Challenges of infertility genetic counseling: Impact on counselors' personal and professional lives.

Infertility genetic counselors (GCs) work with patients struggling to become pregnant who desire genetic testing of embryos and preconception genetic testing or carrier screening. Because personal and professional challenges have not been examined in this relatively new genetic counseling specialty, we investigated the difficulties infertility GCs face in their professional roles. Past and present infertility GCs in patient-facing roles were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Purposive sampling ensured participants were diverse in clinical setting, reproductive history, and other demographics. Nineteen participants completed a semi-structured interview, at which time data saturation occurred. Thematic analysis revealed infertility GCs consider their patients more emotionally stressed than patients in other specialties. Infertility GCs relate easily to patients, build long-term patient relationships, and feel invested in the reproductive successes of patients. Participants reported heightened concern for their own fertility, leading to high personal uptake of preconception genetic and fertility tests. Participants described discomfort when counseling while visibly pregnant and reluctance to disclose their own reproductive histories. Further research is needed on the complex interactions of GCs' personal and professional lives. Peer support groups and professional dialogue about the personal effects of the role may be beneficial for infertility GCs.

Scope of practice distinctions based on primary work setting for genetic counselors in assisted reproductive technologies.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the tasks within various work settings that assisted reproductive technologies (ART) genetic counselors believe to be within their scope of practice. DESIGN: A survey was constructed and administered to genetic counselors who practice in the field of ART. SETTING: Genetic counselors were asked to self-identify with a primary ART work setting: genetic testing laboratory (preimplantation genetic testing, carrier screening, or both), in vitro fertilization clinic, gamete donor agency, telegenetic practice (either private practice or telemedicine company), or other. PATIENTS: N/A. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of years of practice in ART, tasks performed within various ART work settings representing the reality or the ideal, and perception of understanding of the scope of practice by nongenetics colleagues. RESULTS: The majority of respondents reported <10 years of experience in this field. There were differences in what was considered the scope of practice among the various work settings. ART genetic counselors believed that their scope of practice was not well understood by their nongenetics colleagues. They also reported differences between the actual duties performed and what they ideally believed would be within their job function. CONCLUSIONS: The genetic counseling specialty of ART is a new work setting for genetic counselors. There is a need for education regarding the various roles of genetic counselors in ART. Better definition of the appropriate duties for genetic counselors in the various ART work settings is needed to foster effective working relationships with their nongenetics colleagues and optimize patient care.

Improved detection of cystic fibrosis mutations in infertility patients with DNA sequence analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate determination of mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene is critical for genetic counselling and treatment of obstructive azoospermia. Of concern is that detection rates with routine CFTR mutation panels vary widely depending on patient ancestry; and such panels have limited value for azoospermic patients, who are more likely to carry rare mutations. An alternative approach offers comprehensive, CFTR mutation analysis by a DNA sequence method. We investigated whether this method could improve CFTR detection rates in men with obstructive azoospermia in a prospective study of men with obstructive azoospermia and their partners who were referred for genetic counselling and testing at one of two institutions. METHODS: Sixteen patients with congenital absence of the vas deferens (CAVD, n = 14) or idiopathic obstructive azoospermia (n = 2) were studied. DNA from all patients was analysed for mutations by the DNA sequence method. In addition to this method, six men underwent CFTR analysis by a common 25 or 31 mutation panel coupled with poly T analysis. In 10 subjects, common mutation panel findings were inferred from DNA sequence method results. RESULTS: Overall, 12/16 (75%) azoospermic patients had one or more CFTR mutations and/or 5T alleles, including 12 mutations in 10 patients (two compound heterozygotes) and seven 5T alleles in six patients (one homozygote). The sequence method detected all mutations and three variants of unknown significance. By comparison, the common mutation panels detected only 3/12 mutations (25%) and 0/3 variants. CONCLUSION: The DNA sequence method detects more CFTR mutations than common mutation panels. Given the serious, clinical consequences of transmitting such mutations, this study underscores the importance of accurate, CFTR mutation detection in men with obstructive azoospermia and their partners.

Ring 21 chromosome and a satellited 1p in the same patient: novel origin for an ectopic NOR.

Nucleolus organizer regions (NORs) are present on the satellite stalks located on the short arms of the acrocentric chromosomes. NORs present on non-acrocentric chromosomes (ectopic NORs) are rare and were reported in both phenotypically normal and abnormal individuals. We describe a patient, ascertained prenatally, with an ectopic NOR on 1p and a ring 21 chromosomes. Amniocentesis was performed at 27-weeks gestation on a 19-year-old woman after identification of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) by ultrasound. Cytogenetic analysis of amniocytes from the fetus showed a mos 46,XX,1ps,r(21) (p11.2q22.3)[44]/45,XX,1ps,-21[6] karyotype. Parental karyotypes were normal, indicating a de novo origin for these rearrangements in the fetus. Molecular cytogenetic characterization of the 1ps showed no loss of euchromatin and retention of the telomeric repeats. Characterization of the r(21) using array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) identified that the deletion was approximately 5 Mb encompassing most of chromosome band 21q22.3. The ectopic NOR (1ps) was most likely derived from the acentric 21p fragment generated by the chromosome breakage event that lead to formation of the r(21) chromosome. This represents a novel mechanism for the origin of ectopic NORs. In addition, this study illustrates the importance of FISH analysis with telomeric and subtelomeric probes for characterization of chromosomes with ectopic NORs.