Purpose: Progress in identifying genes for deafness together with implementation of universal audiologic screening of newborns has provided the opportunity for more widespread use of molecular tests to detect genetic forms of hearing loss. Efforts to assess consumer attitudes toward these advances have lagged behind. Methods:Consumer focus groups were held to explore attitudes toward genetic advances and technologies for hearing loss, views about newborn hearing screening, and reactions to the idea of adding molecular screening for hearing loss at birth. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed and analyzed. Results: Five focus groups with 44 participants including hearing parents of deaf children, deaf parents and young deaf adults were held. Focus group participants supported the use of genetic tests to identify the etiology of hearing loss but were concerned that genetic information might influence reproductive decisions. Molecular newborn screening was advocated by some; however, others expressed concern about its effectiveness. Conclusion: Documenting the attitudes of parents and other consumers toward genetic technologies establishes the framework for discussions on the appropriateness of molecular newborn screening for hearing loss and informs specialists about potential areas of public education necessary prior to the implementation of such screening. Genet Med 2006:8(12):779-783. Key Words: hearing loss, deafness, molecular testing, genetic testing, focus groups, consumer attitudes, newborn screeningHearing loss affects approximately 3-4:1,000 newborns and by the end of the first decade of life, an additional 5-9 cases of permanent childhood hearing loss are identified for every 10 cases present at birth, making it one of the most common birth defects in the United States. 1 Genetic factors account for an estimated 60% of profound hearing loss present at birth or in early childhood. 2,3 To date, more than 100 genes involved in nonsyndromic and syndromic deafness have been mapped and over 40 genes have been cloned. 4 More than half of nonsyndromic hearing loss in children can be attributed to mutations in a single gene, GJB2 (Gap Junction Beta 2), which codes for the connexin 26 protein. 5 In 1999, U.S. federal legislation mandated the establishment of early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) programs in every state. The goals of the state-based EHDI programs are to screen all newborns for hearing before one month of age using audiologic techniques, diagnose the hearing loss no later than three months of age and coordinate appropriate intervention services no later than six months of age. 6,7 Discussions about how to best incorporate genetic services into the current EHDI program framework have been initiated. 8 -11 While auditory hearing screening is an effective and relatively inexpensive way to detect hearing loss in the newborn period, a major limitation is that all forms of prelingual hearing loss are not expressed at birth and could be missed by EHDI programs based solely on audio...

Genetic services for deafness are being increasingly sought due to the introduction of early hearing detection and intervention programs, as well as the rapid progress in the identification of deafness genes. This study aimed to assess the motivations of consumers for pursuing genetic testing as well as their preferences for provision of these services. We conducted 5 focus groups consisting of hearing parents of deaf children, deaf parents, and unmarried deaf adults. Motivations for pursuing genetic testing included determining the etiology, helping to alleviate the guilt associated with the diagnosis of hearing loss in a child, and acquiring information to help them and other family members prepare for the future. Most participants thought that a genetic counselor/geneticist would be the most appropriate professional to provide genetics services. For culturally Deaf individuals, the communication method was seen as more important than the type of professional. Parents preferred that genetic evaluation, including testing, occur either immediately at or a few months after the audiologic diagnosis of hearing loss.

Hearing loss is a common neuro-sensory deficit; nearly 50% of children with hearing loss have a genetic etiology. With the discovery of 40 genes and more than 100 loci involved in hearing loss, genetic testing is becoming more widely available. The information obtained through genetic testing can be perceived and used in different ways by parents of deaf children and deaf adults, based on their prior knowledge and understanding of these advances. It is therefore important to clarify the feelings of these potential consumers towards genetic services for hearing loss and understand their goals for genetic testing. The present study evaluates the feelings of consumers towards the advances in the genetics of hearing loss, the motivations for pursuing testing, and the perceived impact testing may have on their lives. We surveyed 808 parents of children with hearing loss nationally and 156 young deaf adults at Gallaudet University. In this study, learning the etiology of the hearing loss was the most commonly cited motivation for pursuing genetic testing and for parents was the most commonly cited outcome that genetic testing may have on their children's lives. Culturally Deaf respondents were less likely to believe that genetic testing will impact their lives or their children's lives and were less likely to report positive feelings about advances in the genetics of hearing loss. Cultural affiliation and genetic testing status, rather than hearing status, contributed more to the participants' responses.

Congenital muscular dystrophy type 1A (MDC1A) is caused by recessive variants in laminin α2 (LAMA2). Patients have been found to have white matter signal abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) but rarely structural brain abnormalities. We describe the autopsy neuropathology in a 17-year-old with white matter signal abnormalities on brain MRI. Dystrophic pathology was observed in skeletal muscle, and the sural nerve manifested a mild degree of segmental demyelination and remyelination. A diffuse, bilateral cobblestone appearance, and numerous points of fusion between adjacent gyri were apparent on gross examination of the cerebrum. Brain histopathology included focal disruptions of the glia limitans associated with abnormal cerebral cortical lamination or arrested cerebellar granule cell migration. Subcortical nodular heterotopia was present within the cerebellar hemispheres. Sampling of the centrum semiovale revealed no light microscopic evidence of leukoencephalopathy. Three additional MDC1A patients were diagnosed with cobblestone malformation on brain MRI. Unlike the autopsied patient whose brain had a symmetric distribution of cobblestone pathology, the latter patients had asymmetric involvement, most severe in the occipital lobes. These cases demonstrate that cobblestone malformation may be an important manifestation of the brain pathology in MDC1A and can be present even when patients have a structurally normal brain MRI.