In 1995, the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) and American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) jointly published a statement on genetic testing in children and adolescents. In the past 20 years, much has changed in the field of genetics, including the development of powerful new technologies, new data from genetic research on children and adolescents, and substantial clinical experience. This statement represents current opinion by the ASHG on the ethical, legal, and social issues concerning genetic testing in children. These recommendations are relevant to families, clinicians, and investigators. After a brief review of the 1995 statement and major changes in genetic technologies in recent years, this statement offers points to consider on a broad range of test technologies and their applications in clinical medicine and research. Recommendations are also made for record and communication issues in this domain and for professional education.

The genetic testing and genetic screening of children are commonplace. Decisions about whether to offer genetic testing and screening should be driven by the best interest of the child. The growing literature on the psychosocial and clinical effects of such testing and screening can help inform best practices. This technical report provides ethical justification and empirical data in support of the proposed policy recommendations regarding such practices in a myriad of settings.

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently issued recommendations for reporting incidental findings from clinical whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. The recommendations call for evaluating a specific set of genes as part of all whole-genome sequencing/whole-exome sequencing and reporting all pathogenic variants irrespective of patient age. The genes are associated with highly penetrant disorders for which treatment or prevention is available. The effort to generate a list of genes with actionable findings is commendable, but the recommendations raise several concerns. They constitute a call for opportunistic screening, through intentional effort to identify pathogenic variants in specified genes unrelated to the clinical concern that prompted testing. Yet for most of the genes, we lack evidence about the predictive value of testing, genotype penetrance, spectrum of phenotypes, and efficacy of interventions in unselected populations. Furthermore, the recommendations do not allow patients to decline the additional findings, a position inconsistent with established norms. Finally, the recommendation to return adult-onset disease findings when children are tested is inconsistent with current professional consensus, including other policy statements of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Instead of premature practice recommendations, we call for robust dialogue among stakeholders to define a pathway to normatively sound, evidence-based guidelines.

Purpose: The identification of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutation can provide important health information to individuals who receive this result, but it can also provide crucial cancer risk information to family members. Most of the research on communication of genetic test results has focused on first degree relatives. The purpose of this retrospective study was to examine the process of communicating a positive BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic test result to male and female first, second, and third degree relatives. Methods: Participants were 38 female mutation carriers who responded to a written survey assessing the number and relationship of relatives informed, methods used to inform relatives, topics discussed, and motivations and barriers for communication. Results: Overall, 59%(470/803) of first, second, and third degree relatives were informed. The proportion of informed parents, siblings, and offspring was nearly twice that of more distant relatives including nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, grandchildren, and cousins (88% versus 45%; P ϭ 0.02). The method of communication differed by the gender of the relative, as did some of the topics discussed. The most important reasons for discussing the genetic test results were (1) to inform the relatives of their risk, (2) to suggest that they be tested, and (3) to fulfill a perceived duty to inform. The major barrier to communication was little contact and/or emotionally distant relationships. Genetic information is rapidly becoming an integral part of clinical management for numerous medical conditions. The current medical model limits the delivery of genetic information to the individual seeking services, when in reality the information has implications for the entire family. Because of confidentiality, privacy issues, and health care regulations, the responsibility for sharing genetic test results with relatives falls on the index patient who may not be prepared or willing to assume this role. Understanding the determinants of communication about genetic test results will assist health care providers in addressing this critical issue.Previous research studies have explored family communication about a variety of genetic conditions; however, the bulk of research on family communication with regard to genetic testing has focused on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] This is likely due to the increased availability and utilization of cancer genetic counseling services as well as the complex clinical and psychological issues related to testing for cancer risk. 10 -12 Two major breast cancer genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are responsible for 5% to 10% of breast and ovarian cancer cases. Mutations in these genes are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner and confer an inherited predisposition to breast, ovarian, and other cancers. [13][14][15] DNA-based testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 cancer-predisposing mutations is available on a clinical basis. The identification of a disease-associated mutation in an individual allows for predictive test...

Velo-cardio-facial syndrome (VCFS), an autosomal dominant disorder, is characterized by cleft palate, cardiac defects, learning disabilities and a typical facial appearance. Less frequently, VCFS patients have manifestations of the DiGeorge complex (DGC) including hypocalcemia, hypoplastic or absent lymphoid tissue and T-cell deficiency suggesting that these 2 conditions share a common pathogenesis. Here, we report the results of cytogenetic and molecular studies of 15 VCFS patients. High-resolution banding techniques detected an interstitial deletion of 22q11.21-q11.23 in 3 patients. The remaining 12 patients had apparently normal chromosomes. Molecular analysis with probes from the DiGeorge Chromosome Region (DGCR) within 22q11 detected DNA deletions in 14 of 15 patients. In 2 families, deletions were detected in the affected parent as well as the propositus suggesting that the autosomal dominant transmission of VCFS is due to segregation of a deletion. Deletions of the same loci previously shown to be deleted in patients with DGC explains the overlapping phenotype of VCFS and the DGC and supports the hypothesis that the cause of these two disorders is the same.

IMPORTANCE Robin sequence (RS) is a congenital condition characterized by micrognathia, glossoptosis, and upper airway obstruction. Currently, no consensus exists regarding the diagnosis and evaluation of children with RS. An international, multidisciplinary consensus group was formed to begin to overcome this limitation. OBJECTIVE To report a consensus-derived set of best practices for the diagnosis and evaluation of infants with RS as a starting point for defining standards and management. EVIDENCE REVIEW Based on a literature review and expert opinion, a clinical consensus report was generated. FINDINGS Because RS can occur as an isolated condition or as part of a syndrome or multiple-anomaly disorder, the diagnostic process for each newborn may differ. Micrognathia is hypothesized as the initiating event, but the diagnosis of micrognathia is subjective. Glossoptosis and upper airway compromise complete the primary characteristics of RS. It can be difficult to judge the severity of tongue base airway obstruction, and the possibility of multilevel obstruction exists. The initial assessment of the clinical features and severity of respiratory distress is important and has practical implications. Signs of upper airway obstruction can be intermittent and are more likely to be present when the infant is asleep. Therefore, sleep studies are recommended. Feeding problems are common and may be exacerbated by the presence of a cleft palate. The clinical features and their severity can vary widely and ultimately dictate the required investigations and treatments. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Agreed-on recommendations for the initial evaluation of RS and clinical descriptors are provided in this consensus report. Researchers and clinicians will ideally use uniform definitions and comparable assessments. Prospective studies and the standard application of validated assessments are needed to build an evidence base guiding standards of care for infants and children with RS.

The Koolen-de Vries syndrome (KdVS; OMIM #610443), also known as the 17q21.31 microdeletion syndrome, is a clinically heterogeneous disorder characterised by (neonatal) hypotonia, developmental delay, moderate intellectual disability, and characteristic facial dysmorphism. Expressive language development is particularly impaired compared with receptive language or motor skills. Other frequently reported features include social and friendly behaviour, epilepsy, musculoskeletal anomalies, congenital heart defects, urogenital malformations, and ectodermal anomalies. The syndrome is caused by a truncating variant in the KAT8 regulatory NSL complex unit 1 (KANSL1) gene or by a 17q21.31 microdeletion encompassing KANSL1. Herein we describe a novel cohort of 45 individuals with KdVS of whom 33 have a 17q21.31 microdeletion and 12 a single-nucleotide variant (SNV) in KANSL1 (19 males, 26 females; age range 7 months to 50 years). We provide guidance about the potential pitfalls in the laboratory testing and emphasise the challenges of KANSL1 variant calling and DNA copy number analysis in the complex 17q21.31 region. Moreover, we present detailed phenotypic information, including neuropsychological features, that contribute to the broad phenotypic spectrum of the syndrome. Comparison of the phenotype of both the microdeletion and SNV patients does not show differences of clinical importance, stressing that haploinsufficiency of KANSL1 is sufficient to cause the full KdVS phenotype.

No abstract