Genetic Counseling for Fragile X Syndrome: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Genetic counseling for fragile x syndrome: updated recommendations of the national society of genetic counselors

These recommendations describe the minimum standard criteria for genetic counseling and testing of individuals and families with fragile X syndrome, as well as carriers and potential carriers of a fragile X mutation. The original guidelines (published in 2000) have been revised, replacing a stratified pre- and full mutation model of fragile X syndrome with one based on a continuum of gene effects across the full spectrum of FMR1 CGG trinucleotide repeat expansion. This document reviews the molecular genetics of fragile X syndrome, clinical phenotype (including the spectrum of premature ovarian failure and fragile X-associated tremor-ataxia syndrome), indications for genetic testing and interpretation of results, risks of transmission, family planning options, psychosocial issues, and references for professional and patient resources. These recommendations are the opinions of a multicenter working group of genetic counselors with expertise in fragile X syndrome genetic counseling, and they are based on clinical experience, review of pertinent English language articles, and reports of expert committees. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. The professional judgment of a health care provider, familiar with the facts and circumstances of a specific case, will always supersede these recommendations.

Cystic fibrosis prenatal screening in genetic counseling practice: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

For over a decade, prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis (CF) has been considered a model for the integration of genetic testing into routine medical practice. Data from pilot studies and public policy discourse have led to recommendations by some professional organizations that CF screening should be offered or made available to pregnant women and their partners, and to couples planning a pregnancy. It is crucial that genetic counselors gain thorough understanding of the complexities of CF and the implications of positive test results, so that they may serve as a reliable, educated referral base and resource for health care providers and their patients. While not all pregnant women will be referred for genetic counseling prior to CF carrier testing, genetic counselors often will be asked to counsel clients after they have a positive test result, or who are found to be at increased risk. Genetic counselors can play an important role in providing accurate and current information as well as support for patients' informed decisions. These recommendations were created by a multicenter working group of genetic counselors with expertise in CF and are based on personal clinical experience, review of pertinent English language medical articles, and reports of expert committees. The recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular client.

Carrier testing in fragile X syndrome: when to tell and test

This study explored age preferences about when to learn at-risk status and have carrier testing in women who were undergoing testing for fragile X. Forty-two women (20 carriers and 22 noncarriers) completed a structured interview prior to carrier testing and after learning their result. The majority favored learning at-risk status and carrier status at < 18 years for themselves and their children. Preferred ages fell into four developmental categories: early childhood (0-9), preteen (10-13), teen (14-17), and adult (>or= 18). Although no significant mean changes in age responses were found between interviews or between carrier and noncarrier responses, a difference in the pattern of responses related to age categories was suggested. There appeared to be an increase in the number of responses in the 0-9 category at time 2. Also, the mean ages for testing were older than they were for telling at time 1, but not at time 2. For women indicating ages 0-9, the most frequent reason was to provide children with time to adjust. Those reporting ages 10-13 felt that the onset of puberty as well as a child's ability to understand, adjust, and cope were key determinants. Those preferring the teen years felt the possibility of sexual activity and planning for the future were important considerations. The developmental focus for adults was serious relationships. This study, through its unique longitudinal perspective of transition from uncertainty to certainty, builds on prior knowledge, has implications for genetic counseling, and suggests that the developmental stage of the child is important in determining when to tell and test.