scholarly journals Genomic sequencing identifies secondary findings in a cohort of parent study participants

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 1635-1643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle L Thompson ◽  
Candice R Finnila ◽  
Kevin M Bowling ◽  
Kyle B Brothers ◽  
Matthew B Neu ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle L. Thompson ◽  
Candice R. Finnila ◽  
Kevin M. Bowling ◽  
Kyle B. Brothers ◽  
Matthew B. Neu ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTPURPOSEClinically relevant secondary variants were identified in parents enrolled with a child with developmental delay and intellectual disability.METHODSExome/genome sequencing and analysis of 789 ‘unaffected’ parents was performed.RESULTSPathogenic/likely pathogenic variants were identified in 21 genes within 25 individuals (3.2%), with 11 (1.4%) participants harboring variation in a gene defined as clinically actionable by the ACMG. Of the 25 individuals, five carried a variant consistent with a previous clinical diagnosis, thirteen were not previously diagnosed but had symptoms or family history with probable association with the detected variant, and seven reported no symptoms or family history of disease. A limited carrier screen was performed yielding 15 variants in 48 (6.1%) parents. Parents were also analyzed as mate-pairs to identify cases in which both parents were carriers for the same recessive disease; this led to one finding in ATP7B. Four participants had two findings (one carrier and one non-carrier variant). In total, 71 of the 789 enrolled parents (9.0%) received secondary findings.CONCLUSIONWe provide an overview of the rates and types of clinically relevant secondary findings, which may be useful in the design, and implementation of research and clinical sequencing efforts to identify such findings.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. e00483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia D. Hellwig ◽  
Clesson Turner ◽  
Teri A. Manolio ◽  
Mark Haigney ◽  
Cynthia A. James ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 1100-1110 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ragan Hart ◽  
Barbara B. Biesecker ◽  
Carrie L. Blout ◽  
Kurt D. Christensen ◽  
Laura M. Amendola ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 1178-1186
Author(s):  
Chloe Mighton ◽  
◽  
Lindsay Carlsson ◽  
Marc Clausen ◽  
Selina Casalino ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 143
Author(s):  
Erica J. Sutton ◽  
Annika T. Beck ◽  
Kylie O. Gamm ◽  
Jennifer B. McCormick ◽  
Iftikhar J. Kullo ◽  
...  

As applications of genomic sequencing have expanded, offering genetic counseling support to all patients is arguably no longer practical. Additionally, whether individuals desire and value genetic counseling services for genomic screening is unclear. We offered elective genetic counseling to 5110 individuals prior to undergoing sequencing and 2310 participants who received neutral results to assess demand. A total of 0.2% of the study participants accessed genetic counseling services prior to sequencing, and 0.3% reached out after receiving neutral results. We later conducted 50 interviews with participants to understand why they did not access these services. Many interviewees did not recall the availability of genetic counseling and were unfamiliar with the profession. Interviewees described not needing counseling before sequencing because they understood the study and felt that they could cope with any result. Counseling was considered equally unnecessary after learning neutral results. Although the participants had questions about their results, they did not feel that speaking with a genetic counselor would be helpful. Genomic screening efforts that employ opt-in models of genetic counseling may need to clarify the potential value of genetic counseling support from the outset and feature genetic counseling services more prominently in program materials.


2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 760-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Rini ◽  
Cynthia M Khan ◽  
Elizabeth Moore ◽  
Myra I Roche ◽  
James P Evans ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document