Group plus "mini" individual pre-test genetic counselling sessions for hereditary cancer shorten provider time and improve patient satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counselling (GC) is an integral component in the care of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS). In many jurisdictions, access to timely counselling and testing is limited by financial constraints, by the shortage of genetics professionals and by labor-intensive traditional models of individual pre and post-test counselling. There is a need for further research regarding alternate methods of GC service delivery and implementation. This quality improvement project was initiated to determine if pretest group GC followed immediately by a 'mini' individual session, would be acceptable to patients at risk for hereditary breast and colon cancer. METHODS: Patients on waitlists for GC at the Provincial Medical Genetics Program in St. John's, NL, Canada (n = 112), were contacted by telephone and offered the option of a group counselling session (GGC), followed by a "mini" individual session, versus (TGC) traditional private appointments. GGC sessions consisted of a cancer genetics information session given to groups of 6-20 followed by brief 20 min "mini" individual sessions with the patient and genetic specialist. TGC individual appointments provided the same cancer genetics information and counselling to one patient at a time in the classic model. All but 2 participants selected group+mini session. A de-identified confidential 12-item, Likert scale survey was distributed at the conclusion of mini-sessions to measure perceptions of GGC and satisfaction with this counselling model. RESULTS: Sixty participants completed questionnaires. The majority of participants strongly agreed that they were comfortable with the group session (58/60); the explanation of cancer genetics was clear (54/59); they understood their cancer risks (50/60); and they would recommend such a session to others (56/59). 38/53 respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they would prefer to wait for a traditional private appointment. All 5 participating genetic counselors reported a preference for this model. At the end of the pilot project, the waitlist for counselling/testing was reduced by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Group pre-test genetic counselling combined with immediate "mini" individual session is strongly supported by patients and reduces wait times. Additional formal investigation of this approach in larger numbers of patients is warranted.

A common variant in CLDN14 causes precipitous, prelingual sensorineural hearing loss in multiple families due to founder effect.

Genetic isolates provide unprecedented opportunities to identify pathogenic mutations and explore the full natural history of clinically heterogeneous phenotypes such as hearing loss. We noticed a unique audioprofile, characterized by prelingual and rapid deterioration of hearing thresholds at frequencies >0.5 kHz in several adults from unrelated families from the island population of Newfoundland. Targeted serial Sanger sequencing of probands for deafness alleles (n = 23) that we previously identified in this founder population was negative. Whole exome sequencing in four members of the largest family (R2010) identified a CLDN14 (DFNB29) variant [c.488C>T; p. (Ala163Val)], likely pathogenic, sensorineural hearing loss, autosomal recessive. Although not associated with deafness or disease, CLDN14 p.(Ala163Val) has been previously reported as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Targeted sequencing of 169 deafness probands identified one homozygote and one heterozygous carrier. Genealogical studies, cascade sequencing and haplotype analysis across four unrelated families showed all subjects with the unique audioprofile (n = 12) were also homozygous for p.(Ala163Val) and shared a 1.4 Mb DFNB29-associated haplotype on chromosome 21. Most significantly, sequencing 175 population controls revealed 1% of the population are heterozygous for CLDN14 p.(Ala163Val), consistent with a major founder effect in Newfoundland. The youngest CLDN14 [c.488C>T; p.(Ala163Val)] homozygote passed newborn screening and had normal hearing thresholds up to 3 years of age, which then deteriorated to a precipitous loss >1 kHz during the first decade. Our study suggests that genetic testing may be necessary to identify at-risk children in time to prevent speech, language and developmental delay.

Patient Recall, Interpretation, and Perspective of an Inconclusive Long QT Syndrome Genetic Test Result.

Patients' perceptions of inconclusive results have been previously investigated in cancer genetics. The differences in how patients recall and interpret an uninformative test result compared to a known pathogenic result can affect medical decisions post disclosure. However, there is little to no data available on patients' interpretation and perception of uninformative genetic results in inherited heart disease. We report the results of a qualitative analysis of 16 telephone interviews with participants who received a negative or a variant of unknown significance (VUS) result from Long QT syndrome (LQTS) genetic testing. Our results suggest that the type of result (negative versus VUS) does not affect recall, regardless of the reason for testing. When receiving a negative result, a majority of participants appropriately perceived no change in their diagnosis, while the perception of risk for family members varied. The majority of participants felt they maintained an awareness of their condition after the result disclosure, and that clinical follow-up was similar to that planned prior to the genetic test result. Further work is needed to determine if there are any differences between obtaining a VUS result versus a negative result in this population.

Case Report: Direct Access Genetic Testing and A False-Positive Result For Long QT Syndrome.

We report the case of a woman who pursued direct access genetic testing and then presented with concerns regarding a positive test result for Long-QT syndrome. Although the result ultimately proved to be a false positive, this case illustrates that costs associated with follow-up of direct access genetic testing results can be non-trivial for both the patient and for health care systems. Here we raise policy questions regarding the appropriate distribution of these costs. We also discuss the possibility that, when confronted by a direct access genetic test result that reports high risk for one or more actionable diseases, a family physician might feel compelled to act out of a desire to avoid liability, even when information regarding the accuracy and validity of the testing were not easily accessible. This case outlines lessons that can easily be translated into clinical practice, not only by genetic counselors, but also by family physicians, medical specialists and members of the public.