The intent of this study was to document current practices in breast cancer genetic counseling and identify areas of variability for patients with a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. Registered members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Cancer Special Interest Group (SIG) were sent an invitation via electronic mail to participate in an online questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into three sections: clinical experience, clinical meaning, and risk perceptions and clinical recommendations for clinical situations involving a VUS. Fifty-seven of the eligible members responded. During the pre-test counseling session for a BRCA risk assessment patient, the vast majority of counselors (80.7%) mention VUS as a possible test result. Nearly half, 49.1%, report having given such a result to their patients at least one to four times. However, only 63.2% felt as though their patients understood the meaning of a VUS result. When asked to conclude the implication of a VUS and make medical management recommendations, the responses were varied. Nevertheless, a good proportion of counselors expressed the importance of testing other family members to help clarify the proband's risk and aid in medical management issues. Although the recent recommendations by the American College of Medical Genetics suggest standards for the interpretation of sequence variations, they do not provide guidelines for making clinical recommendations based on these variations. The results of this study reveal significant diversity in the personal interpretation of a VUS result, leading to various clinical recommendations, and suggest a need for clinical management recommendations as well.

The underlying cause of polyhydramnios, rather than the relative excess of amniotic fluid as defined by this study, appears to determine when preterm labor will occur.

Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS) is a genetic disorder associated with delayed growth, intellectual disability, limb reduction defects and characteristic facial features. Germline mosaicism has been a described mechanism for CdLS when there are several affected offspring of apparently unaffected parents. Presently, the recurrence risk for CdLS has been estimated to be as high as 1.5%; however, this figure may be an underrepresentation. We report on the molecularly defined germline mosaicism cases from a large CdLS database, representing the first large case series on germline mosaicism in CdLS. Of the 12 families, eight have been previously described; however, four have not. No one specific gene mutation, either in the NIPBL or the SMC1A gene, was associated with an increased risk for germline mosaicism. Suspected or confirmed cases of germline mosaicism in our database range from a conservative 3.4% up to 5.4% of our total cohort. In conclusion, the potential reproductive recurrence risk due to germline mosiacism should be addressed in prenatal counseling for all families who have had a previously affected pregnancy or child with CdLS.