Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 671–678 | Cite as

The Incorporation of Predictive Genomic Testing into Genetic Counseling Programs

  • Ryan NossEmail author
  • Rachel Mills
  • Nancy Callanan
Next Generation Genetic Counseling


This study explored whether genetic counseling programs are incorporating instruction about the applications and techniques of predictive genomic testing (PGT) based on student recollection, and whether this is perceived as adequate by those students. For the purpose of this study, PGT was defined as the use of genome-based testing to assess a person’s risk, or susceptibility, of developing a disorder with either a known or suspected genetic component. Surveys from 114 graduates were analyzed. The majority of respondents indicated that PGT was covered in their curriculum including methodology, information generated, benefits, risks, limitations, and impact on the field of genetic counseling. A statistically significant increase in incorporating information about PGT as a whole from 2008 to 2011 was also reported. The majority of respondents reported that coverage of PGT prepared them for the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) board exam (80.6 %), to interpret PGT test results (60.2 %) and to identify clinical situations warranting testing (53.1 %). Although the majority of respondents indicated learning about a wide variety of aspects surrounding PGT, many recent graduates indicated their training was less likely to cover aspects essential for the clinical application of PGT. Therefore, genetic counseling programs should place a greater emphasis on these skills, and the development of continuing education opportunities aimed at increasing genetic counselors abilities to interpret and discuss PGT tests and identify clinical situations warranting such testing may be helpful.


Predictive genomic testing Genome sequencing Genomic medicine Genetic counseling Education Predictive testing 



This research was conducted as part of a genetic counseling capstone project. The authors would like to thank Dr. Susanne Haga at Duke University and Dr. Gurav Dave, statistical consultant from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro for their help with this project.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Ryan Noss and Nancy Callanan declare that they have no conflict of interest. Rachel Mills provided contracting services for the laboratory testing company GeneDx at the time this manuscript was drafted.


  1. ABGC Practice-Based Competencies. (2006). Retrieved from American Board of Genetic Counseling, INC. Accessed 12 July 2012.
  2. Berg, J., Khoury, M., & Evans, J. (2011). Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine, 13(6), 499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloss, C., Schork, N., & Topol, E. (2011). Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. New England Journal of Medicine, 364(6), 524–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brazeau, D., & Brazeau, G. (2006). A required course in human genomics, pharmacogenomics, and bioinformatics. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(6), 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cirulli, E., & Goldstein, D. (2010). Uncovering the roles of rare variants in common disease through whole-genome sequencing. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11, 415–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clemerson, J., Payne, K., Bissell, P., & Anderson, C. (2006). Pharmacogenetics, the next challenge for pharmacy? Pharmacy World and Science, 28, 126–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eng, C., & Sharp, R. (2010). Bioethical and clinical dilemmas of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: the problem of misattributed equivalence. Science Translational Medicine, 2(17), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FAQs about Genetic Counselors and the NSGC. (2011). Retrieved from the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Accessed 12 July 2012.
  9. Foster, M., Mulvihill, J., & Sharp, M. (2009). Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genetics in Medicine, 11(8), 570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gettig, E. (2010). Commentary on genome-guided preventive medicine- new roles for genetic counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19, 328–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goddard, K., Robitaille, J., Dowling, N., Parrado, A., Fishman, J., Bradley, L., et al. (2009). Health-related direct-to-consumer genetic tests: a public health assessment and analysis of practices related to Internet-based tests for risk of thrombosis. Public Health Genomics, 12(2), 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gollust, S., Gordon, E., Zayac, C., Griffin, C., Christman, M., Pyeritz, R., et al. (2011). Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: perspectives from research participants. Pub Health Genomics, 15(1), 22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hock, K., Yashar, B., Gollust, S., Christensen, K., Roberts, S., & Uhlmann, W. (2011). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an assessment of genetic counselors’ knowledge and beliefs. Genetics in Medicine, 13(4), 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hogarth, Javitt, & Melzer. (2008). Annual review of genomics. Human Genetics, 9, 161–182.Google Scholar
  15. Khoury, M., McBride, C., Schully, S., Ioannidis, J., Feero, G., Janssens, A., et al. (2009). The scientific foundation for personal genomics: recommendations from a national institutes of health-centers for disease control and prevention multidisciplinary workshop. Genetics in Medicine, 11(8), 1–9. doi: Scholar
  16. Kitzmiller, J., Groen, D., Phelps, M., & Sadee, W. (2011). Pharmacogenomic testing: relevance in medical practice, why drugs work in some patients but not in others. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 78(4), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ku, C., Cooper, D., Polychronakos, C., Naidoo, N., Wu, M., & Soong, R. (2012). Exome sequencing: dual role as a discovery and diagnostic tool. Annals of Neurology, 71, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lander, E. (2011). Initial impact of the sequencing of the human genome. Nature, 470(7333), 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latif, D. (2005). Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenonmics instruction in schools of pharmacy in the USA: is it adequate? Pharmacogenomics, 6(4), 317–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leighton, J., Bernhardt, B., & Valverde, K. (2011). The general public’s understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics, 15(1), 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lohn, Z., Adam, S., Birch, P., Friedman, J. (2013). Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: A Review. J Genet Couns [ePub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  22. Loud, J. (2010). Direct-to-consumer genetic and genomic testing: preparing nurse practitioners for genomic healthcare. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 6(8), 585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manolio, T. (2010). Genomewide association studies and assessment of the risk of disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 363, 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McBride, C., Wade, C., & Kaphingst, K. (2010). Consumers’ views of direct-to-consumer genetic information. The Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 11, 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer, M. & Bernhardt, B. (2012). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: introduction to the special issue. J Genet Couns [ePub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  26. Murphy, J., Green, J., Adams, L., Squire, R., Grace, K., & McKay, A. (2010). Pharmaceogenomics in the curricula of colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Society of Genetic Counselors. (2006). The code of ethics of the national society of genetic counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(5), 309–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Daniel, J. (2010). The prospect of genome-guided preventive medicine: a need and opportunity for genetic counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19, 315–327. doi: Scholar
  29. O’Daniel, J., & Lee, K. (2012). Whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing in hereditary cancer: impact on genetic testing and counseling. The Cancer Journal, 18(4), 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Powell, K., Cogswell, W., Christanson, C., Dave, G., Verma, A., Eubanks, S., et al. (2011). Primary care physician’ awareness, experience and opinions of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. J Genet Couns Google Scholar
  31. Robertson, A. (2009). Taking responsibility: regulations and protections in direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24(1), 213–243.Google Scholar
  32. Runyon, M., Zahm, K., Veach, P., MacFarlane, I., & LeRoy, B. (2010). What do genetic counselors learn on the job? A qualitative assessment of professional development outcomes. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19(4), 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, Clayton, D., Cardon, L., & Craddock, N. (2007). Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature, 447(7145), 661–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yu, Y., Wu, B., Wu, J., & Shen, Y. (2012). Exome and whole-gemone sequencing as clinical tests: a transformative practice in molecular diagnostics. Clinical Chemistry, 58(11), 1507–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Genomic Medicine InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Duke Institute for Genome Sciences & PolicyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Genetic Counseling ProgramUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations