Outer Hair Cell Glutamate Signaling through Type II Spiral Ganglion Afferents Activates Neurons in the Cochlear Nucleus in Response to Nondamaging Sounds.

Cochlear outer hair cells (OHCs) are known to uniquely participate in auditory processing through their electromotility, and like inner hair cells, are also capable of releasing vesicular glutamate onto spiral ganglion (SG) neurons: in this case, onto the sparse Type II SG neurons. However, unlike glutamate signaling at the inner hair cell-Type I SG neuron synapse, which is robust across a wide spectrum of sound intensities, glutamate signaling at the OHC-Type II SG neuron synapse is weaker and has been hypothesized to occur only at intense, possibly damaging sound levels. Here, we tested the ability of the OHC-Type II SG pathway to signal to the brain in response to moderate, nondamaging sound (80 dB SPL) as well as to intense sound (115 dB SPL). First, we determined the VGluTs associated with OHC signaling and then confirmed the loss of glutamatergic synaptic transmission from OHCs to Type II SG neurons in KO mice using dendritic patch-clamp recordings. Next, we generated genetic mouse lines in which vesicular glutamate release occurs selectively from OHCs, and then assessed c-Fos expression in the cochlear nucleus in response to sound. From these analyses, we show, for the first time, that glutamatergic signaling at the OHC-Type II SG neuron synapse is capable of activating cochlear nucleus neurons, even at moderate sound levels.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Evidence suggests that cochlear outer hair cells (OHCs) release glutamate onto Type II spiral ganglion neurons only when exposed to loud sound, and that Type II neurons are activated by tissue damage. Knowing whether moderate level sound, without tissue damage, activates this pathway has functional implications for this fundamental auditory pathway. We first determined that OHCs rely largely on VGluT3 for synaptic glutamate release. We then used a genetically modified mouse line in which OHCs, but not inner hair cells, release vesicular glutamate to demonstrate that moderate sound exposure activates cochlear nucleus neurons via the OHC-Type II spiral ganglion pathway. Together, these data indicate that glutamate signaling at the OHC-Type II afferent synapse participates in auditory function at moderate sound levels.

Timely cancer genetic counseling and testing for young women with breast cancer: impact on surgical decision-making for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy.

PURPOSE: Genetic testing (GT) can identify individuals with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) in breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, who may consider contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM). We report on CRRM rates in young women newly diagnosed with BC who received GT through a multidisciplinary clinic. METHODS: Clinical data were reviewed for patients seen between November 2014 and June 2019. Patients with non-metastatic, unilateral BC diagnosed at age ≤ 45 and completed GT prior to surgery were included. Associations between surgical intervention and age, BC stage, family history, and GT results were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 194 patients, 30 (15.5%) had a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, NBN, NF1), with 66.7% in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Of 164 (84.5%) uninformative results, 132 (68%) were negative and 32 (16.5%) were variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Overall, 67 (34.5%) had CRRM, including 25/30 (83.3%) PV/LPV carriers and 42/164 (25.6%) non-carriers. A positive test result (p < 0.01) and significant family history were associated with CRRM (p = 0.02). For the 164 with uninformative results, multivariate analysis showed that CRRM was not associated with age (p = 0.23), a VUS, (p = 0.08), family history (p = 0.10), or BC stage (p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of young women with BC, the identification of a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene and a significant family history were associated with the decision to pursue CRRM. Thus, incorporation of genetic services in the initial evaluation of young patients with a new BC could contribute to the surgical decision-making process.

Certified Nurse-Midwives' Experiences With Provision of Prenatal Genetic Screening: A Case for Interprofessional Collaboration.

Prenatal genetic screening (GS) for the most common autosomal aneuploidies encompasses maternal serum screening (MSS) and noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT, or cell-free fetal DNA testing). In the United States, most maternity care is provided by obstetrician-gynecologists; however, women are increasingly utilizing the services of certified nurse-midwives (CNMs). Currently, limited research exists on midwives' experiences with providing prenatal GS. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore CNMs' experiences in providing prenatal GS. A semistructured guide focused on MSS and NIPT was used to interview a convenience sample of 13 CNMs. Results were coded and analyzed using grounded theory to elicit overarching themes. Results were organized into 6 themes describing CNMs' prenatal GS provision: (1) clinical protocols; (2) patient education; (3) patient-CNM shared decision-making process; (4) testing initiation; (5) results delivery; and (6) follow-up coordination. Key influences on midwives' perspectives on offering prenatal GS included a noninterventionist approach to pregnancy and past experiences with false-positive MSS results. Participants had an understanding of prenatal GS that was appropriate to midwifery scope of practice. Results indicate that NIPT utilization is compatible with the midwifery philosophy of noninterventionism, although midwives had limited experiences with NIPT to date.

Impact of comprehensive family history and genetic analysis in the multidisciplinary pancreatic tumor clinic setting.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing is recommended for all pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. Prior research demonstrates that multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer clinics (MDPCs) improve treatment- and survival-related outcomes for PDAC patients. However, limited information exists regarding the utility of integrated genetics in the MDPC setting. We hypothesized that incorporating genetics in an MDPC serving both PDAC patients and high-risk individuals (HRI) could: (1) improve compliance with guideline-based genetic testing for PDAC patients, and (2) optimize HRI identification and PDAC surveillance participation to improve early detection and survival. METHODS: Demographics, genetic testing results, and pedigrees were reviewed for PDAC patients and HRI at one institution over 45 months. Genetic testing analyzed 16 PDAC-associated genes at minimum. RESULTS: Overall, 969 MDPC subjects were evaluated during the study period; another 56 PDAC patients were seen outside the MDPC. Among 425 MDPC PDAC patients, 333 (78.4%) completed genetic testing; 29 (8.7%) carried a PDAC-related pathogenic germline variant (PGV). Additionally, 32 (9.6%) met familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) criteria. These PDAC patients had 191 relatives eligible for surveillance or genetic testing. Only 2/56 (3.6%) non-MDPC PDAC patients completed genetic testing (p < 0.01). Among 544 HRI, 253 (46.5%) had a known PGV or a designation of FPC, and were eligible for surveillance at baseline; of the remainder, 15/291 (5.2%) were eligible following genetic testing and PGV identification. CONCLUSION: Integrating genetics into the multidisciplinary setting significantly improved genetic testing compliance by reducing logistical barriers for PDAC patients, and clarified cancer risks for their relatives while conserving clinical resources. Overall, we identified 206 individuals newly eligible for surveillance or genetic testing (191 relatives of MDPC PDAC patients, and 15 HRI from this cohort), enabling continuity of care for PDAC patients and at-risk relatives in one clinic.

Outcomes of retesting in patients with previously uninformative cancer genetics evaluations.

Advances in cancer genetics have increased germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) detection rates. More data is needed to inform which patients with previously uninformative results could benefit most from retesting, especially beyond breast/ovarian cancer populations. Here, we describe retesting outcomes and predictors of PV/LPVs in a cohort of patients unselected by cancer diagnosis. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for patients at a cancer genetics clinic between 1998 and 2019 who underwent genetic testing (GT) on ≥ 2 dates with ≥ 1 year between tests, with no PV/LPVs on first-line GT. Demographics, retesting indications, and GT details were reviewed to evaluate predictive factors of PV/LPV identification. 139 patients underwent retesting, of whom 24 (17.3%) had a PV/LPV, encompassing 15 genes. 14 PV/LPV carriers (58.3%) only returned for retesting after personal or familial history changes (typically new cancer diagnoses), while 10 (41.7%) retested due to updated GT availability. No specific GT method was most likely to identify PV/LPVs and no specific clinical factors were predictive of a PV/LPV. The identified PV/LPVs were consistent with patients' personal or family histories, but were discordant with the initial referral indication for GT. For 16 (66.7%) PV/LPV carriers, the genetic diagnosis changed clinical management. This study adds to the limited body of literature on retesting outcomes beyond first-line BRCA analysis alone and confirms the utility of multigene panel testing. Retesting certain affected individuals when updated GT is available could result in earlier PV/LPV identification, significantly impacting screening recommendations and potentially reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality.