Case Report from JAMA Neurology — Juvenile Alpers Disease

Genetic and genomic data are increasingly guiding clinical care for cancer patients. To meet the growing demand for precision medicine, patient-facing oncology staff will be a part of leading the p...

Genetic counseling and diagnostic genetic testing is part of the multidisciplinary care of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, commonly called motor neurone disease, MND) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). We explored client experiences of genetic counseling and diagnostic testing to inform the care of future families. Semi‐structured interviews with individuals with ALS/MND/FTD or their relatives were conducted. The study was designed to include a wide variety of participants with varying disease status and abilities. Genetic counseling and diagnostic testing experiences were explored using interpretive description methodology. Bioecological theory was used as the framework for the reflexive thematic analysis. Eighteen individuals with ALS/MND/FTD or their relatives from 13 Australian families participated. Three themes were identified: sharing knowledge, (un)supportive care, and ‘circumstance is everything’. Consistent with bioecological theory, one’s genetic counseling experience was informed by individual circumstances, time, and proximal factors. These informed the level of information and support required in the genetic counseling process. Although some client circumstances cannot be changed, efforts could be made to enhance genetic counseling experiences by improving interactions between the client and their care team. Some clients may benefit from further discussions regarding the familial implications of genetic testing, and greater support with family communication. Clients’ needs were derived from the data and will contribute to genetic counseling consensus guidelines.

C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansions are the most common known cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Genetic testing for C9orf72 expansions in patients with ALS and/or FTD and their relatives has become increasingly available since hexanucleotide repeat expansions were first reported in 2011. The repeat number is highly variable and the threshold at which repeat size leads to neurodegeneration remains unknown. We present the case of an ALS patient who underwent genetic testing through our Motor Neurone Disease Clinic. We highlight current limitations to analysing and interpreting C9orf72 expansion test results and describe how this resulted in discordant reports of pathogenicity between testing laboratories that confounded the genetic counselling process. We conclude that patients with ALS or FTD and their at-risk family members, need to be adequately counselled about the limitations of current knowledge to ensure they are making informed decisions about genetic testing for C9orf72. Greater collaboration between clinicians, testing laboratories and researchers is required to ensure risks to patients and their families are minimised.

Genetic counsellors (GCs) across the world are increasingly transitioning beyond clinical genetics services to meet the growing demands for genomic healthcare. This presents a unique opportunity for GCs to be ‘genomic change agents’ as they work in alternative models of care. Through various innovative models of mainstream care funded through a change program, we explored the views of GCs regarding their position as ‘genomic change agents’ and what may hinder or drive the success of their evolving roles. Guided by the Diffusion of Innovation Theory, we conducted qualitative interviews with all twelve GCs employed by the change program in different models of providing genomics across five specialties in Australia. Audio-recordings of all interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Findings show that early in these new roles, participants held varied descriptions of ‘genomics mainstreaming’: some envisioned it as an end state exclusive to medical specialists practicing genomics while others saw the involvement of GCs as crucial. Participants believed they were uniquely positioned to expedite patient access to genomic testing and counselling and enhance medical specialists’ capability to use genomics. Challenges included hesitancy of some medical specialists regarding the value of genomics in healthcare and potential tension arising from distinct perspectives and practice between genetic and non-genetic professionals. Participants anticipated a decline in the standard of care when non-genetic colleagues managed consent discussion and result disclosure. Our study underscores leadership support and peer connection with those in similar roles as essential elements for GCs’ success in mainstream settings.