Is there a Role for Genetic Counselors in Prenatal Paternity Testing? - an Assessment Based on Audit of 13 years of Clinical Experience in South Australia.

The role of genetic counselors in prenatal paternity testing has not been widely studied in the genetic counseling literature. In South Australia, the genetic counselors of the State's public sector clinical genetics service are the primary contact point for women seeking information and testing, also coordinating the testing process. This has provided the opportunity to review all prenatal paternity testing performed in the State over a 13 year period and to consider the role played by the genetic counselor. We explored the reasons why women requested prenatal paternity testing and whether the genetic counselor was an appropriate health professional to facilitate this testing for women. The study had two parts, an audit of the clinical genetics files of 160 women who requested prenatal paternity testing between March 2001 and March 2014, and qualitative interviews of genetic counselors, clinical geneticists, obstetricians and social workers with involvement in this area. The audit determined that in 69.9 % of cases the long-term partner was the father of the pregnancy, for 23.7 % the short-term or other partner was the father and for 6.4 % the paternity results were not known by the genetic counselor. For 45.5 % of women whose long-term partner was excluded as the father, the women chose to have a termination of pregnancy. The results of the qualitative interviews yielded five major themes: accessibility of testing, role of the genetic counselor, social and relationship issues, decision making in pregnancy and emotional issues. We conclude that the genetic counselor is an appropriate health professional to facilitate prenatal paternity testing. Genetic counselors did not view their role as significantly different from a request for prenatal testing for another indication.

Surgery alone versus chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for resectable cancer of the oesophagus: a randomised controlled phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Resection remains the best treatment for carcinoma of the oesophagus in terms of local control, but local recurrence and distant metastasis remain an issue after surgery. We aimed to assess whether a short preoperative chemoradiotherapy regimen improves outcomes for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. METHODS: 128 patients were randomly assigned to surgery alone and 128 patients to surgery after 80 mg/m(2) cisplatin on day 1, 800 mg/m(2) fluorouracil on days 1-4, with concurrent radiotherapy of 35 Gy given in 15 fractions. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, tumour response, toxic effects, patterns of failure, and quality of life. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Neither progression-free survival nor overall survival differed between groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82 [95% CI 0.61-1.10] and 0.89 [0.67-1.19], respectively). The chemoradiotherapy-and-surgery group had more complete resections with clear margins than did the surgery-alone group (103 of 128 [80%] vs 76 of 128 [59%], p=0.0002), and had fewer positive lymph nodes (44 of 103 [43%] vs 69 of 103 [67%], p=0.003). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with squamous-cell tumours had better progression-free survival with chemoradiotherapy than did those with non-squamous tumours (HR 0.47 [0.25-0.86] vs 1.02 [0.72-1.44]). However, the trial was underpowered to determine the real magnitude of benefit in this subgroup. INTERPRETATION: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin and fluorouracil does not significantly improve progression-free or overall survival for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer compared with surgery alone. However, further assessment is warranted of the role of chemoradiotherapy in patients with squamous-cell tumours.

Issues and concerns of couples presenting for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).

BACKGROUND: The use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to select genetically 'normal' human embryos and to transfer them to the uterus of a woman has generated considerable controversy. Debate has occurred over the implications of PGD, sex selection, safety of embryonic manipulation and eugenics. This study evaluates a range of social and moral concerns of couples towards PGD and assisted reproductive technologies (ART) prior to treatment to obtain unbiased authentic attitudes independent of the treatment cycle and the outcome. METHODS: A total of 121 subjects were administered a structured questionnaire after each couple's in vitro fertilization (IVF) or genetic counselling session. Group A consisted of 41 subjects presenting for PGD of single gene disorders (PGD-SG) and group B consisted of 48 subjects undertaking PGD for aneuploidy screening (PGD-AS). A control group consisted of 32 subjects that were about to commence their first IVF cycle. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: All groups found PGD to be a highly acceptable treatment. They expressed little concern about its extension to testing non-disease states such as sex and they were strongly in favour of a shared decision-making model in which couples have considerable autonomy over decisions about the embryo(s) to transfer. Differences between the groups included issues surrounding the transfer of embryos, restrictions to PGD and the destruction of embryos.