Meagan B. Farmer, Danielle C. Bonadies, S. Mahon, M. Baker, Sumedha Ghate, Christine Munro, Chinmayee B. Nagaraj, A. Besser, Kara Bui, Christen M Csuy, B. Kirkpatrick, A. McCarty, S. McQuaid, Jessica Sebastian, D. Sternen, L. Walsh, E. Matloff
{"title":"Errors in Genetic Testing: The Fourth Case Series","authors":"Meagan B. Farmer, Danielle C. Bonadies, S. Mahon, M. Baker, Sumedha Ghate, Christine Munro, Chinmayee B. Nagaraj, A. Besser, Kara Bui, Christen M Csuy, B. Kirkpatrick, A. McCarty, S. McQuaid, Jessica Sebastian, D. Sternen, L. Walsh, E. Matloff","doi":"10.1097/PPO.0000000000000391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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-six 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.","PeriodicalId":22430,"journal":{"name":"The Cancer Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cancer Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PPO.0000000000000391","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20
Abstract
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-six 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.
目的在这个正在进行的国家病例系列中,我们记录了25个新的基因检测病例,其中检测被推荐、订购、解释或使用错误。方法通过社交媒体平台(如Facebook、Twitter、LinkedIn)向全国遗传咨询师协会(National Society of genetic Counselors)、全国遗传咨询师协会(National Society of genetic Counselors)癌症特别兴趣小组(Special Interest Group)成员、私人遗传咨询师实验室小组(private genetic counselor laboratory groups)发出提交基因检测不良事件案例的邀请。邀请函中强调的例子包括在基因检测的排序、咨询和/或解释方面的错误,并且没有限制提交涉及遗传性癌症易感性基因检测的病例。要求提供临床文件,包括家谱。接受了26例病例,并进行了专题分析。提交者被要求在稿件提交前批准其案例的代表。所有提交的病例都发生在美国,来自癌症、儿科、孕前和一般成人环境,涉及医疗级和直接面向消费者的基因检测和原始数据分析。在8个案例中,医生安排了错误的基因检测。在2例中,订购基因检测时出现了多次错误。在3例病例中,由于基因检测结果被误解或由于提供者的遗传学知识有限,患者从提供者那里得到了不正确的信息。在3例病例中,发现的致病基因变异被错误地认为完全解释了可疑的癌症家族史。在2例中,患者获得的基因检测结果不充分或没有信息。在2个案例中,检测实验室的结果解释/文件是错误的。在2个案例中,遗传咨询师重新解释了直接面向消费者进行基因检测的人的结果,并/或要求澄清医学级别的检测。随着基因检测变得越来越普遍和复杂,很明显,我们必须确保进行适当的检测,并正确解释和使用结果。由于劳动力的限制,对一些人来说,获得认证的遗传咨询师仍然是一个问题。潜在的解决方案涉及多个方面的行动:新的遗传咨询提供模式,扩大遗传咨询队伍,改善非遗传学卫生保健专业人员的遗传学和基因组学教育,解决卫生保健政策障碍,等等。遗传咨询师也将自己定位于新的角色,以帮助患者和消费者以及卫生保健提供者、系统和付款人适应新的基因检测技术和模式。这项有待完成的工作意义重大,但基因检测错误的后果也同样重要。