Preferences of cardiologists and clinical geneticists for the future organization of genetic care in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a survey

In view of the increasing demands for genetic counselling and DNA diagnostics in cardiogenetics, the roles of cardiologists and clinical geneticists in the delivery of care need to be redefined. We investigated the preferences of both groups of professionals with regard to the future allocation of six cardiogenetic responsibilities in counselling and testing, using hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) as a prevalent model disease. In this cross-sectional survey, the participants were Dutch cardiologists (n = 643) and clinical geneticists (n = 60), all members of professional societies. Response rates were 33 and 82%, respectively. In both groups, the majority preferred to perform most of the tasks described above in collaboration. Informing HCM patients about the genetics of HCM and requesting DNA testing in symptomatic patients was viewed by 43 and 35% of cardiologists, respectively, as their sole responsibility, however, and 39 and 59% of clinical geneticists did not object to these views. Both groups felt that the task of discussing the consequences of HCM for offspring and that of discussing the results of DNA diagnostics should be shared or performed by clinical geneticists. Both groups considered co-ordination of family screening the sole responsibility of clinical geneticists. Opinions on who should request DNA diagnostics in asymptomatic relatives were divided: 86% of clinical geneticists considered it their exclusive responsibility, 10% of cardiologists believed that this task could be performed individually by either group and 30% preferred to collaborate. Most professionals said that they would appreciate education programmes and clinical guidelines. Both cardiologists and clinical geneticists prefer to share rather than divide most cardiogenetic responsibilities in caring for HCM patients. Consequently, capacity problems in both groups are to be expected. To safeguard current professional standards in genetic counselling and testing, deployment of non-medical personnel might be essential.     

Uptake of genetic counselling and predictive DNA testing in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a common autosomal dominant disease, associated with heart failure and arrhythmias predisposing to sudden cardiac death. After the detection of the causal mutation in the proband predictive DNA testing of relatives is possible (cascade screening). Prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with a high risk by means of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator is effective. In 97 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy families with a sarcomere gene mutation we retrospectively determined uptake of genetic counselling and predictive DNA testing in relatives within 1 year after the detection of the causal mutation in the proband. Uptake of genetic counselling was 39% and did not differ significantly by proband's or relative's gender, nor by young age of the relative (< 18 years) or a family history positive for sudden cardiac death. In second-degree relatives, eligible for predictive DNA testing when the first-degree relative had died, uptake was 27.5% (P = 0.047). Uptake of predictive genetic testing was 39%; conditional uptake of predictive genetic testing was 99%. Uptake of genetic counselling in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is comparable to uptake in oncogenetics. Conditional uptake of predictive DNA testing, however, is much higher. Because sudden cardiac death can be prevented uptake of genetic counselling in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy should be as high as possible. To achieve this research into the determinants of uptake is needed.     

Medical Geneticists' duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease

A patient who refuses to notify their relatives of potential at-risk status brings a genetics provider to face conflicting ethical principles and ill-defined legal precedent. Genetics professionals' views on the disclosure of patient information to at-risk relatives have remained largely unexamined. Prior analyses have been limited to identifying factors contributing to genetics providers' self-predicted responses in hypothetical scenarios. Our group was the first to examine the clinical experience of genetic counselors with this issue [Dugan et al., 2003]. We report here results from our follow-up survey of medical geneticists who are members of either the American Society of Human Genetics and/or American College of Medical Genetics in an effort to identify their experiences in warning at-risk relatives and the factors driving their decision-making processes. Over two-thirds of medical geneticists surveyed (69%, 143/206) believe they do bear responsibility to warn their patients' relatives when found to be at-risk for genetic disease. One-quarter (25%, 31/123) of medical geneticists who faced the dilemma of a patient refusing to notify their at-risk relatives seriously considered disclosure to those at-risk relatives without patient consent. Only four respondents proceeded to warn at-risk relatives of their status. Whereas genetic counselors cited emotional issues as playing a primary role in their decision not to warn, medical geneticists identified patient confidentiality, eventual case resolution by other means, and legal liability as the major factors leading to non-disclosure in 76% of actual scenarios. Responsibilities of medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and non-genetics healthcare professionals facing this issue will need to be more clearly defined to provide optimal medical care within the bounds of acceptable practice.     

Diagnostic yield,interpretation, and clinical utility of mutation screening of sarcomere encoding genes in Danish hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients and relatives

The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends family screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). We assessed the outcome of family screening combining clinical evaluation and screening for sarcomere gene mutations in a cohort of 90 Danish HCM patients and their close relatives, in all 451 persons. Index patients were screened for mutations in all coding regions of 10 sarcomere genes (MYH7, MYL3, MYBPC3, TNNI3, TNNT2, TPM1, ACTC, CSRP3, TCAP, and TNNC1) and five exons of TTN. Relatives were screened for presence of minor or major diagnostic criteria for HCM and tracking of DNA variants was performed. In total, 297 adult relatives (>18 years) (51.2%) fulfilled one or more criteria for HCM. A total of 38 HCM‐causing mutations were detected in 32 index patients. Six patients carried two disease‐associated mutations. Twenty‐two mutations have only been identified in the present cohort. The genetic diagnostic yield was almost twice as high in familial HCM (53%) vs. HCM of sporadic or unclear inheritance (19%). The yield was highest in families with an additional history of HCM‐related clinical events. In relatives, 29.9% of mutation carriers did not fulfil any clinical diagnostic criterion, and in 37.5% of relatives without a mutation, one or more criteria was fulfilled. A total of 60% of family members had no mutation and could be reassured and further follow‐up ceased. Genetic diagnosis may be established in approximately 40% of families with the highest yield in familial HCM with clinical events. Mutation‐screening was superior to clinical investigation in identification of individuals not at increased risk, where follow‐up is redundant, but should be offered in all families with relatives at risk for developing HCM. Hum Mutat 0,1–8, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Phenotype‐driven molecular autopsy for sudden cardiac death

A phenotype‐driven approach to molecular autopsy based in a multidisciplinary team comprising clinical and laboratory genetics, forensic medicine and cardiology is described. Over a 13 year period, molecular autopsy was undertaken in 96 sudden cardiac death cases. A total of 46 cases aged 1–40 years had normal hearts and suspected arrhythmic death. Seven (15%) had likely pathogenic variants in ion channelopathy genes [KCNQ1 (1), KCNH2 (4), SCN5A (1), RyR2(1)]. Fifty cases aged between 2 and 67 had a cardiomyopathy. Twenty‐five had arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), 10 dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and 15 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Likely pathogenic variants were found in three ARVC cases (12%) in PKP2, DSC2 or DSP, two DCM cases (20%) in MYH7, and four HCM cases (27%) in MYBPC3 (3) or MYH7 (1). Uptake of cascade screening in relatives was higher when a molecular diagnosis was made at autopsy. In three families, variants previously published as pathogenic were detected, but clinical investigation revealed no abnormalities in carrier relatives. With a conservative approach to defining pathogenicity of sequence variants incorporating family phenotype information and population genomic data, a molecular diagnosis was made in 15% of sudden arrhythmic deaths and 18% of cardiomyopathy deaths.     

Genetic counsellors in Sweden: their role and added value in the clinical setting

Genetic testing is becoming more commonplace in general and specialist health care and should always be accompanied by genetic counselling, according to Swedish law. Genetic counsellors are members of the multi-disciplinary team providing genetic counselling. This study examined the role and added value of genetic counsellors in Sweden, using a cross-sectional on-line survey. The findings showed that the genetic counsellors added value in the clinical setting by acting as the ‘spider-in-the-web'' regarding case management, having a more holistic, ethical and psychological perspective, being able to offer continuous support and build a relationship with the patient, and being more accessible than medical geneticists. The main difference between a genetic counsellor and medical geneticist was that the doctor had the main medical responsibility. Thus genetic counsellors in Sweden contribute substantially to the care of patients in the clinical genetic setting.     

NGS testing for cardiomyopathy: Utility of adding RASopathy‐associated genes

RASopathies include a group of syndromes caused by pathogenic germline variants in RAS‐MAPK pathway genes and typically present with facial dysmorphology, cardiovascular disease, and musculoskeletal anomalies. Recently, variants in RASopathy‐associated genes have been reported in individuals with apparently nonsyndromic cardiomyopathy, suggesting that subtle features may be overlooked. To determine the utility and burden of adding RASopathy‐associated genes to cardiomyopathy panels, we tested 11 RASopathy‐associated genes by next‐generation sequencing (NGS), including NGS‐based copy number variant assessment, in 1,111 individuals referred for genetic testing for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Disease‐causing variants were identified in 0.6% (four of 692) of individuals with HCM, including three missense variants in the PTPN11, SOS1, and BRAF genes. Overall, 36 variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) were identified, averaging ～3VUSs/100 cases. This study demonstrates that adding a subset of the RASopathy‐associated genes to cardiomyopathy panels will increase clinical diagnoses without significantly increasing the number of VUSs/case.     

Genetic testing impacts the utility of prospective familial screening in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy through identification of a nonfamilial subgroup

PurposeHypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is considered a hereditary autosomal dominant condition, but genetic testing is positive in only half of patients. In patients with negative genetic tests, the inheritance pattern and utility of family screening are unclear.MethodsSubjects with HCM were prospectively enrolled in a registry. A survey at a median follow-up of 4 years determined the yield of family screening.ResultsThe outcome of cardiac screening on 267 family members was reported by 120 survey respondents. Subjects with positive genetic test or family history (n=74, 62%) reported an HCM diagnosis in 34 of 203 first-degree relatives who were screened (17%). Affected family members were diagnosed at a mean age of 30–39 years, and 22 of 34 experienced HCM-related adverse events (65%). Gene test–negative subjects with no prior family history of HCM (n=46, 38%) reported an HCM diagnosis in only 2 of 64 first-degree relatives who were screened (3%, p<0.001). These two individuals were diagnosed at age >40 years without HCM-related adverse events.ConclusionHypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a heterogeneous disorder, only half of which tracks with a Mendelian inheritance pattern. Negative genetic testing and family history indicates a more complex genetic basis corresponding to low risk for family members.     

Genetic testing and genetic counselling in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: the French experience

Methods and results: The main questions asked by patients and relatives concern presymptomatic diagnosis and prenatal counselling/diagnosis, while clinicians sometimes discuss diagnostic and prognostic testing. To take into account the complex medical and psychological implications of this new approach, we developed a specific, multidisciplinary, and multiple step procedure, including a cardiologist, a geneticist, and a psychologist. Seventy subjects were examined, including (1) 29 adults for presymptomatic diagnosis (of whom 10 left the procedure after the first visit and 19 continued, among whom six had a mutation and two experienced negative psychological impact, observed during follow up), (2) nine couples of parents for presymptomatic diagnosis in their children (the procedure was stopped after the first visit in eight and continued in one), (3) 22 couples for prenatal counselling (no prenatal genetic testing was asked for after the first visit), and (4) 10 subjects for diagnostic testing. We decided to perform no prognostic testing.

Conclusion: Our preliminary experience confirms the complexity of the situation and suggests the necessity for a specific procedure to ensure good practice in genetic testing of HCM.

     

Should healthcare providers have a duty to warn family members of individuals with an HNPCC‐causing mutation? A survey of patients from the Ontario Familial Colon Cancer Registry

Background

As genetic testing becomes more common and increasingly intertwined with medical care, the issues of genetic privacy and doctor–patient confidentiality are being examined. Hereditary non‐polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is a genetic predisposition to colorectal and certain other cancers. Effective screening that can prevent colorectal cancer is an important incentive for genetic testing.

Methods

A survey regarding the duty to warn family members of the risks associated with an HNPCC‐causing mutation was mailed to 227 participants in the Ontario Familial Colon Cancer Registry (OFCCR). To our knowledge, the opinions of patients on this subject have not been reported previously in the literature. Responses were analysed quantitatively using the SAS system and qualitatively by the review of written comments.

Results

Completed surveys were returned by 105 participants, with a response rate of 46.3%. The majority felt a personal responsibility to warn relatives, but there was no significant agreement that doctors or genetic counsellors should have a duty to warn relatives without a patient''s permission.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing genetic testing for HNPCC generally understand that relatives could benefit from being informed of genetic risk, but may not be willing or able to inform each family member. Healthcare professionals should engage patients in a discussion of familial implications before genetic testing. An agreement should be formulated regarding which of the relatives should be informed. Patients should be encouraged to personally disseminate the information, given the unrealistic burden on practitioners to perform this task and patients'' preference for control over the information.Genetic information is distinct from much medical information because of its familial nature¹ and its applicability to predicting future health.² It has been suggested that with increased availability of health‐related genetic information, individuals should be aware of and accept responsibility to share genetic test results with their family members.^3,4,5 If a patient does not inform at‐risk relatives about a genetic condition that could confer serious harm, the duty to warn may potentially be extended to the healthcare provider.^4,6,7 More clarity is needed to define if and when there is a legal and/or ethical duty to warn family members at risk, especially since this violates autonomy and confidentiality and would probably present an impracticable burden to health professionals.Genetic testing should be performed with informed consent after meeting with a genetics professional to discuss risks, benefits and limitations. Certain laws have been enacted to protect genetic privacy.^2,8,9 The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act¹⁰ states that “genetic information” cannot be used by health plans for discrimination. As genetic testing continues to provide information relevant to medical care, it will become increasingly difficult, and perhaps less beneficial to patients, to keep the results confidential.Healthcare providers have been encouraged to discuss with patients the implications of disclosing test results to family members during pretest counselling.¹¹ Acceptance of personal responsibility should reduce the risk of disagreements once results are available. Also, previous research has shown that patients prefer to have control over the process of disclosing genetic information to their relatives.⁹The aim of this study was to survey participants of the Ontario Familial Colon Cancer Registry (OFCCR) regarding their duty to warn family members about a hereditary non‐polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)‐causing mutation. The survey was designed to determine opinions about personal responsibility, barriers to communication and the responsibility of health professionals, particularly if the participant was unwilling or unable to inform relatives.     

Counselling following diagnosis of a fetal abnormality: Comparison of different clinical specialists in Mexico

Most geneticists agree that counselling should be nondirective, and studies report that genetic counselling by geneticists is performed largely in a neutral style. However, couples at risk of having a child with a genetic condition may seek the advice of other physicians. The purpose of the present study was to describe the answers of four groups of specialists from Mexico City (internists, pediatricians, obstetricians, and neurologists) regarding how they would counsel a couple when prenatal diagnosis has shown that a fetus is affected by one of 17 different genetic disorders and to analyze the role of several variables in the development of their opinion. Our results show that physicians in these specialties are more likely to counsel directively than neutrally. Other variables did not influence the directiveness. With respect to direction of influence, internists, pediatricians, and neurologists are more likely to counsel terminating affected pregnancies than are obstetricians (P = 0.0002). Similarly, clinicians older than 37 years of age and those reporting that religion is not important to them counsel terminating affected pregnancies (P = 0.005 and P = 0.003, respectively). Physicians' gender and clinical experience with genetic diseases did not show statistically significant differences. Strong consensus among specialists was reached only on terminating pregnancies in anencephaly. A lowered and moderate consensus (51–75% agreement) was reached on continuing pregnancies with cleft lip and plate. A moderate measure of consensus for nondirective counselling was found among obstetricians regarding 14 of the 17 diseases in the study, whereas neurologists expressed a moderate measure of consensus on counselling the termination of pregnancies when the fetus was affected by neurological disorders. Hence, the approach to counselling was related in part to the fetal condition and in part to the clinician's specialty and age and the self-reported importance of religion. The data presented herein may not be representative of all Mexican physicians within the selected specialties; however, it is important to gather their opinions because they are involved in the care and treatment of genetic diseases and may have an important influence on the demand and availability of prenatal diagnosis and abortion. Am. J. Med. Genet. 69:23–28, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Ethical,legal, and practical concerns about recontacting patients to inform them of new information: The case in medical genetics

There is a consensus among medical geneticists that it is desirable to recontact patients as new information becomes available. Furthermore, some have suggested that there are legal arguments to support an obligation, creating a duty to recontact. Thus far much of the discussion among medical geneticists has focused on the practical concerns of implementing such a policy. However, we think that any such policy raises a number of important ethical concerns that must first be considered. Furthermore, there has not been a careful evaluation of the legal precedents that may reflect on a hypothetical duty to recontact. In this paper we first present an analysis of the scope of approaches and issues to be addressed in the development of ethical policy on this question. Secondly, we examine whether there is a legal obligation to recontact former patients about advances in genetics, as well as the legal implications if such a policy were to be adopted. Finally, we consider some of the functional and resource implications of adopting a policy of recontact. Our goal is to provide a framework for further discussion of this question and to stimulate further debate and research. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Ethical, legal, and practical concerns about recontacting patients to inform them of new information: the case in medical genetics.

There is a consensus among medical geneticists that it is desirable to recontact patients as new information becomes available. Furthermore, some have suggested that there are legal arguments to support an obligation, creating a duty to recontact. Thus far much of the discussion among medical geneticists has focused on the practical concerns of implementing such a policy. However, we think that any such policy raises a number of important ethical concerns that must first be considered. Furthermore, there has not been a careful evaluation of the legal precedents that may reflect on a hypothetical duty to recontact. In this paper we first present an analysis of the scope of approaches and issues to be addressed in the development of ethical policy on this question. Secondly, we examine whether there is a legal obligation to recontact former patients about advances in genetics, as well as the legal implications if such a policy were to be adopted. Finally, we consider some of the functional and resource implications of adopting a policy of recontact. Our goal is to provide a framework for further discussion of this question and to stimulate further debate and research.     

Genetic aspects of population policy.

Every science begins in folklore and matures as it reacts against dogma and myth. Astronomy developed in the Neolithic, but it did not outgrow astrology until the sixteenth century. Chemistry discarded alchemy at about the same time. On the contrary, the short history of genetics has been concurrent with the pseudo-science of eugenics, which, at times, has been widely accepted and incorporated in population policy and directive genetic counselling, with rare opposition by geneticists. Societal pressures are likely to increase with the power of genetic technology, the fear it generates and the perception that population growth threatens human welfare. Without a pertinent ethical code, geneticists are vulnerable to both temptation and opprobrium. The intrusion of eugenics into genetic counselling has been a recent source of concern to societies and congresses of genetics. This review traces the causes of this concern and the manner of its expression in the absence of an international voice for genetics that could address ethical and other common interests.     

Health status in patients at risk of inherited arrhythmias and sudden unexpected death compared to the general population

Background  

The possibilities in the molecular genetics of long QT syndrome (LQTS) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) has made family screening, with diagnostic and predictive genetic testing part of the health care offer in genetic counselling of inherited arrhythmias, potentially affecting the subjective health among these individuals. The study compared health status among patients at risk of arrhythmia because of family history or clinical diagnosis of LQTS and HCM with reference health status scores of the general population.     

Uptake of testing for BRCA1/2 mutations in South East Scotland

We investigated the uptake of genetic testing by 54 families in South East Scotland with a BRCA1/2 mutation. At a median of 37 months since identification of the mutation, the overall rate of uptake of testing in 269 eligible family members was 32%. First-degree relatives were significantly (P<0.05) less likely to be referred for genetic counselling in more, compared to less, socioeconomically deprived families (46 versus 68%). Among relatives who attended for genetic counselling, females were more likely to be tested than males (76 versus 53%; P<0.05) and relatives with children more than those without children (82 versus 53%; P<0.001). Tested relatives were older than relatives who did not undergo testing (mean 41.9 versus 36.8 years, P<0.05) but did not differ in degree of relationship to the index case or in socioeconomic deprivation. Our results confirm the findings from other studies of substantially lower rates of uptake of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations than anticipated in earlier predictions. Relatives in more socioeconomically deprived families were less likely to be referred for genetic counselling, which is a matter of concern. This may be partly the result of a lack of understanding of the testing process. Cascading currently does not work in breast cancer families and further work is required to investigate intrafamilial communication patterns, testing behaviour and counselling strategies.     

Genetic counselling and consent for tumour testing in HNPCC

Molecular pathological tests are performed on stored tumour material in order to identify individuals with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. We have previously identified that there is widespread use of this testing and now describe what counselling occurs prior to testing and the approaches in seeking consent. A respondent from every cancer genetic centre in UK offering microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemistry testing (n= 20, response rate = 100%) was interviewed in order to ascertain pre-test counselling and consent protocols. Individuals providing consent are not always seen in person prior to providing consent but few services had supporting written information. Nine (of 19) consent forms documented consent to perform genetic testing, while the majority (14/19) sought consent to release pathology samples to the genetic service. Less than half of the services routinely seek consent to test samples from a deceased individual. Concerns were raised about spousal consent when the implications of results are for blood relatives. The differences identified between genetic counselling for testing of tumour tissue and for germ-line genetic testing suggest that counselling protocols specific for somatic testing should be developed. The results are discussed in the context of a changing legal environment and anticipated growing demand for testing.     

The duty to warn at‐risk relatives—The experience of genetic counselors and medical geneticists

Studies published over 15 years ago surveyed genetic counselors (GC) and medical geneticists (MG) to examine their clinical experiences with the conflict of “duty to warn” versus patient confidentiality. Federal and state laws pertaining to medical professionals' duty to warn have since been implemented following the publications of these studies. Using a merged version of surveys employed in the prior studies, this study seeks to understand clinicians' current decision‐making process when faced with patient refusal to inform at‐risk relatives, as well as their familiarity with and opinions of laws and guidelines covering this issue. Consistent with the previous studies, the majority of MG and almost half of GC experience patient refusal. Significantly, fewer MG and GC believe they had a duty to warn their patients' relatives of genetic risk. Only 8% of participants believe current guidelines effectively address the issue of duty to warn. Participant awareness of federal or state laws regulating the disclosure of genetic information remains low. The conflict of duty to warn remains a shared experience among genetics professionals, and resources are needed to facilitate informed decision‐making. Participants' opinions of current policies and clinical decisions may guide professional actions regarding duty to warn.     

Genetic testing in asymptomatic minors Background considerations towards ESHG Recommendations

Although various guidelines and position papers have discussed, in the past, the ethical aspects of genetic testing in asymptomatic minors, the European Society of Human Genetics had not earlier endorsed any set of guidelines exclusively focused on this issue. This paper has served as a background document in preparation of the development of the policy recommendations of the Public and Professional Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics. This background paper first discusses some general considerations with regard to the provision of genetic tests to minors. It discusses the concept of best interests, participation of minors in health-care decisions, parents'' responsibilities to share genetic information, the role of clinical genetics and the health-care system in communication within the family. Second, it discusses, respectively, the presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing for adult-onset disorders, childhood-onset disorders and carrier testing.Although various guidelines and position papers have discussed, in the past, the ethical aspects of genetic testing in asymptomatic minors,^{1, 2} the European Society of Human Genetics had not earlier endorsed any set of guidelines exclusively focused on this issue. This background paper was preceded by an in-depth research on the topic by Eurogentest.³ Eurogentest (http://www.eurogentest.org aims to develop the necessary infrastructure, tools, resources, guidelines and procedures that will structure, harmonize and improve the overall quality of all the EU genetic services at the molecular, cytogenetic, biochemical and clinical level.⁴ Attention has also been paid to the provision of appropriate counselling related to genetic testing, the education of patients and professionals, as well as to the ethical, legal and social issues surrounding testing. The focus of the ethics unit of Eurogentest was oriented towards the study of the ethical issues related to genetic testing in minors. This work was the starting point for this background paper, which has been prepared and supported by different types of evidence. First, research has been performed on the existing recommendations regarding predictive genetic testing in minors¹ and carrier testing,² with the intention of identifying areas of agreement and disagreement. Second, the literature on medico–ethical and medico–legal aspects of predictive genetic testing in minors,⁵ carrier testing,^{6, 7} the position of minors⁸ and patient rights⁹ was studied. Third, a systematic literature review was performed to gather information regarding the attitudes of the different stakeholders (minors, health-care professionals, parents and relatives of the affected individuals) towards genetic testing in asymptomatic minors.^{10, 11} Fourth, the attitudes of European clinical geneticists regarding genetic testing in asymptomatic minors were gathered.^{12, 13, 14}In 2007, contacts were made with the Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics with the aim of developing policy recommendations on the issue. On the basis of a decision of the PPPC meeting during the ESHG conference in Nice (June 2007), an ad hoc committee, consisting of Pascal Borry (Eurogentest), Kris Dierickx (Eurogentest), Angus Clarke, Gerry Evers-Kiebooms (PPPC) and Martina Cornel (PPPC), was created. This ad hoc committee met on 15 November 2007 to discuss a first draft of a background paper and recommendations that were prepared by Pascal Borry under the supervision of Kris Dierickx. A revised version was discussed during a PPPC meeting in Amsterdam (April 2008) and Barcelona (June 2008). In order not to repeat issues that have been discussed elsewhere, reference will often be made to the above-referenced publications.     

Defining the diagnostic effectiveness of genes for inclusion in panels: the experience of two decades of genetic testing for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy at a single center

PurposeGenetic testing in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) has long relied on Sanger sequencing of sarcomeric genes. The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has catalyzed routine testing of additional genes of dubious HCM-causing potential. We used 19 years of genetic testing results to define a reliable set of genes implicated in Mendelian HCM and assess the value of expanded NGS panels.MethodsWe dissected genetic testing results from 1,198 single-center HCM probands and devised a widely applicable score to identify which genes yield effective results in the diagnostic setting.ResultsCompared with early panels targeting only fully validated sarcomeric HCM genes, expanded NGS panels allow the prompt recognition of probands with HCM-mimicking diseases. Scoring by “diagnostic effectiveness” highlighted that PLN should also be routinely screened besides historically validated genes for HCM and its mimics.ConclusionThe additive value of expanded panels in HCM genetic testing lies in the systematic screening of genes associated with HCM mimics, requiring different patient management. Only variants in a limited set of genes are highly actionable and interpretable in the clinic, suggesting that larger panels offer limited additional sensitivity. A score estimating the relative effectiveness of a given gene’s inclusion in diagnostic panels is proposed.