Abstract
Due to the lack of empirical information on parental perceptions of primary results of whole exome sequencing (WES), we conducted a retrospective semi-structured interview with 19 parents of children who had undergone WES. Perceptions explored during the interview included factors that would contribute to parental empowerment such as: parental expectations, understanding of the WES and results, utilization of the WES information, and communication of findings to health/educational professionals and family members. Results of the WES had previously been communicated to families within a novel framework of clinical diagnostic categories: 5/19 had Definite diagnoses, 6/19 had Likely diagnoses, 3/19 had Possible diagnosis and 5/19 had No diagnosis. All parents interviewed expressed a sense of duty to pursue the WES in search of a diagnosis; however, their expectations were tempered by previous experiences with negative genetic testing results. Approximately half the parents worried that a primary diagnosis that would be lethal might be identified; however, the hope of a diagnosis outweighed this concern. Parents were accurately able to summarize their child’s WES findings, understood the implications for recurrence risks, and were able to communicate these findings to family and medical/educational providers. The majority of those with a Definite/Likely diagnosis felt that their child’s medical care was more focused, or there was a reduction in worry, despite the lack of a specific treatment. Irrespective of diagnostic outcome, parents recommended that follow-up visits be built into the process. Several parents expressed a desire to have all variants of unknown significance (VUS) reported to them so that they could investigate these themselves. Finally, for some families whose children had a Definite/Likely diagnosis, there was remaining frustration and a sense of isolation, due to the limited information that was available about the diagnosed rare disorders and the inability to connect to other families, suggesting that for families with rare genetic disorders, the diagnostic odyssey does not necessarily end with a diagnosis. Qualitative interviewing served a meaningful role in eliciting new information about parental motivations, expectations, and knowledge of WES. Our findings highlight a need for continued communication with families as we navigate the new landscape of genomic sequencing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdul-Karim, R., Berkman, B. E., Wendler, D., Rid, A., Khan, J., Badgett, T., & Hull, S. C. (2013). Disclosure of Incidental Findings from next-Generation Sequencing in Pediatric Genomic Research. Pediatrics, 131(3), 564–571. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0084.
Angrist, M. (2011). You Never Call, you Never Write: Why Return of 'Omic' Results to Research Participants is Both a Good Idea and a Moral Imperative. Per Med, 8(6), 651–657. doi:10.2217/pme.11.62.
Ashtiani, S., Makela, N., Carrion, P., & Austin, J. (2014). Parents' experiences of receiving their child's genetic diagnosis: a qualitative study to inform clinical genetics practice. Am J Med Genet A, 164a(6), 1496–1502. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36525.
Bergner, A. L., Bollinger, J., Raraigh, K. S., Tichnell, C., Murray, B., Blout, C. L., et al. (2014). Informed consent for exome sequencing research in families with genetic disease: the emerging issue of incidental findings. Am J Med Genet A, 164a(11), 2745–2752. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36706.
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding In-Depth Semistructured Interviews: Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. doi:10.1177/0049124113500475.
Clayton, E. W., & McGuire, A. L. (2012). The Legal Risks of Returning Results of Genomics Research. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4), 473–477. doi:10.1038/gim.2012.10.
Clift, K. E., Halverson, C. M. E., Fiksdal, A. S., Kumbamu, A., Sharp, R. R., & McCormick, J. B. (2015). Patients' Views on Incidental Findings from Clinical Exome Sequencing. Applied & Translational Genomics, 4, 38–43. doi:10.1016/j.atg.2015.02.005.
Dunst, C. J., & Paget, K. D. (1991). Parent-professional partnerships and family empowerment. In M. Fine (Ed.), Collaboration with parents of exceptional children (pp. 25–44). Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing.
Enns, G. M., Shashi, V., Bainbridge, M., Gambello, M. J., Zahir, F. R., Bast, T., et al. (2014). Mutations in NGLY1 Cause an Inherited Disorder of the Endoplasmic Reticulum-Associated Degradation Pathway. Genetics in Medicine, 16(10), 751–758. doi:10.1038/gim.2014.22.
Facio, F. M., Lee, K., & O'Daniel, J. M. (2014). A Genetic Counselor's Guide to Using next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23(4), 455–462. doi:10.1007/s10897-013-9662-7.
Fernandez, C., Bouffet, E., Malkin, D., Jabado, N., O'Connell, C., Avard, D., et al. (2014). Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children. Genetics in Medicine, 16(8), 633–640. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.201.
Gilissen, C., Hoischen, A., Brunner, H. G., & Veltman, J. A. (2011). Unlocking Mendelian Disease Using Exome Sequencing. Genome Biology, 12(9), 228. doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-9-228.
Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Grody, W. W., Kalia, S. S., Korf, B. R., Martin, C. L., et al. (2013). ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 15(7), 565–574. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.73.
Hegde, M., Bale, S., Bayrak-Toydemir, P., Gibson, J., Jeng, L. J., Joseph, L., et al. (2015). Reporting Incidental Findings in Genomic Scale Clinical Sequencing–a Clinical Laboratory Perspective: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology. The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, 17(2), 107–117. doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2014.10.004.
Jarvik, G. P., Amendola, L. M., Berg, J. S., Brothers, K., Clayton, E. W., Chung, W., et al. (2014). Return of Genomic Results to Research Participants: The Floor, the Ceiling, and the Choices In Between. American Journal of Human Genetics. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.04.009.
Krabbenborg, L., Schieving, J., Kleefstra, T., Vissers, L. E., Willemsen, M. A., Veltman, J. A., & van der Burg, S. (2016) Evaluating a counselling strategy for diagnostic WES in paediatric neurology: an exploration of parents' information and communication needs. Clinical Genetics, 89 (2), 244-250 doi:10.1111/cge.12601
Lambertson, K. F., Damiani, S. A., Might, M., Shelton, R., & Terry, S. F. (2015). Participant-Driven Matchmaking in the Genomic Era. Human Mutation. doi:10.1002/humu.22852.
Lee, H., Deignan, J. L., Dorrani, N., & et al. (2014). Clinical Exome Sequencing for Genetic Identification of Rare Mendelian Disorders. Journal of the American Medical Association doi:10.1001/jama.2014.14604
Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (vol. 41, ). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
McAllister, M., Davies, L., Payne, K., Nicholls, S., Donnai, D., & MacLeod, R. (2007). The Emotional Effects of Genetic Diseases: Implications for Clinical Genetics. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 143A(22), 2651–2661. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32013.
McAllister, M., Payne, K., Macleod, R., Nicholls, S., Dian, D., & Davies, L. (2008a). Patient Empowerment in Clinical Genetics Services. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(7), 895–905. doi:10.1177/1359105308095063.
McAllister, M., Payne, K., Macleod, R., Nicholls, S., Donnai, D., & Davies, L. (2008b). What Process Attributes of Clinical Genetics Services Could Maximise Patient Benefits? European Journal of Human Genetics, 16(12), 1467–1476. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.121.
McAllister, M., Wood, A. M., Dunn, G., Shiloh, S., & Todd, C. (2011). The Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale: A new Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Clinical Genetics Services. Clinical Genetics, 79(5), 413–424. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01636.x.
McConkie-Rosell, A., & Sullivan, J. A. (1999). Genetic Counseling-Stress, Coping, and the Empowerment Perspective. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 8(6), 345–357. doi:10.1023/a:1022919325772.
McConkie-Rosell, A., Robinson, H., Wake, S., Staley, L. W., Heller, K., & Cronister, A. (1995). Dissemination of Genetic Risk Information to Relatives in the Fragile X Syndrome: Guidelines for Genetic Counselors. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 59(4), 426–430. doi:10.1002/ajmg.1320590406.
McConkie-Rosell, A., Del Giorno, J., & Heise, E. M. (2011). Communication of Genetic Risk Information to Daughters in Families with Fragile X Syndrome: The Parent's Perspective. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 20(1), 58–69. doi:10.1007/s10897-010-9326-9.
Might, M., & Wilsey, M. (2014). The Shifting Model in Clinical Diagnostics: How next-Generation Sequencing and Families are Altering the way Rare Diseases are Discovered, Studied, and Treated. Genetics in Medicine, 16(10), 736–737. doi:10.1038/gim.2014.23.
Mikati MA J. Y, Carboni C, Shashi V, Petrovski S, Spillmann S, Milligan CJ, Li MYS, Grefe A, Berkovic S, Scheffer I, Mullen S, Bonner M, Petrou S, Goldstein DB. (2015). Quinidine in the Treatment of KCNT1 Positive Epilepsies. Annals of Neurology 78(6), 995–999. doi:10.1002/ana 24520.
Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking Validity and Reliability in Content Analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258–284.
Sapp, J. C., Dong, D., Stark, C., Ivey, L. E., Hooker, G., Biesecker, L. G., & Biesecker, B. B. (2014). Parental Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs Toward the Return of Results from Exome Sequencing in Children. Clinical Genetics, 85(2), 120–126. doi:10.1111/cge.12254.
Shashi, V., McConkie-Rosell, A., Rosell, B., Schoch, K., Vellore, K., McDonald, M., et al. (2013). The Utility of the Traditional Medical Genetics Diagnostic Evaluation in the Context of next-Generation Sequencing for Undiagnosed Genetic Disorders. Genetics in Medicine, 16(2), 176–182. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.99.
Shashi, V., McConkie-Rosell, A., Schoch, K., Kasturi, V., Rehder, C., Jiang, Y. H., et al. (2015a). Practical Considerations in the Clinical Application of Whole-Exome Sequencing. Clinical Genetics. doi:10.1111/cge.12569.
Shashi V, Petrovski, S., Schoch K, & Crimian R, C. L., Khalid R, El-Dairi MA, Jiang YH, Mikati MA, Goldstein DB. (2015b). Sustained therapeutic response to riboflavin in a child with a progressive neurological condition, diagnosed by whole exome sequencing. Molecular Case Studies 2015. doi:10.1101/mcs.a000265
Tabor, H. K., Stock, J., Brazg, T., McMillin, M. J., Dent, K. M., Yu, J. H., et al. (2012). Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Genet A, 158a(6), 1310–1319. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.35328.
Yang, Y., Muzny, D. M., Reid, J. G., Bainbridge, M. N., Willis, A., Ward, P. A., et al. (2013). Clinical Whole-Exome Sequencing for the Diagnosis of Mendelian Disorders. New England Journal of Medicine, 369(16), 1502–1511. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1306555.
Yang, Y., Muzny, D. M., Xia, F., et al. (2014). Molecular Findings Among Patients Referred for Clinical Whole-Exome Sequencing. Journal of the American Medical Association. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.14601.
Zhu, X., Petrovski, S., Xie, P., Ruzzo, E. K., Lu, Y.-F., McSweeney, K. M., et al. (2015). Whole-Exome Sequencing in Undiagnosed Genetic Diseases: Interpreting 119 Trios. Genetics in Medicine. doi:10.1038/gim.2014.191.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Authors have no conflict of interests to disclose.
Human Studies and Informed Consent
This study was reviewed and approved by the Duke Institutional Review Board and was carried out following the approved protocol. Protocol number: Pro00032301.
Animal Studies
No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rosell, A.M., Pena, L.D.M., Schoch, K. et al. Not the End of the Odyssey: Parental Perceptions of Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) in Pediatric Undiagnosed Disorders. J Genet Counsel 25, 1019–1031 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-9933-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-9933-1