Evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of diverse recruitment methods for a genetic screening study.

PURPOSE: Recruitment of participants from diverse backgrounds is crucial to the generalizability of genetic research, but has proven challenging. We retrospectively evaluated recruitment methods used for a study on return of genetic results. METHODS: The costs of study design, development, and participant enrollment were calculated, and the characteristics of the participants enrolled through the seven recruitment methods were examined. RESULTS: A total of 1118 participants provided consent, a blood sample, and questionnaire data. The estimated cost across recruitment methods ranged from $579 to $1666 per participant and required a large recruitment team. Recruitment methods using flyers and staff networks were the most cost-efficient and resulted in the highest completion rate. Targeted sampling that emphasized the importance of Latino/a participation, utilization of translated materials, and in-person recruitments contributed to enrolling a demographically diverse sample. CONCLUSIONS: Although all methods were deployed in the same hospital or neighborhood and shared the same staff, each recruitment method was different in terms of cost and characteristics of the enrolled participants, suggesting the importance of carefully choosing the recruitment methods based on the desired composition of the final study sample. This analysis provides information about the effectiveness and cost of different methods to recruit adults for genetic research.

Mutations in SLC20A2 are a major cause of familial idiopathic basal ganglia calcification.

Familial idiopathic basal ganglia calcification (IBGC) or Fahr's disease is a rare neurodegenerative disorder characterized by calcium deposits in the basal ganglia and other brain regions, which is associated with neuropsychiatric and motor symptoms. Familial IBGC is genetically heterogeneous and typically transmitted in an autosomal dominant fashion. We performed a mutational analysis of SLC20A2, the first gene found to cause IBGC, to assess its genetic contribution to familial IBGC. We recruited 218 subjects from 29 IBGC-affected families of varied ancestry and collected medical history, neurological exam, and head CT scans to characterize each patient's disease status. We screened our patient cohort for mutations in SLC20A2. Twelve novel (nonsense, deletions, missense, and splice site) potentially pathogenic variants, one synonymous variant, and one previously reported mutation were identified in 13 families. Variants predicted to be deleterious cosegregated with disease in five families. Three families showed nonsegregation with clinical disease of such variants, but retrospective review of clinical and neuroimaging data strongly suggested previous misclassification. Overall, mutations in SLC20A2 account for as many as 41% of our familial IBGC cases. Our screen in a large series expands the catalog of SLC20A2 mutations identified to date and demonstrates that mutations in SLC20A2 are a major cause of familial IBGC. Non-perfect segregation patterns of predicted deleterious variants highlight the challenges of phenotypic assessment in this condition with highly variable clinical presentation.

New genes, new dilemmas: FTLD genetics and its implications for families.

After Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is the second leading cause of dementia in persons less than 65 years of age. Up to 40% of FTLD cases have a positive family history. Research on these families has led to the discovery of four disease-causing genes: microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT), progranulin (PGRN), valosin-containing protein (VCP), and charged multivesicular body protein 2B (CHMP2B). MAPT and PGRN are responsible for the largest number of familial cases. Each of these genes differs by disease mechanism. Moreover mutations in both genes are associated with significant interfamilial and intrafamilial phenotypic variation. Genetic counseling needs to address the differences between the PGRN and MAPT mutations as well as the variation in clinical symptoms. The aims of this article are to describe the genetics of the FTLD spectrum and aid in the genetic counseling of individuals who may carry genetic mutations.

Ethical issues in cancer genetics: I 1) whose information is it?

This article presents and discusses four clinical cases that exemplify the complexity of ethical dilemmas concerning the provider's obligation to disclose or withhold genetic information from patients. Case 1: What is the responsibility of the cancer genetics provider to ensure that a positive test results is shared with distant relatives? Case 2: To ensure that results go to at-risk relatives, do we have the right to ignore the wishes of the designated next-of-kin? Case 3: Do we have the right to reveal a familial BRCA1 mutation to a patient's relative, who is at 50% risk? Case 4: Do we have an obligation to reveal that a patient is not a blood relative and therefore, not at risk to have inherited a familial mutation? These cases form the basis for discussing the provider's dual obligations to keeping patient confidentiality and informing patients and families about risk (i.e. duty to warn). We also provide a summary of consensus points and additional discussion questions for each case.

When sporadic disease is not sporadic: the potential for genetic etiology.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 2% of Alzheimer disease cases and 10% to 15% of prion disease cases are due to mutations in autosomal dominant genes. Mutations have been found in patients without family histories of neurological disease. OBJECTIVES: To emphasize the need for consideration of a genetic etiology of prion disease and early-onset Alzheimer disease, regardless of the absence of a significant family history, as well as the need for pretest genetic counseling of all patients or their families. DESIGN: Three case reports. PATIENTS AND RESULTS: Patient 1, a 53-year-old man with possible Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, was enrolled in a research study that included sequencing of the prion protein gene. Although there was no family history of neurological disease, an E200K mutation was found. This unexpected result caused the family significant distress. Patient 2, a 55-year-old woman with biopsy-proven Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, participated in a prion disease research study. Her family was counseled about the possibility of hereditary Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, despite the lack of family history. After assessing the ramifications, the family decided not to learn about the patient's genetic test results. Patient 3 was a 54-year-old man with a 6-year history of memory loss. A diagnosis of probable Alzheimer disease was given, and the patient and his family were counseled on the availability of presenilin 1 testing, although there was no known family history of dementia. The family agreed to testing, and a presenilin 1 mutation was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Certain neurodegenerative diseases may have a genetic etiology, despite the lack of a positive family history. Revealing a newly discovered hereditary cause of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or Alzheimer disease can have a profound effect on families. Pretest counseling on genetic issues is essential to better prepare families and to allow them to make an informed choice about learning genetic test results.