Attitudes and interest in incorporating BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility testing into reproductive carrier screening for Ashkenazi Jewish men and women.

Pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes are associated with elevated cancer risks in men and women. Due to a founder effect, Ashkenazi Jewish individuals are at higher risk for carrying three specific BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. There have been recent calls for population screening in this population because many carriers do not have family histories suggestive of hereditary cancer. One approach could be to integrate optional BRCA1/2 testing into routinely offered reproductive carrier screening for recessive and X-linked disorders. However, the differing goals of these types of testing (i.e., personal health risks versus family planning) raise questions about the implications for patient education and informed consent. To this end, we aimed to determine interest, attitudes, and preferences regarding integrating such testing by electronically surveying 331 Ashkenazi Jewish participants in JScreen - a national, not-for-profit, at-home carrier screening program focused on genetic risks in Jewish communities. We found that while 41% of participants had plans to pursue BRCA1/2 testing, 93% would have opted for such testing if offered as an add-on to reproductive carrier screening. This was particularly true of those with higher perceived cancer risk and more positive attitudes toward genetic testing. With respect to preferences about delivery of this service, more than 85% of participants preferred remote (telephone, print, or web-based) genetic education rather than traditional genetic counseling. These results suggest that offering optional BRCA1/2 testing within the context of reproductive carrier screening might provide opportunities for cancer prevention without overburdening scarce genetic counseling resources.

Evaluating the experiences of individuals with personal health risks identified through expanded carrier screening.

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is used to identify individuals and couples at risk for having children with recessive or X-linked genetic conditions; however, personal health risks (PHR) can also be identified through this testing. There is limited data on how genetic counseling regarding PHR from ECS is perceived by the individual, or how they use this information. This study quantitatively surveyed individuals identified with these risks between September 2013 and March 2020. The 30-item survey included the validated Genomics Outcome Scale Short Form, the validated Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale, and original questions. Survey topics included pre-test knowledge of the possibility of discovering PHR through testing, satisfaction with pre-test education that addresses potential risks, perceived severity of PHR, empowerment by and understanding of information, anxiety levels related to their PHR, perceived genetic counseling support, and satisfaction with telehealth. A total of 416 completed surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and linear and logistic regressions. The majority of participants were satisfied or extremely satisfied with pre-test education (n = 328; 78.8%) and telehealth (n = 329; 79.1%). However, more participants who were aware of the possibility of identifying PHR through ECS prior to testing were satisfied with pre-test education compared to those who were not aware. Additionally, a lack of prior awareness of PHR was associated with lower empowerment scores (p = .004). Those who were highly satisfied with genetic counseling were more likely to feel empowered and understand the information presented (p = .001). The majority of individuals used their PHR information following their results appointment (n = 391; 94.0%). The results of this study suggest that receiving PHR information was useful and was positively influenced by both pre-test education and the genetic counseling process.

Analysis of the reported use of practice-based competencies by North American genetic counselors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Genetic counseling services changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many genetic counselors (GCs) moved from in-person to telehealth services. Others were redeployed by choice or necessity, using their expertise to provide COVID-19 care and education. For some, their employment status changed due to budgetary constraints or decreasing referrals. This study surveyed North American GCs to assess the relative use of genetic counseling Practice-Based Competencies (PBCs) as a proxy for the skills used during the first wave of the pandemic, whether GCs were in their current role or in new or adjusted roles. A secondary aim was to determine whether GCs believe their training should be refocused in view of the workforce shifts posed by the pandemic. The survey comprised closed- and open-ended questions and was completed in full by 97 respondents. The study population was representative of the general genetic counseling workforce in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, age, and practice area when compared to the National Society of Genetic Counselors 2020 Professional Status Survey. Most participants (97.9%) indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a change to their work, and 89.7% used at least one PBC at a different frequency than before the pandemic. The most significant change was the adaptation of genetic counseling skills for varied service delivery models: 83.5% of respondents indicated that their roles and responsibilities moved to a remote setting and/or utilized telehealth. The majority of participants felt competent using the PBCs during the pandemic. Major themes that emerged from the qualitative data were as follows: (a) adaptation of service delivery, (b) translation of genetic counseling skills, and (c) provision of psychosocial support. This study highlights practice changes for GCs due to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the increased use of, and need for focused training in, varied service delivery models.

Telehealth for genetic counseling: A systematic evidence review.

Telehealth options, such as telephone counseling or videoconferencing, for service delivery in genetic counseling are becoming more widely accepted. However, until now, there has not been a systematic review of the literature focused specifically on genetic counseling outcomes for telehealth. We performed a systematic evidence review to compare telehealth genetic counseling (THGC), including videoconferencing and telephone counseling, across specialties to in-person genetic counseling (IPGC) for a range of outcomes specific to patient and provider experiences and access to care. Several biomedical databases were queried up to January 11, 2021, to identify original research evaluating THGC. Through this search, 42 articles met the inclusion criteria including 13 randomized controlled trials and 29 non-randomized observational studies encompassing 13,901 patients. Most included studies focused only on cancer genetic counseling; however, adult, pediatric, and prenatal specialties were also represented. The majority of studies evaluated patient and/or access to care outcomes. Though most studies reported high patient satisfaction with THGC, as well as comparable rates of trust and rapport, confidence in privacy, health behavior changes, and psychosocial outcomes, few represented diverse populations. Data of provider experiences were limited and varied with more disadvantages noted compared with patient experiences, particularly in studies involving telephone genetic counseling. Studies consistently reported a decrease in the patients' costs and time required for travel when patients are seen via THGC compared to IPGC with a similar reduction in costs to the health system. Overall, results from our evidence synthesis suggest THGC is non-inferior or comparable to IPGC across many domains, even considering that many of the studies included in this review were conducted with telehealth systems, notably videoconferencing, that were less robust and reliable than what is available today. There are notable limitations within this body of literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our analysis. We outline several recommendations for future studies.

Screening for Tay-Sachs disease carriers by full-exon sequencing with novel variant interpretation outperforms enzyme testing in a pan-ethnic cohort.

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic variants in HEXA that impair ß-hexosaminidase A (Hex A) enzyme activity cause Tay-Sachs Disease (TSD), a severe autosomal-recessive neurodegenerative disorder. Hex A enzyme analysis demonstrates near-zero activity in patients affected with TSD and can also identify carriers, whose single functional copy of HEXA results in reduced enzyme activity relative to noncarriers. Although enzyme testing has been optimized and widely used for carrier screening in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) individuals, it has unproven sensitivity and specificity in a pan-ethnic population. The ability to detect HEXA variants via DNA analysis has evolved from limited targeting of a few ethnicity-specific variants to next-generation sequencing (NGS) of the entire coding region coupled with interpretation of any discovered novel variants. METHODS: We combined results of enzyme testing, retrospective computational analysis, and variant reclassification to estimate the respective clinical performance of TSD screening via enzyme analysis and NGS. We maximized NGS accuracy by reclassifying variants of uncertain significance and compared to the maximum performance of enzyme analysis estimated by calculating ethnicity-specific frequencies of variants known to yield false-positive or false-negative enzyme results (e.g., pseudodeficiency and B1 alleles). RESULTS: In both AJ and non-AJ populations, the estimated clinical sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were higher by NGS than by enzyme testing. The differences were significant for all comparisons except for AJ clinical sensitivity, where NGS exceeded enzyme testing, but not significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that performance of an NGS-based TSD carrier screen that interrogates the entire coding region and employs novel variant interpretation exceeds that of Hex A enzyme testing, warranting a reconsideration of existing guidelines.

Patients' reactions and follow-up testing decisions related to Tay-Sachs (HEXA) variants of uncertain significance results.

JScreen is a national public health initiative based out of Emory University that provides reproductive carrier screening through an online portal and follow-up genetic counseling services. In 2014, JScreen began reporting to patients variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in the gene that causes Tay-Sachs disease (HEXA). Genetic counseling was provided to discuss the VUS and patients were offered hexosaminidase A (HEXA) blood enzyme testing to assist with VUS reclassification. To identify patient reactions and factors influencing their follow-up testing decisions after receiving these results, we conducted a retrospective quantitative study by administering online surveys to 62 patients with HEXA VUSs. Participants who pursued enzyme testing and those who did not both experienced low levels of distress when receiving the VUS results. Perceptions of HEXA carrier status after genetic counseling, decisional conflict levels, plans to have children in the near future, time available to pursue enzyme testing, and eligibility for research were significant factors influencing decision-making to pursue or not pursue enzyme testing. Genetic counseling played an important role in helping patients understand the VUS and follow-up testing options. When discussing VUSs with patients, it would be beneficial for genetic counselors to focus on the patient's perception of the VUS, anxiety related to the uncertainty of their results, and follow-up options, when available.