BackgroundArray Comparative Genomic Hybridization (a-CGH) is a powerful molecular cytogenetic tool to detect genomic imbalances and study disease mechanism and pathogenesis. We report our experience with the clinical implementation of this high resolution human genome analysis, referred to as Chromosomal Microarray Analysis (CMA).Methods and FindingsCMA was performed clinically on 2513 postnatal samples from patients referred with a variety of clinical phenotypes. The initial 775 samples were studied using CMA array version 4 and the remaining 1738 samples were analyzed with CMA version 5 containing expanded genomic coverage. Overall, CMA identified clinically relevant genomic imbalances in 8.5% of patients: 7.6% using V4 and 8.9% using V5. Among 117 cases referred for additional investigation of a known cytogenetically detectable rearrangement, CMA identified the majority (92.5%) of the genomic imbalances. Importantly, abnormal CMA findings were observed in 5.2% of patients (98/1872) with normal karyotypes/FISH results, and V5, with expanded genomic coverage, enabled a higher detection rate in this category than V4. For cases without cytogenetic results available, 8.0% (42/524) abnormal CMA results were detected; again, V5 demonstrated an increased ability to detect abnormality. Improved diagnostic potential of CMA is illustrated by 90 cases identified with 51 cryptic microdeletions and 39 predicted apparent reciprocal microduplications in 13 specific chromosomal regions associated with 11 known genomic disorders. In addition, CMA identified copy number variations (CNVs) of uncertain significance in 262 probands; however, parental studies usually facilitated clinical interpretation. Of these, 217 were interpreted as familial variants and 11 were determined to be de novo; the remaining 34 await parental studies to resolve the clinical significance.ConclusionsThis large set of clinical results demonstrates the significantly improved sensitivity of CMA for the detection of clinically relevant genomic imbalances and highlights the need for comprehensive genetic counseling to facilitate accurate clinical correlation and interpretation.

The BUN and FASTER studies, two prospective multicenter trials in the United States, validated the accuracy and detection rates of first and second trimester screening previously reported abroad. These studies, coupled with the 2007 release of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Practice Bulletin that endorsed first trimester screening as an alternative to traditional second trimester multiple marker screening, led to an explosion of screening options available to pregnant women. ACOG also recommended that invasive diagnostic testing for chromosome aneuploidy be made available to all women regardless of maternal age. More recently, another option known as Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) became available to screen for chromosome aneuploidy. While screening and testing options may be limited due to a variety of factors, healthcare providers need to be aware of the options in their area in order to provide their patients with accurate and reliable information. If not presented clearly, patients may feel overwhelmed at the number of choices available. The following guideline includes recommendations for healthcare providers regarding which screening or diagnostic test should be offered based on availability, insurance coverage, and timing of a patient's entry into prenatal care, as well as a triage assessment so that a general process can be adapted to unique situations.

The number of disorders for which genetic testing is available has increased nearly 500% in the past 15 years. Access to genetic tests and services often hinges on physicians' ability to identify patients at risk for genetic disease and provide appropriate testing and counseling or refer to genetic specialists. Recent research demonstrates the need for referrals to genetic specialists by showing that many physicians lack skills required to perform appropriate genetic services, such as making proper risk assessments, providing genetic counseling, ordering genetic testing and interpreting results. However, little research exists on physicians' awareness and utilization of genetic services. In this study, an electronic survey evaluating practicing physicians' awareness of, utilization of and perceived barriers to genetic services in Texas, and interest in learning more about genetics and genetic services was distributed via state physician organizations. Of the 157 participants, approximately half reported they were moderately or very aware of genetic testing and services in their area. Very few reported awareness of telemedicine services. Over two-thirds reported never or rarely referring to genetic counselors or other genetic specialists, despite 75% reporting they had noticed an increased impact of genetics on their field and 61% reporting they had discussed genetics more in their day-to-day practice in the last 5-10 years. Only 20% reported genetics was very integral to their specialty. Over three-fourths of all participants indicated interest in learning more about genetics, genetic testing, and genetic services. Among the most frequently chosen barriers to genetic counselors were awareness-related barriers such as not knowing how to refer to a genetic counselor. Responses to many items varied significantly by medical specialty. The results identify a need to increase awareness of genetic services and referral logistics. Specific findings can help direct outreach efforts to educate clinicians, such as developing clinically meaningful, specialty-specific educational objectives.

A majority of counselors neither felt properly equipped nor comfortable counseling patients with prenatal cfDNA results suggestive of maternal neoplasm. This study demonstrates a need for collaboration amongst clinicians, researchers, and laboratories to publish data regarding NIPT results indicative of maternal neoplasm, and for the creation of management guidelines. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ObjectiveTo determine the influence of first‐trimester screening (FTS) on a patient's decision regarding prenatal diagnostic testing (PDT) and if the uptake rate of PDT has changed among women with advanced maternal age (AMA) following the January 2007 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement regarding FTS.MethodsA database review was performed for the 2 years before and the 2 years after the January statement. A total of 7424 patient records were evaluated to determine the number of AMA women who obtained PDT, the number of positive and negative FTS results, and how many of those women had PDT. We then surveyed 53 patients and 23 referring physicians to determine what the patient understands about FTS, how patients utilize their FTS results, and how physicians educate their patients about FTS.ResultsWe determined that there was a 19.6% decrease in the uptake of PDT since that statement. Prior to their counseling session (2009–2010), 43% of those surveyed were against having PDT. After counseling, only 9% were against PDT. Overall, 91% were either open to or wanted PDT after counseling.ConclusionsIn addition to FTS results, we found that genetic counseling may be an influential factor in the patient's decision regarding PDT. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.