript. Three-dimensional modeling of missense and splice variants indicated that these have a deleterious effect. The main clinical findings comprised developmental delay and intellectual disability ranging from mild to severe. Autism spectrum disorder, muscle tone abnormalities, and macrocephaly were common as well as hearing impairment and gastrointestinal problems. Hypoplasia of the cerebellar vermis emerged as a consistent magnetic resonance image (MRI) finding. Females and males were equally affected. Using facial analysis technology, a recognizable facial gestalt was determined. CONCLUSION: Our aggregated data illustrate the genotypic and phenotypic spectrum of X-linked, MSL3-related disorder (Basilicata-Akhtar syndrome). Our cohort improves the understanding of disease related morbidity and allows us to propose detailed surveillance guidelines for affected individuals.

Adverse Events in Genetic Testing: The Fourth Case Series.

PURPOSE: In this ongoing national case series, we document 25 new genetic testing cases in which tests were recommended, ordered, interpreted, or used incorrectly. METHODS: An invitation to submit cases of adverse events in genetic testing was issued to the general National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv, the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group members, private genetic counselor laboratory groups, and via social media platforms (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Examples highlighted in the invitation included errors in ordering, counseling, and/or interpretation of genetic testing and did not limit submissions to cases involving genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition. Clinical documentation, including pedigree, was requested. Twenty-six cases were accepted, and a thematic analysis was performed. Submitters were asked to approve the representation of their cases before manuscript submission. RESULTS: All submitted cases took place in the United States and were from cancer, pediatric, preconception, and general adult settings and involved both medical-grade and direct-to-consumer genetic testing with raw data analysis. In 8 cases, providers ordered the wrong genetic test. In 2 cases, multiple errors were made when genetic testing was ordered. In 3 cases, patients received incorrect information from providers because genetic test results were misinterpreted or because of limitations in the provider's knowledge of genetics. In 3 cases, pathogenic genetic variants identified were incorrectly assumed to completely explain the suspicious family histories of cancer. In 2 cases, patients received inadequate or no information with respect to genetic test results. In 2 cases, result interpretation/documentation by the testing laboratories was erroneous. In 2 cases, genetic counselors reinterpreted the results of people who had undergone direct-to-consumer genetic testing and/or clarifying medical-grade testing was ordered. DISCUSSION: As genetic testing continues to become more common and complex, it is clear that we must ensure that appropriate testing is ordered and that results are interpreted and used correctly. Access to certified genetic counselors continues to be an issue for some because of workforce limitations. Potential solutions involve action on multiple fronts: new genetic counseling delivery models, expanding the genetic counseling workforce, improving genetics and genomics education of nongenetics health care professionals, addressing health care policy barriers, and more. Genetic counselors have also positioned themselves in new roles to help patients and consumers as well as health care providers, systems, and payers adapt to new genetic testing technologies and models. The work to be done is significant, but so are the consequences of errors in genetic testing.

A tailored approach to family-centered genetic counseling for cystic fibrosis newborn screening: the Wisconsin model.

This article describes the development of a tailored family-centered approach to genetic counseling following abnormal newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF). A genetic counseling consortium reviewed research literature, selected theoretical frameworks, and incorporated counseling psychology micro skills. This innovative intervention integrated theories and empirically validated techniques. Pilot testing and parent feedback confirmed satisfaction with and feasibility of the approach designed to (a) minimize parents' distress, (b) facilitate parents' understanding, (c) increase parents' capacities to use genetic information, and (d) enhance parents' experiences with genetic counseling. Counselors engage in a highly interactive process of evaluating parents' needs and tailoring assessments and interventions that include a therapeutic environment, the family's emotional needs, parents' informational needs, and a follow-up plan. This promising new model is the first to establish a theory-driven, evidence-based standard for genetic counseling in the context of NBS for CF. Additional research will evaluate the model's efficacy in clinical practice.

Family information service participation increases the rates of mutation testing among members of families with BRCA1/2 mutations.

Some members of hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) families may not participate in BRCA testing to determine their mutation status in part because they are unaware of their cancer risk and the availability of BRCA testing. Participation in a family information service (FIS), of which we have provided more than 100 sessions during the past 30 years, has been seen to effectively allow family members to be educated regarding their cancer genetic risk and potential benefits from cancer control measures such as mutation testing. However, the effect of the FIS on the rate of mutation testing has not been studied. One thousand five hundred seventy-four eligible (>18-year old, at a 25% or higher pedigree risk) members from 60 extended HBOC families with BRCA1/2 mutations were invited to attend a FIS to learn about their risk and undergo genetic testing. The rates of mutation testing were compared between those who had attended an FIS, and those who had not with chi-squared test and logistic regression analysis. Seventy five percent (334/444) of FIS attendees had undergone mutation testing following or during an FIS which was significantly higher than the 33.8% (382/1130) rate among nonattendees (p < 0.0001). Logistic regression analysis showed that FIS attendance, breast-ovarian cancer history, gender, and age were significant variables for undertaking a mutation test. FIS attendance significantly increased the rate of mutation testing among high-risk family members.