Literature DB >> 31335384

Adverse Events in Genetic Testing: The Fourth Case Series.

Meagan B Farmer1,2, Danielle C Bonadies1, Suzanne M Mahon3, Maria J Baker4, Sumedha M Ghate5, Christine Munro6, Chinmayee B Nagaraj7, Andria G Besser8, Kara Bui9, Christen M Csuy10, Brianne Kirkpatrick11, Andrew J McCarty6,12, Shelly Weiss McQuaid13, Jessica Sebastian14, Darci L Sternen15, Leslie K Walsh14, Ellen T Matloff1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In this ongoing national case series, we document 25 new genetic testing cases in which tests were recommended, ordered, interpreted, or used incorrectly.
METHODS: An invitation to submit cases of adverse events in genetic testing was issued to the general National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv, the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group members, private genetic counselor laboratory groups, and via social media platforms (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Examples highlighted in the invitation included errors in ordering, counseling, and/or interpretation of genetic testing and did not limit submissions to cases involving genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition. Clinical documentation, including pedigree, was requested. Twenty-six cases were accepted, and a thematic analysis was performed. Submitters were asked to approve the representation of their cases before manuscript submission.
RESULTS: All submitted cases took place in the United States and were from cancer, pediatric, preconception, and general adult settings and involved both medical-grade and direct-to-consumer genetic testing with raw data analysis. In 8 cases, providers ordered the wrong genetic test. In 2 cases, multiple errors were made when genetic testing was ordered. In 3 cases, patients received incorrect information from providers because genetic test results were misinterpreted or because of limitations in the provider's knowledge of genetics. In 3 cases, pathogenic genetic variants identified were incorrectly assumed to completely explain the suspicious family histories of cancer. In 2 cases, patients received inadequate or no information with respect to genetic test results. In 2 cases, result interpretation/documentation by the testing laboratories was erroneous. In 2 cases, genetic counselors reinterpreted the results of people who had undergone direct-to-consumer genetic testing and/or clarifying medical-grade testing was ordered. DISCUSSION: As genetic testing continues to become more common and complex, it is clear that we must ensure that appropriate testing is ordered and that results are interpreted and used correctly. Access to certified genetic counselors continues to be an issue for some because of workforce limitations. Potential solutions involve action on multiple fronts: new genetic counseling delivery models, expanding the genetic counseling workforce, improving genetics and genomics education of nongenetics health care professionals, addressing health care policy barriers, and more. Genetic counselors have also positioned themselves in new roles to help patients and consumers as well as health care providers, systems, and payers adapt to new genetic testing technologies and models. The work to be done is significant, but so are the consequences of errors in genetic testing.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31335384     DOI: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000391

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer J        ISSN: 1528-9117            Impact factor:   3.360


  9 in total

Review 1.  Genetic testing for hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes: Interpreting results in today's practice.

Authors:  Jacquelyn M Powers; Jessica E Ebrahimzadeh; Bryson W Katona
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-12

2.  Using a Genomics Taxonomy: Facilitating Patient Care Safety and Quality in the Era of Precision Oncology.

Authors:  Patricia Friend; Erin Dickman; Kathleen Calzone
Journal:  Clin J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 1.027

3.  Adapting a Theoretically-Based intervention for underserved clinical populations at increased risk for hereditary Cancer: Lessons learned from the BRCA-Gist experience.

Authors:  Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza; Valerie F Reyna; Christopher R Wolfe; Sara Gómez-Trillos; Arnethea L Sutton; Ashleigh Brennan; Vanessa B Sheppard
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2022-07-05

Review 4.  The role of genomics in global cancer prevention.

Authors:  Ophira Ginsburg; Paul Brennan; Patricia Ashton-Prolla; Anna Cantor; Daniela Mariosa
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era.

Authors:  Leila Jamal; Will Schupmann; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 2.717

6.  Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results.

Authors:  Katherine E Donohue; Catherine Gooch; Alexander Katz; Jessica Wakelee; Anne Slavotinek; Bruce R Korf
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 4.296

Review 7.  Molecular genetic testing strategies used in diagnostic flow for hereditary endocrine tumour syndromes.

Authors:  Henriett Butz; Jo Blair; Attila Patócs
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 3.633

8.  Postgraduate training in Cancer Genetics-a cross-specialty survey exploring experience of clinicians in Ireland.

Authors:  Jana K McHugh; Gozie Offiah; Sean Daly; Nazmy El Beltagi; Michael Kevin Barry; Seamus O'Reilly; Terri P McVeigh
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 2.089

9.  Education and Training of Non-Genetics Providers on the Return of Genome Sequencing Results in a NICU Setting.

Authors:  Kelly M East; Meagan E Cochran; Whitley V Kelley; Veronica Greve; Candice R Finnila; Tanner Coleman; Mikayla Jennings; Latonya Alexander; Elizabeth J Rahn; Maria I Danila; Greg Barsh; Bruce Korf; Greg Cooper
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-03-05
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.