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.

Pediatric brain tumor survivorship populations have not been typically offered genetic services as part of routine care. Genetic services can be defined as family history collection, genetic risk assessment for a patient and family members, and coordination of genetic testing. Prior research has focused on the integration of genetic services in the general pediatric oncology survivorship population and found a need for these services to be implemented. Gathering a family history and providing a genetic risk assessment have previously been determined to be an integral step in determining if an individual's cancer was due to a hereditary predisposition. The purpose of this study was to examine parental attitudes regarding the need for genetic services in their child's pediatric brain tumor survivorship clinic. Twelve semi‐structured interviews were conducted with parents participating in the Brain STAR (Survivors Taking Action and Responsibility) program at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago. A grounded theory approach was used to code and analyze the results thematically. Five key themes were identified: participants’ perceived benefits and barriers regarding receiving genetic services, desirable time for implementation of these services, relevance of family history, and their thoughts regarding reproductive risk. These results provide insight for genetics professionals regarding the need for genetic services in this population, and how to best implement them.

Purpose Pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB) is the most common lung cancer of infancy and early childhood and is associated with germline DICER1 variants. Type I and Ir PPB are cystic lesions treated surgically, with a subset of children with type I receiving chemotherapy. Type II and III are more aggressive lesions, treated with surgery, intensive chemotherapy and potentially radiation. We sought to assess health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in children with PPB and known germline DICER1 variants. Methods Children with a diagnosis of PPB or germline DICER1 pathogenic variant without history of PPB or other DICER1‐related neoplasm (DICER1+ only) were enrolled in the International PPB/DICER1 Registry. Parent reports for participants aged 2–17 years for the PedsQL v.4 and PedsQL Multidimensional Fatigue Scale v.3 were collected. Fatigue, physical, and psychosocial function scores were compared. Results Analysis included 84 participants (PPB type Ir = 20, type I = 15, type II/III = 27, DICER1+ only = 22). Total fatigue scores of participants with type I and II/III PPB were lower compared to DICER1+ only, with effect size larger in type II/III (−0.82 vs. −0.40). Total psychosocial and physical functioning scores were lower in participants with type I and type II/III PPB compared to DICER1+ only, with larger effects noted in type II/III. Female sex was suggestive of worse HRQoL for both type I/Ir and type II/III cohorts. Conclusions These data demonstrate the importance of regular HRQoL assessment in patients with a history of PPB as well as the importance and feasibility of studying HRQoL in children with rare tumors.

Neurofibromatosis (NF) and schwannomatosis (SWN) are genetic conditions characterized by the risk of developing nervous system tumors. Recently revised diagnostic criteria include the addition of genetic testing to confirm a pathogenic variant, as well as to detect the presence of mosaicism. Therefore, the use and interpretation of both germline and tumor‐based testing have increasing importance in the diagnostic approach, treatment decisions, and risk stratification of these conditions. This focused review discusses approaches to genetic testing of NF‐ and SWN‐related tumor types, which are somewhat rare and perhaps lesser known to non‐specialized clinicians. These include gastrointestinal stromal tumors, breast cancer, plexiform neurofibromas with or without transformation to malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, gliomas, and schwannomas, and emphasizes the need for inclusion of genetic providers in patient care and appropriate pre‐ and post‐test education, genetic counseling, and focused evaluation by a medical geneticist or other healthcare provider familiar with clinical manifestations of these disorders.

The genetic contribution of rare pathogenic germline variation in cancer patients without a family history remains unclear. We sought to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and clinical significance of pathogenic germline variation in cancer predisposition genes (CPGs) in pediatric brain tumor patients. Paired tumor and normal whole genome or exome sequencing was performed for 838 patients in the Pediatric Brain Tumor Atlas (PBTA). Rare variants in 196 CPGs were annotated as pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) in an automated manner consistent with American College of Medical Genetics criteria and reviewed by an interdisciplinary panel. To assess enrichment, the frequency of CPG P-LP variants in cases was compared to the gnomAD v3.1 cancer-free control cohort (n=74,023). Second hit, mutational signature, and gene set enrichment analyses (GSEA) were performed on matched tumor sequencing to characterize differences in patients with and without germline P-LP variants in DNA repair genes. We observed 178 germline CPG P-LP variants in 163 PBTA patients (19.5%). CPG P-LP variants were most prevalent among Neurofibroma plexiform patients (64.3%), and NF1 and TSC2 harbored the most significant P-LP variant burden compared to controls (OR=69.5, p=2.4E-23, CI=34.6-137 and OR=357, p=1.1E-14, CI=71-3669, respectively). DNA repair gene P-LP variants were enriched in cases compared to controls (OR=4.4, p=8.3E-30). Patients harboring mismatch repair (MMR) gene P-LP variants exhibited significantly higher tumor-associated MMR-deficiency mutational signature exposures (p<0.05) and DNA repair GSEA scores relative to other patients (p=0.04). Second hit SNVs in tumors were identified in four patients with P-LP germline variants in NF1 (n=2), APC (n=1), and SUFU (n=1). Germline P-LP variants are enriched in PBTA patients, and DNA repair variants are predictive of repair-deficiency signatures in tumor samples. Our work emphasizes the need for germline sequencing to inform patient care.