Genetic counselling difficulties and ethical implications of incidental findings from array-CGH: a 7-year national survey

Affiliation auteurs!!!! Error affiliation !!!!
TitreGenetic counselling difficulties and ethical implications of incidental findings from array-CGH: a 7-year national survey
Type de publicationJournal Article
Year of Publication2016
AuteursLefebvre M., Sanlaville D., Marle N., Thauvin-Robinet C., Gautier E., Chehadeh S.E, Mosca-Boidron A.-L, Thevenon J., Edery P., Alex-Cordier M.-P, Till M., Lyonnet S., Cormier-Daire V., Amiel J., Philippe A., Romana S., Malan V., Afenjar A., Marlin S., Chantot-Bastaraud S., Bitoun P., Heron B., Piparas E., Morice-Picard F., Moutton S., Chassaing N., Vigouroux-Castera A., Lespinasse J., Manouvrier-Hanu S., Boute-Benejean O., Vincent-Delorme C., Petit F., Meur N.L, Marti-Dramard M., Guerrot A.-M, Goldenberg A., Redon S., Ferrec C., Odent S., Caignec C.L, Mercier S., Gilbert-Dussardier B., Toutain A., Arpin S., Blesson S., Mortemousque I., Schaefer E., Martin D., Philip N., Sigaudy S., Busa T., Missirian C., Giuliano F., Benailly H.K, Kien P.KV, Leheup B., Benneteau C., Lambert L., Caumes R., Kuentz P., Francois I., Heron D., Keren B., Cretin E., Callier P., Julia S., Faivre L.
JournalCLINICAL GENETICS
Volume89
Pagination630-635
Date PublishedMAY
Type of ArticleArticle
ISSN0009-9163
Mots-clésaCGH, ethical issues, Incidental findings, pre-test information
Résumé

Microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) is commonly used in diagnosing patients with intellectual disability (ID) with or without congenital malformation. Because aCGH interrogates with the whole genome, there is a risk of being confronted with incidental findings (IF). In order to anticipate the ethical issues of IF with the generalization of new genome-wide analysis technologies, we questioned French clinicians and cytogeneticists about the situations they have faced regarding IF from aCGH. Sixty-five IF were reported. Forty corresponded to autosomal dominant diseases with incomplete penetrance, 7 to autosomal dominant diseases with complete penetrance, 14 to X-linked diseases, and 4 were heterozygotes for autosomal recessive diseases with a high prevalence of heterozygotes in the population. Therapeutic/preventive measures or genetic counselling could be argued for all cases except four. These four IF were intentionally not returned to the patients. Clinicians reported difficulties in returning the results in 29% of the cases, mainly when the question of IF had not been anticipated. Indeed, at the time of the investigation, only 48% of the clinicians used consents mentioning the risk of IF. With the emergence of new technologies, there is a need to report such national experiences; they show the importance of pre-test information on IF.

DOI10.1111/cge.12696