Literature DB >> 26582393

Genetic counselling difficulties and ethical implications of incidental findings from array-CGH: a 7-year national survey.

M Lefebvre1,2,3, D Sanlaville4, N Marle1,2, C Thauvin-Robinet1,2,3, E Gautier1,3, S E Chehadeh1,2, A-L Mosca-Boidron1,2, J Thevenon1,2,3, P Edery4, M-P Alex-Cordier4, M Till4, S Lyonnet5, V Cormier-Daire5, J Amiel5, A Philippe5, S Romana5, V Malan5, A Afenjar6, S Marlin5, S Chantot-Bastaraud7, P Bitoun8, B Heron9, E Piparas10, F Morice-Picard11, S Moutton11, N Chassaing12, A Vigouroux-Castera12, J Lespinasse13, S Manouvrier-Hanu14, O Boute-Benejean14, C Vincent-Delorme14, F Petit14, N L Meur15, M Marti-Dramard16, A-M Guerrot17, A Goldenberg18, S Redon19, C Ferrec19, S Odent20, C L Caignec21, S Mercier21, B Gilbert-Dussardier22, A Toutain23, S Arpin23, S Blesson23, I Mortemousque23, E Schaefer24, D Martin25, N Philip26, S Sigaudy26, T Busa26, C Missirian26, F Giuliano27, H K Benailly27, P K V Kien28, B Leheup29, C Benneteau29, L Lambert29, R Caumes30, P Kuentz31, I François32, D Heron33, B Keren33, E Cretin3,34, P Callier1,2,3, S Julia12, L Faivre1,2,3.   

Abstract

Microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) is commonly used in diagnosing patients with intellectual disability (ID) with or without congenital malformation. Because aCGH interrogates with the whole genome, there is a risk of being confronted with incidental findings (IF). In order to anticipate the ethical issues of IF with the generalization of new genome-wide analysis technologies, we questioned French clinicians and cytogeneticists about the situations they have faced regarding IF from aCGH. Sixty-five IF were reported. Forty corresponded to autosomal dominant diseases with incomplete penetrance, 7 to autosomal dominant diseases with complete penetrance, 14 to X-linked diseases, and 4 were heterozygotes for autosomal recessive diseases with a high prevalence of heterozygotes in the population. Therapeutic/preventive measures or genetic counselling could be argued for all cases except four. These four IF were intentionally not returned to the patients. Clinicians reported difficulties in returning the results in 29% of the cases, mainly when the question of IF had not been anticipated. Indeed, at the time of the investigation, only 48% of the clinicians used consents mentioning the risk of IF. With the emergence of new technologies, there is a need to report such national experiences; they show the importance of pre-test information on IF.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aCGH; ethical issues; incidental findings; pre-test information

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26582393     DOI: 10.1111/cge.12696

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genet        ISSN: 0009-9163            Impact factor:   4.438


  5 in total

1.  Lessons learned from a child with a chromosomal abnormality but no major congenital anomalies.

Authors:  Shijie Zhou; Samantha Colaiacovo; Andrea Djolovic; Maha Saleh
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 2.253

2.  Evidence for penetrance in patients without a family history of disease: a systematic review.

Authors:  Heather Turner; Leigh Jackson
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Clinical exome sequencing in France and Quebec: what are the challenges? What does the future hold?

Authors:  Gabrielle Bertier; Yann Joly
Journal:  Life Sci Soc Policy       Date:  2018-08-01

4.  Incidental Findings: The Importance of Pretest Counseling.

Authors:  Kathryn M Buchtel; Elizabeth A Leeth
Journal:  Pediatr Neurol Briefs       Date:  2015-12

5.  An atypical autistic phenotype associated with a 2q13 microdeletion: a case report.

Authors:  Jokthan Guivarch; Clarisse Chatel; Jeremie Mortreux; Chantal Missirian; Nicole Philip; François Poinso
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2018-03-18
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.