Balcom, Jessica

Lynch syndrome (LS), caused by heterozygous pathogenic variants affecting one of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, PMS2), confers moderate to high risks for colorectal, endometrial, and other cancers. We describe a four-generation, 13-branched pedigree in which multiple LS branches carry the MSH2 pathogenic variant c.2006G>T (p.Gly669Val), one branch has this and an additional novel MSH6 variant c.3936_4001+8dup (intronic), and other non-LS branches carry variants within other cancer-relevant genes (NBN, MC1R, PTPRJ). Both MSH2 c.2006G>T and MSH6 c.3936_4001+8dup caused aberrant RNA splicing in carriers, including out-of-frame exon-skipping, providing functional evidence of their pathogenicity. MSH2 and MSH6 are co-located on Chr2p21, but the two variants segregated independently (mapped in trans) within the digenic branch, with carriers of either or both variants. Thus, MSH2 c.2006G>T and MSH6 c.3936_4001+8dup independently confer LS with differing cancer risks among family members in the same branch. Carriers of both variants have near 100% risk of transmitting either one to offspring. Nevertheless, a female carrier of both variants did not transmit either to one son, due to a germline recombination within the intervening region. Genetic diagnosis, risk stratification, and counseling for cancer and inheritance were highly individualized in this family. The finding of multiple cancer-associated variants in this pedigree illustrates a need to consider offering multicancer gene panel testing, as opposed to targeted cascade testing, as additional cancer variants may be uncovered in relatives.

AbstractBackgroundMT‐RNR1 variants are a well‐known cause of aminoglycoside‐induced hearing loss (AIHL). Individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) routinely receive aminoglycosides and are at high risk of AIHL. However, genetic testing before treatment is not routinely performed due to perceived rarity of risk, and cost ineffectiveness with traditional technologies.AimAssess the utility of large‐scale screening for AIHL risk in the CF population, using digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR), a novel and scalable low‐cost molecular technique.MethodsUsing a clinically validated ddPCR assay, we performed retrospective testing on 122 and prospective testing on 32 individuals with CF for the two most common pathogenic variants associated with AIHL, MT‐RNR1 m.1555 A > G and m.1494 C > T. Our study screened the largest known cohort of pediatric cases of CF (94/154) for these specific alterations.ResultsWe identified two individuals positive for MT‐RNR1 m.1555 A > G and no positives for m.1494 C > T. Of 32 prospective cases, 17 had aminoglycoside exposure. The positive case in our prospective group recently began inhaled tobramycin and denied hearing issues. The clinician adjusted to care for both the patient and sibling with CF (not included in cohort) who is presumed positive for m.1555 A > G due to the nature of mitochondrial inheritance.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate the utility of pretreatment screening in the cystic fibrosis population for AIHL risk using ddPCR, a scalable and robust testing methodology at a fraction of the cost as compared to other sequencing‐based methods. Therefore, the use of large‐scale screening for AIHL risk in the cystic fibrosis community should be re‐visited.

AbstractLaboratory genetic counseling is becoming increasingly common as a result of increased laboratory services and genetic testing menus, as well as growing job responsibilities. Christian et al. (2012) provided the first quantitative data regarding the roles of the laboratory‐based genetic counselor (LBGC) finding that two of the most prevalent roles are as customer liaisons and communicators of test results. The goal of the present study was to further delineate the role of the LBGC by addressing specific tasks that LBGCs are involved with on a day‐to‐day basis. A survey was designed to expand upon themes identified in the Christian et al. (2012) study by querying specific tasks performed in several categories of potential LBGC job duties. An invitation for LBGCs to participate was distributed via email to the membership of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors (CAGC). We identified 121 genetic counselors who primarily work in the laboratory setting or whose job role includes a laboratory component. Almost all respondents performed customer liaison/case coordination (95 %), and interpretation and result reporting (88 %). The most frequently performed tasks within these categories involved addressing questions from clients, making phone calls with genetic testing results, obtaining clinical or family history information for results interpretation, and composing case‐specific interpretations for unique results and/or obtaining literature references to support interpretations. The study results also point to trends of expanding roles in sales and marketing, variant interpretation and management responsibilities. Results of this study may be useful to further define the full scope of practice of LBGCs, aid in the development of new LBGC positions and expand current positions to include roles related to test development, research, and student supervision. It may also aid in curriculum updates for training programs to increase exposure to LBGC roles.