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-five 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.

After repeated media attention in 2013 due to the Angelina Jolie disclosure and the Supreme Court decision to ban gene patents, the demand for cancer genetic counseling and testing services has never been greater. Debate has arisen regarding who should provide such services and the quality of genetics services being offered. In this ongoing case series, we document 35 new cases from 7 states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Utah) and the District of Columbia of adverse outcomes in cancer genetic testing when performed without the involvement of a certified genetic counselor. We identified 3 major themes of errors: wrong genetic tests ordered, genetic test results misinterpreted, and inadequate genetic counseling. Patient morbidity and mortality were an issue in several of these cases. The complexity of cancer genetic testing and counseling has grown exponentially with the advent of multigene panels that include rare genes and the potential for more variants of uncertain significance. We conclude that genetic counseling and testing should be offered by certified genetics providers to minimize the risks, maximize the benefits, and utilize health care dollars most efficiently.

We retrospectively studied BRCA carriers with a history of prophylactic bilateral salingo-oophorectomy (PBSO) regarding: (1) their post-operative symptoms, (2) their recollection of pre-operative conversations with their health care providers regarding possible surgical side-effects and (3) what information they would have found helpful to have before surgery. Female BRCA carriers seen through the Yale Cancer Genetic Counseling Program who had PBSO were invited to participate in a questionnaire that assessed their recall of information they received pre-operatively compared with their post-operative knowledge and symptoms related to menopause, cognitive changes, loss of fertility, cancer risks, osteoporosis, heart disease, vasomotor symptoms, urogenital symptoms, sexuality and body image. The questionnaire also elicited written feedback from participants regarding their decision to have PBSO, what they wished they had known before surgery, advice for other BRCA carriers considering this surgery and advice for health care providers who counsel women about PBSO. Two hundred and ninety female BRCA carriers were invited to participate and 113 (39.0%) indicated they were interested. Of those, 99 (87.6%) returned their questionnaire and 98 (86.7%) responses were included in the analysis. The mean age at PBSO was 45.5 years (range: 32-63 years). The five most common "frequent" or "very frequent" post-surgical symptoms were: vaginal dryness (52.1%), changes in interest in sex (50.0%), sleep disturbances (46.7%), changes in sex life (43.9) and hot flashes (42.9%). The majority of women would have found it helpful to have more information regarding the impact of this surgery on their sex life (59.2%), the availability of sex counseling (57.1%) and the risk of coronary heart disease (57.1%). This study illustrates that while health care providers are discussing selected side effects of PBSO, women undergoing this surgery have other concerns that should be addressed. This information provides insights into the informational needs of BRCA carriers considering PBSO.

Approaches to hereditary breast cancer testing are shifting as multi-gene panels become more widely available. This paper describes our center's experience and outcomes of a 6-gene panel test as a first-tier approach in patients who were candidates for BRCA testing. Between July and December 2013, a 6-gene panel test was ordered for patients meeting criteria for BRCA testing. A retrospective review detailed the mutation and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) rates for the genes analyzed. The mutation rate was 5.2 % (n = 7) and the VUS rate was 6.7 % (n = 9). A subsequent review determined the number of BRCA-negative patients who would have been offered additional single gene testing had BRCA, only, been their first-tier test. Applying consensus criteria revealed 7.1 % (n = 9) cases that met criteria for additional testing. Pedigree analysis by a certified genetic counselor revealed 26.8 % (n = 34) cases that would have been offered additional testing based on personal and/or family history. Our results suggest that this panel may be warranted as a first-tier test for a small subset of patients, but likely represents over testing for the majority of patients who are candidates for BRCA testing. The genes selected for panels, the extra costs per patient and the chance of VUS must be considered before we uniformly switch from BRCA to full panel testing on all patients.

PurposeIn this ongoing case series, 33 genetic testing cases are documented in which tests were recommended, ordered, interpreted, or used incorrectly and/or in which clinicians faced challenges related to history/reports provided by patients or laboratories.MethodsAn invitation to submit cases of challenges or errors 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, as part of a case series with Precision Oncology News, and via social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Deidentified clinical documentation was requested and reviewed when available. Thirty-three cases were submitted, reviewed, and accepted. A thematic analysis was performed. Submitters were asked to approve cases before submission.ResultsAll cases took place in the United States, involved hereditary cancer testing and/or findings in cancer predisposition genes, and involved medical-grade genetic testing, direct-to-consumer testing, or research genetic testing. In 9 cases, test results were misinterpreted, leading to incorrect screening or risk-reducing procedures being performed/recommended. In 5 cases, incorrect or unnecessary testing was ordered/recommended. In 3 cases, incorrect clinical diagnoses were made, or opportunities for diagnoses were delayed. In 3 cases, errors or challenges arose related to medical intervention after testing or reported genetic diagnosis. In 2 cases, physicians provided incorrect information related to the inheritance pattern of a syndrome. In 2 cases, there were challenges related to the interpretation of genetic variants. In 2 cases, challenges arose after direct-to-consumer testing. One case involved test results that should never have been reported based on sample quality. In 1 case, a patient presented a falsified test result. In 5 cases, multiple errors were made.DiscussionAs genetic testing continues to become more complicated and common, it is critical that patients and nongenetics providers have access to accurate and timely genetic counseling information. Even as multiple medical bodies highlight the value of genetic counselors (GCs), tension exists in the genomics community as GCs work toward licensure and Medicare provider status. It is critical that health care communities leverage, rather than restrict, the expertise and experience of GCs so that patients can benefit from, and not be harmed by, genetic testing. In order to responsibly democratize genomics, it will be important for genetics and nongenetic health care providers to collaborate and use alternative service delivery models and technology solutions at point of care. To deliver on the promise of precision medicine, accurate resources and tools must be utilized.