Purpose Genomic microarrays can detect copy number variants not detectable by conventional cytogenetics. This technology is diffusing rapidly into prenatal settings even though the clinical implications of many copy number variants are currently unknown. We conducted a qualitative pilot study to explore the experiences of women receiving abnormal results from prenatal microarray testing performed in a research setting. Methods Participants were a subset of women participating in a multicenter prospective study “Prenatal Cytogenetic Diagnosis by Array-based Copy Number Analysis”. Telephone interviews were conducted with 23 women receiving abnormal prenatal microarray results. Results We found that five key elements dominated the experiences of women who had received abnormal prenatal microarray results: an offer too good to pass up, blindsided by the results, uncertainty and unquantifiable risks, need for support, and toxic knowledge. Conclusion As prenatal microarray testing is increasingly utilized, uncertain findings will be common resulting in greater need for careful pre and post test counseling, and more education of, and resources for providers so they can adequately support the women who are undergoing testing.

Purpose The increased sensitivity of chromosomal microarray (CMA) technology as compared with traditional cytogenetic analysis allows for improved detection of genomic alterations. However, there is potential for uncertainty in the interpretation of test results in some cases. This paper explores how families understand and make meaning of CMA test results, and identifies the needs of families undergoing CMA testing. Methods We conducted semistructured interviews with parents of 25 pediatric outpatients with CMA test results indicating either a pathogenic alteration or a variant of unknown significance (VUS). Interviews were analyzed qualitatively. Results Three domains of understanding were identified: comprehension of results, interpretations of scientific uncertainty, and personal meaning for the child and family. Incomplete comprehension of test results and scientific uncertainty were prominent themes for families receiving results in both the VUS and pathogenic categories. Receiving results from non-geneticists and by telephone, long waits to see a geneticist, and misleading Internet searches all contributed to misunderstandings. Conclusion Differentiating domains of understanding allows for the identification of uncertainties that can be reduced or managed in order to improve understanding of CMA results. Using this framework, we suggest interventions to promote clarity and address the informational needs of families undergoing CMA testing.

Advances in whole genome and whole exome sequencing (WGS/WES) technologies have led to increased availability in clinical settings. Currently, there are few guidelines relating to the process and content of informed consent for WGS/WES, nor to which results should be returned to families. To address this gap, we conducted focus groups to assess the views of professionals, parents, and adolescents for the future implementation of WES. The discussions assessed understanding of the risks and benefits of WES, preferences for the informed consent discussion, process for return of results, and the decision-making role of the pediatric patient. Professional focus group participants included bioethicists, physicians, laboratory directors, and genetic counselors. Parent focus groups included individuals with children who could be offered sequencing due to a potential genetic cause of the child’s condition. On-line discussion groups were conducted with adolescents aged 13-17 who had a possible genetic disorder. We identified discrepancies between professionals and patient groups regarding the process and content of informed consent, preference for return of results, and the role of the child in decision-making. Professional groups were concerned with the uncertainty regarding professional obligations, changing interpretation in genomic medicine, and practical concerns of returning results over time. Parent and adolescent groups focused on patient choice and personal utility of sequencing results. Each group expressed different views on the role of the child in decision-making and return of results. These discrepancies represent potential barriers to informed consent and a challenge for genetic counselors regarding the involvement of pediatric patients in decision-making and return of results discussions.