Parental experiences of rapid exome sequencing in cases with major ultrasound anomalies during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Adding rapid exome sequencing (rES) to conventional genetic tests improves the diagnostic yield of pregnancies showing ultrasound abnormalities but also carries a higher chance of unsolicited findings. We evaluated how rES, including pre- and post-test counseling, was experienced by parents investigating its impact on decision-making and experienced levels of anxiety. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted. Participating couples (n = 46) were asked to fill in two surveys (pre-test and post-test counseling) and 11 couples were approached for an additional interview. RESULTS: All couples accepted the rES test-offer with the most important reason for testing emphasizing their hope of finding an underlying diagnosis that would aid decision-making. The actual impact on decision-making was low, however, since most parents decided to terminate the pregnancy based on the major and multiple fetal ultrasound anomalies and did not wait for their rES results. Anxiety was elevated for most participants and decreased over time. CONCLUSION: Major congenital anomalies detected on ultrasound seem to have more impact on prenatal parental decision-making and anxiety then the offer and results of rES. However, the impact of rES on reproductive decision-making and experienced anxiety requires further investigation, especially in pregnancies where less (severe) fetal anomalies are detected on ultrasound.

A prospective study on rapid exome sequencing as a diagnostic test for multiple congenital anomalies on fetal ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: Conventional genetic tests (quantitative fluorescent-PCR [QF-PCR] and single nucleotide polymorphism-array) only diagnose ~40% of fetuses showing ultrasound abnormalities. Rapid exome sequencing (rES) may improve this diagnostic yield, but includes challenges such as uncertainties in fetal phenotyping, variant interpretation, incidental unsolicited findings, and rapid turnaround times. In this study, we implemented rES in prenatal care to increase diagnostic yield. METHODS: We prospectively studied 55 fetuses. Inclusion criteria were: (a) two or more independent major fetal anomalies, (b) hydrops fetalis or bilateral renal cysts alone, or (c) one major fetal anomaly and a first-degree relative with the same anomaly. In addition to conventional genetic tests, we performed trio rES analysis using a custom virtual gene panel of ~3850 Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) genes. RESULTS: We established a genetic rES-based diagnosis in 8 out of 23 fetuses (35%) without QF-PCR or array abnormalities. Diagnoses included MIRAGE (SAMD9), Zellweger (PEX1), Walker-Warburg (POMGNT1), Noonan (PTNP11), Kabuki (KMT2D), and CHARGE (CHD7) syndrome and two cases of Osteogenesis Imperfecta type 2 (COL1A1). In six cases, rES diagnosis aided perinatal management. The median turnaround time was 14 (range 8-20) days. CONCLUSION: Implementing rES as a routine test in the prenatal setting is challenging but technically feasible, with a promising diagnostic yield and significant clinical relevance.

Support needs of caregivers of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the support needs of Dutch informal caregivers of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). METHOD: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 caregivers of ALS patients. Audio-taped interviews were transcribed and data were analyzed thematically. RESULT: A total of four global support needs emerged: "more personal time", "assistance in applying for resources", "counseling", and "peer contact". Despite their needs, caregivers are reluctant to apply for and accept support. They saw their own needs as secondary to the needs of the patients. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: ALS seems to lead to an intensive caregiving situation with multiple needs emerging in a short period. This study offers targets for the development of supportive interventions. A proactive approach seems essential, acknowledging the importance of the role of the caregivers in the care process at an early stage, informing them about the risk of burden, monitoring their wellbeing, and repeatedly offering support opportunities. Using e-health may help tailor interventions to the caregivers' support needs.

Reinterpretation, reclassification, and its downstream effects: challenges for clinical laboratory geneticists.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the amount of genomic data produced in clinical genetics services has increased significantly due to the advent of next-generation sequencing. This influx of genomic information leads to continuous changes in knowledge on how genetic variants relate to hereditary disease. These changes can have important consequences for patients who have had genetic testing in the past, as new information may affect their clinical management. When and how patients should be recontacted after new genetic information becomes available has been investigated extensively. However, the issue of how to handle the changing nature of genetic information remains underexplored in a laboratory setting, despite it being the first stage at which changes in genetic data are identified and managed. METHODS: The authors organized a 7-day online focus group discussion. Fifteen clinical laboratory geneticists took part. All (nine) Dutch clinical molecular genetics diagnostic laboratories were represented. RESULTS: Laboratories in our study reinterpret genetic variants reactively, e.g. at the request of a clinician or following identification of a previously classified variant in a new patient. Participants currently deemed active, periodic reinterpretation to be unfeasible and opinions differed on whether it is desirable, particularly regarding patient autonomy and the main responsibilities of the laboratory. The efficacy of reinterpretation was questioned in the presence of other strategies, such as reanalysis and resequencing of DNA. Despite absence of formal policy regarding when to issue a new report for clinicians due to reclassified genetic data, participants indicated similar practice across all laboratories. However, practice differed significantly between laboratory geneticists regarding the reporting of VUS reclassifications. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, the authors formulated five challenges needing to be addressed in future laboratory guidelines: 1. Should active reinterpretation of variants be conducted by the laboratory as a routine practice? 2. How does reinterpretation initiated by the laboratory relate to patient expectations and consent? 3. When should reinterpreted data be considered clinically significant and communicated from laboratory to clinician? 4. Should reinterpretation, reanalysis or a new test be conducted? 5. How are reclassifications perceived and how might this affect laboratory practice?