BACKGROUND Some copy-number variants are associated with genomic disorders with extreme phenotypic heterogeneity. The cause of this variation is unknown, which presents challenges in genetic diagnosis, counseling, and management. METHODS We analyzed the genomes of 2312 children known to carry a copy-number variant associated with intellectual disability and congenital abnormalities, using array comparative genomic hybridization. RESULTS Among the affected children, 10.1% carried a second large copy-number variant in addition to the primary genetic lesion. We identified seven genomic disorders, each defined by a specific copy-number variant, in which the affected children were more likely to carry multiple copy-number variants than were controls. We found that syndromic disorders could be distinguished from those with extreme phenotypic heterogeneity on the basis of the total number of copy-number variants and whether the variants are inherited or de novo. Children who carried two large copy-number variants of unknown clinical significance were eight times as likely to have developmental delay as were controls (odds ratio, 8.16; 95% confidence interval, 5.33 to 13.07; P = 2.11×10−38). Among affected children, inherited copy-number variants tended to co-occur with a second-site large copy-number variant (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.66; P<0.001). Boys were more likely than girls to have disorders of phenotypic heterogeneity (P<0.001), and mothers were more likely than fathers to transmit second-site copy-number variants to their offspring (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Multiple, large copy-number variants, including those of unknown pathogenic significance, compound to result in a severe clinical presentation, and secondary copy-number variants are preferentially transmitted from maternal carriers. (Funded by the Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative and the National Institutes of Health.)

Genetic services have historically been time and labor intensive. Little information is known about the proportion of time genetic counselors (GCs) spend face‐to‐face with patients in comparison to the time spent on patient‐related activities (PRA). We aimed to perform a real‐time workflow study of GCs representing multiple clinics and specialties. We developed an electronic collection tool formatted in 15‐min increments for real‐time documentation of how the GC spent his/her time throughout the workday for one full week, based on a defined task list. Participants were Michigan GCs recruited via email solicitation. Sixteen of an estimated 70 patient‐facing GCs (23%) representing prenatal, cancer, adult, and pediatric genetics took part by completing a demographic survey and the workflow study. The GCs reported spending approximately 20% of their time face‐to‐face with patients, 64% on PRA including case preparation, follow‐up, and administrative tasks, and 16% on tasks unrelated to direct patient care. They saw a mean of 10 patients/week with a mean session length of 47 min. Approximately 3 hr of PRA were performed for the 0.78 hr (47 min) of face‐to‐face time with a patient. The most time‐consuming task in the PRA category was letter writing. Identifying strategies to reduce the amount of time spent on PRA could increase the amount of available time GCs have to spend on providing face‐to‐face services and subsequently, the number of patients seen. Such efforts are critical to help meet the growing demand for genetic counseling services.

Basal cell nevus syndrome (BCNS), also known as Gorlin syndrome (OMIM #109400) is a well-described rare autosomal dominant condition due to haploinsufficiency of PTCH1. With the availability of comparative genomic hybridization arrays, increasing numbers of individuals with microdeletions involving this locus are being identified. We present 10 previously unreported individuals with 9q22.3 deletions that include PTCH1. While 7 of the 10 patients (7 females, 3 males) did not meet strict clinical criteria for BCNS at the time of molecular diagnosis, almost all of the patients were too young to exhibit many of the diagnostic features. A number of the patients exhibited metopic craniosynostosis, severe obstructive hydrocephalus, and macrosomia, which are not typically observed in BCNS. All individuals older than a few months of age also had developmental delays and/or intellectual disability. Only facial features typical of BCNS, except in those with prominent midforeheads secondary to metopic craniosynostosis, were shared among the 10 patients. The deletions in these individuals ranged from 352  kb to 20.5  Mb in size, the largest spanning 9q21.33 through 9q31.2. There was significant overlap of the deleted segments among most of the patients. The smallest common regions shared among the deletions were identified in order to localize putative candidate genes that are potentially responsible for each of the non-BCNS features. These were a 929  kb region for metopic craniosynostosis, a 1.08  Mb region for obstructive hydrocephalus, and a 1.84  Mb region for macrosomia. Additional studies are needed to further characterize the candidate genes within these regions.

Growing demand for and limited geographic access to genetic counseling services is increasing the need for alternative service delivery models (SDM) like telephone genetic counseling (TGC). Little research has been done on genetic counselors' perspectives of the practice of TGC. We created an anonymous online survey to assess whether telephone genetic counselors believed the tasks identified in the ABGC (American Board of Genetic Counseling) Practice Analysis were performed similarly or differently in TGC compared to in person genetic counseling (IPGC). If there were differences noted, we sought to determine the nature of the differences and if additional training might be needed to address them. Eighty eight genetic counselors with experience in TGC completed some or all of the survey. Respondents identified differences in 13 (14.8%) of the 88 tasks studied. The tasks identified as most different in TGC were: "establishing rapport through verbal and nonverbal interactions" (60.2%; 50/83 respondents identified the task as different), "recognizing factors affecting the counseling interaction" (47.8%; 32/67), "assessing client/family emotions, support, etc." (40.1%; 27/66) and "educating clients about basic genetic concepts" (35.6%; 26/73). A slight majority (53.8%; 35/65) felt additional training was needed to communicate information without visual aids and more effectively perform psychosocial assessments. In summary, although a majority of genetic counseling tasks are performed similarly between TGC and IPGC, TGC counselors recognize that specific training in the TGC model may be needed to address the key differences.