Considerations in genetic counseling of transgender patients: Cultural competencies and altered disease risk profiles

Conducting inclusive research in genetics for transgender, gender-diverse, and sex-diverse individuals: Case analyses and recommendations from a clinical genomics study

A person's phenotypic sex (i.e., endogenous expression of primary, secondary, and endocrinological sex characteristics) can impact crucial aspects of genetic assessment and resulting clinical care recommendations. In studies with genetics components, it is critical to collect phenotypic sex, information about current organ/tissue inventory and hormonal milieu, and gender identity. If researchers do not carefully construct data models, transgender, gender diverse, and sex diverse (TGSD) individuals may be given inappropriate care recommendations and/or be subjected to misgendering, inflicting medical and psychosocial harms. The recognized need for an inclusive care experience should not be limited to clinical practice but should extend to the research setting, where researchers must build an inclusive experience for TGSD participants. Here, we review three TGSD participants in the Family History and Cancer Risk Study (FOREST) to critically evaluate sex- and gender-related survey measures and associated data models in a study seeking to identify patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes. Furthermore, we leverage these participants' responses to sex- and gender identity-related questions in FOREST to inform needed changes to the FOREST data model and to make recommendations for TGSD-inclusive genetics research design, data models, and processes.

Queering genomics: How cisnormativity undermines genomic science

Over the past century, genetics and genomics ("genomics") have contributed significantly to our knowledge of human biology and disease. Genomics has also bolstered inaccurate and harmful arguments about "essential" differences between socially defined groups. These purported differences have reinforced class hierarchies and justified the mistreatment of groups such as Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color and/or people with disabilities. With this history in mind, we explore how genomics is used to reinforce scientifically unsound understandings of the relationship between two fundamental aspects of the human experience: sex and gender. We argue that imprecise, inaccurate practices for collecting data and conducting genomic research have adversely influenced genomic science and can contribute to the stigmatization of people whose sex and/or gender challenge binary expectations. The results have been to preclude transgender and intersex people from accessing high-quality, evidence-based healthcare and to hinder their participation in scientifically sound research. In this perspective, we use the lens of queer theory to render this situation more visible. First, we highlight the theoretical contributions queer theory can make to genomic science. Second, we examine practices in research and clinical genomics that exclude and stigmatize transgender and intersex people. Third, we highlight the ways that many current genomic research practices generate false conclusions that are used to support unjust public policies. We conclude by recommending ways that clinicians and researchers can-and should-harness the scientific, social, and cultural power of genomics to advance knowledge and improve lives across the spectra of sex and gender.

Identifying potential LGBTQIA+ competencies for genetic counseling student training

The LGBTQIA+ community faces considerable health disparities. Developing and integrating LGBTQIA+ competencies into healthcare provider training programs is one way to promote inclusive high-quality care to potentially improve this community's health. Currently, there are no established LGBTQIA+-specific competencies for genetic counseling graduate programs (GCPs), so training across GCPs likely varies. This qualitative focus group-based study aimed to explore current topics related to genetic counseling (GC) for LGBTQIA+ patients covered in North American GCPs, their learning objectives, and LGBTQIA+-specific competencies that GC students (GCSs) should achieve by graduation. Eligible participants were program leaders at ACGC-accredited GCPs and/or faculty who taught LGBTQIA+-related content in at least one GCP over the last 5 years. A semistructured interview guide was used to conduct virtual focus groups that were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and an inductive iterative approach that generated themes regarding what content is taught and what knowledge, attitudes, and skills GCSs should demonstrate as a result. Thirteen people participated, including nine LGBTQIA+ people. They represented 12 GCPs (22% of current GCPs) across the United States and Canada. Focus groups ran 73-90 min. Transcript analysis identified six themes, framed as learning objectives (LOs), and 24 subobjectives. These included recognizing the breadth of the LGBTQIA+ community and their lived experience with the healthcare system, demonstrating respect for and responding to patient identities to provide inclusive GC, employing strategies to mitigate social aspects that influence health care, and assessing personal biases and the impact of socialization. Participants used several teaching methods including didactic lectures, simulation, written activities, reflections, and fieldwork experiences. The six identified LOs may be a starting point for GCPs looking to develop or refine their LGBTQIA+ curricula. Competency-based education may enhance GCSs' abilities to provide inclusive GC to the LGBTQIA+ community.

A qualitative study exploring LGBTQ genetic counseling students' relationships with peers and faculty in graduate school

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ) students in healthcare professional programs face discrimination in their training, leading them to hide their identities and hindering their ability to form as meaningful connections with their classmates and faculty as non-LGBTQ students. To date, no studies have been published characterizing the LGBTQ student experience in genetic counseling programs. However, other historically oppressed groups such as Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) genetic counseling students report feelings of isolation and negative impacts on mental health due to their racial or ethnic identity. This study explored how LGBTQ identity impacted relationships between genetic counseling students and their classmates and faculty in graduate school. In this qualitative study using constructivist grounded theory, 13 LGBTQ students and recent graduates of Canadian and American accredited genetic counseling programs were interviewed via videoconferencing. Participants reported determinants in self-disclosing their LGBTQ identity to their classmates and faculty and described ways in which their LGBTQ identity impacted relationships with individuals in their training programs. In particular, many described an overall heteronormative training environment, a hesitation to disclose their identity to faculty due to the professional nature of the relationship, and a sense of isolation. Participants also described the ways in which intersecting minoritized identities impacted their experiences as an LGBTQ student. This research contributes to the minimal literature about LGBTQ genetic counseling student experiences and has implications for addressing cisheteronormative curricula and attitudes in genetic counseling programs.

Experiences of hereditary cancer care among transgender and gender diverse people: "It's gender. It's cancer risk…it's everything"

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals are a significant yet underrepresented population within genetic counseling research and broader LGBTQI+ health studies. This underrepresentation perpetuates a cycle of exclusion from the production of medical knowledge, impacting the quality and equity of care received by TGD individuals. This issue is particularly poignant in cancer genetic counseling, where TGD individuals with elevated cancer risk receive risk assessment, counseling, and referral to support based on risk figures and standards of care developed for cisgender individuals. The experiences of TGD individuals navigating inherited cancer syndromes remain largely undocumented in medical literature, posing challenges to the provision of inclusive care by genetics providers. To bridge this knowledge gap, we conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study. Nineteen semi-structured interviews were held with gender diverse adults having hereditary cancer syndromes, family histories of such syndromes, or personal histories of chest cancer. Our study employed thematic analysis using combined inductive and deductive methods to illuminate how hereditary cancer care intersects with participants' gender identities, gender expression, and gender-affirming care experiences. Participants reflected on care experiences that felt affirming or triggered gender dysphoria. Participants also discussed the interplay between risk-reducing mastectomy and top surgery, exploring co-emergent dynamics between cancer risk management and gender expression. Significantly, participants identified actionable strategies for healthcare providers to enhance support for gender diverse patients, including the mindful use of gendered language, collaborative decision-making, and conveying allyship. These findings offer valuable insights into tailoring genetic counseling to meet the unique needs of TGD individuals, advancing the path toward inclusive and appropriate care for LGBTQI+ individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes.

Transgender and gender diverse individuals' perspectives on discussions of fetal sex chromosomes in obstetrics care

In the past decade, prenatal cell-free DNA screening (cfDNA) has become ubiquitous as a screening tool for fetal aneuploidy and sex chromosomes. Healthcare provider (HCP) discussions and public perceptions of sex and gender uniquely impact transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals, and existing cfDNA guidelines lack recommendations regarding how to discuss sex and gender prenatally. The aim of this exploratory qualitative study was to examine TGD individuals' opinions regarding fetal sex chromosome disclosure sessions. Twelve semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted with TGD individuals regarding their perspectives on the discussion of fetal sex chromosomes by HCPs within the prenatal setting. Interviews were coded and analyzed using a reflexive thematic approach, generating four major themes: (1) Current practices in prenatal care exclude gender diverse people; (2) HCPs' responsibility to de-gender discussions of sex chromosomes in prenatal care; (3) HCPs' responsibility to acknowledge gender diversity; and (4) HCPs' influence on societal perceptions of sex and gender. More guidance is needed from professional societies regarding best practices for HCP discussions of sex chromosomes, sex, and gender. Participants recommended HCPs educate patients about sex chromosomes and their relevance to health while avoiding the conflation of sex and gender terms. Additionally, there is an acute need for trans-inclusive prenatal healthcare. Ultimately, HCPs' and organizations are in a prime position to deconstruct rigid gender binaries and promote societal inclusion of TGD people.

Inequities in colorectal and breast cancer screening: At the intersection of race/ethnicity, sexuality, and gender

Objective

To investigate the joint impact of sexual orientation, gender identity, and race/ethnicity on colorectal and breast cancer screening disparities in the United States.

Methods

Utilizing sampling weighted data from the 2016 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we assessed differences in two metrics via chi-square statistics: 1) lifetime uptake, and 2) up-to-date colorectal and breast cancer screening by sexual orientation and gender identity, within and across racial/ethnic classifications.

Results

Within specific races/ethnicities, lifetime CRC screening was higher among gay/lesbian (within NH-White, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander) and bisexual individuals (Hispanic) compared to straight individuals, and lowest overall among transgender women and transgender nonconforming populations (p < 0.05). Asian transgender women had the lowest lifetime CRC screening (13.0%; w.n. = 1,428). Lifetime breast cancer screening was lowest among the Hispanic bisexual population (86.6%; w.n. = 26,940) and Hispanic transgender nonconforming population (71.8%; w.n. = 739); within all races, SGM individuals (except NH-White, Hispanic, and Black bisexual populations, and NH-White transgender men) had greater breast cancer screening adherence compared to straight individuals.

Conclusions

Due to small, unweighted sample sizes, results should be interpreted with caution. Heterogeneity in screening participation by SGM status within and across racial/ethnic groups were observed, revealing the need to disaggregate data to account for intersecting identities and for studies with larger sample sizes to increase estimate reliability.

The need for an intersectionality framework in precision medicine research

Precision medicine research has seen growing efforts to increase participation of communities that have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research. Marginalized racial and ethnic communities have received particular attention, toward the goal of improving the generalizability of scientific knowledge and promoting health equity. Against this backdrop, research has highlighted three key issues that could impede the promise of precision medicine research: issues surrounding (dis)trust and representation, challenges in translational efforts to improve health outcomes, and the need for responsive community engagement. Existing efforts to address these challenges have predominantly centered on single-dimensional demographic criteria such as race, ethnicity, or sex, while overlooking how these and additional variables, such as disability, gender identity, and socioeconomic factors, can confound and jointly impact research participation. We argue that increasing cohort diversity and the responsiveness of precision medicine research studies to community needs requires an approach that transcends conventional boundaries and embraces a more nuanced, multi-layered, and intersectional framework for data collection, analyses, and implementation. We draw attention to gaps in existing work, highlight how overlapping layers of marginalization might shape and substantiate one another and affect the precision-medicine research cycle, and put forth strategies to facilitate equitable advantages from precision-medicine research to diverse participants and internally heterogeneous communities.

Genetic counseling for fetal sex prediction by NIPT: Challenges and opportunities

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has grown in ubiquity in the last decade and is now endorsed by Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as a screening tool for aneuploidy in all patients. Past studies have demonstrated a tendency among obstetrics patients to focus on the ability of NIPT to predict fetal sex chromosomes; however, data on the experiences of genetic counselors (GCs) counseling on NIPT and fetal sex prediction are limited. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore how GCs counsel about NIPT and fetal sex prediction, as well as the use of gender-inclusive language in this setting. A 36-item survey with multiple choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions was distributed to GCs who currently offer NIPT to patients. Quantitative data were analyzed using R and qualitative data were manually analyzed and coded via inductive content analysis. A total of 147 individuals completed at least some portion of the survey. A majority of participants (68.5%) reported frequent interchangeable use of the terms 'sex' and 'gender' by patients. A majority (72.9%) of participants reported that they rarely or never discuss the difference between these terms in sessions (Spearman's rho = 0.17, p = 0.052). Seventy-five respondents (59.5%) indicated that they had taken continuing education courses on inclusive clinical practices for trans and gender-diverse (TGD) patients. Several themes arose from free responses; the most frequently identified themes were the need for thorough pretest counseling that properly describes the scope of NIPT and the challenge of discrepant pretest counseling by other healthcare providers. Results from our research identified challenges and misconceptions GCs face when offering NIPT and various tactics implemented to mitigate these. Our study highlighted the need for the standardization of pretest counseling regarding NIPT, additional guidance from professional organizations, and continuing education focused on gender-inclusive language and clinical practices.

Practice resource-focused revision: Standardized pedigree nomenclature update centered on sex and gender inclusivity: A practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

This focused revision builds on the expert opinions from the original publications of 'Recommendations for human standardized pedigree nomenclature' published in 1995 and updated in 2008. Our review of medical publications since 2008 did not identify any fundamental systematic alternative pedigree nomenclature. These findings attest to the relevance of most of the nomenclature with the critical exception of the nomenclature used to denote sex assigned at birth and gender. While we are not recommending the creation of any new pedigree symbols, a major focus of this publication is clarification of the use of symbols and language in the description of the distinction between sex and gender, with a view to ensuring safe and inclusive practice for people who are gender-diverse or transgender. In addition, we recommend modifications to the way that carrier status is depicted. Our goal is to respect individual differences and identities while maintaining biologically, clinically, and genetically meaningful information.

Disparities in cancer genetics care by race/ethnicity among pan-cancer patients with pathogenic germline variants

BACKGROUND

Germline risk assessment is increasing as part of cancer care; however, disparities in subsequent genetic counseling are unknown.

METHODS

Pan-cancer patients were prospectively consented to tumor-normal sequencing via custom next generation sequencing panel (Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets) inclusive of germline analysis of ≥76 genes from January 2015 through December 2019 (97.5% research nonbillable) with protocol for genetics referral. Rates of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PVs) and downstream counseling were compared across ancestry groups (mutually exclusive groups based on self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish [AJ] heritage) using nonparametric tests and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among 15,775 patients (59.6%, non-Hispanic [NH]-White; 15.7%, AJ; 20.5%, non-White [6.9%, Asian; 6.8%, Black/African American (AA); 6.7%, Hispanic; 0.1%, Other], and 4.2%, unknown), 2663 (17%) had a PV. Non-White patients had a lower PV rate (n = 433, 13.4%) compared to NH-Whites (n = 1451, 15.4%) and AJ patients (n = 683, 27.6%), p < .01, with differences in mostly moderate and low/recessive/uncertain penetrance variants. Among 2239 patients with new PV, 1652 (73.8%) completed recommended genetic counseling. Non-White patients had lower rates of genetic counseling (67.7%) than NH-White (73.7%) and AJ patients (78.8%), p < .01, with lower rates occurring in Black/AA (63%) compared to NH-White patients, even after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.97; p = .036). Non-White, particularly Black/AA and Asian, probands had a trend toward lower rates and numbers of at-risk family members being seen for counseling/genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite minimizing barriers to genetic testing, non-White patients were less likely to receive recommended cancer genetics follow-up, with potential implications for oncologic care, cancer risk reduction, and at-risk family members.

LAY SUMMARY

Genetic testing is becoming an important part of cancer care, and we wanted to see if genetics care was different between individuals of different backgrounds. We studied 15,775 diverse patients with cancer who had genetic testing using a test called MSK-IMPACT that was covered by research funding. Clinically important genetic findings were high in all groups. However, Black patients were less likely to get recommended counseling compared to White patients. Even after removing many roadblocks, non-White and especially Black patients were less likely to get recommended genetics care, which may affect their cancer treatments and families.

Improving gender-affirming care in genetic counseling: Using educational tools that amplify transgender and/or gender non-binary community voices

Transgender and/or gender non-binary (TGNB) individuals face significant health care disparities, including deficiencies in provider knowledge. To address this knowledge gap for genetic counselors, we developed, implemented, and analyzed an educational intervention on gender-affirming genetic counseling (GC) and care for TGNB patients. In partnership with the TGNB community, we designed a 5-module (length = 146 min ± 94 min) genetic counseling-targeted online learning program focused on gender-affirming care (Amplify). Content included elements of gender-affirming care, core components of gender-inclusive GC sessions, and cancer risk assessment/management. Video testimonials featuring TGNB individuals complemented learning within each module. Educational outcomes measured included comfort working with TGNB patients (n = 2 multiple choice questions (MCQs)), impact of education on knowledge (n = 25 MCQs), and clinical self-efficacy based on the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling competencies (n = 35 skills). Participants (n = 40), recruited through state and national GC organizations, completed all modules, and pre- and post-education/self-efficacy assessments. Pre-Amplify, 65% (n = 26/40) of participants endorsed feeling 'somewhat comfortable' working with TGNB patients. The average knowledge score was 77.6% (SD = 11.2%) with the lowest scores related to the gender affirmation process. After Amplify, overall knowledge improvement was statistically significant with an average 16.9% (p < 0.001) increase in score. Pre-Amplify, the average self-efficacy score was 78.4% (SD = 15.8%) with lowest scores seen in statements surrounding information gathering of family and medical histories. Post-Amplify, overall self-efficacy improvement was statistically significant with an average 13.8% (p < 0.001) increase in score. Linear regression did not identify an impact of practice specialty on participants' knowledge gains or self-efficacy. This study shows online modules are an effective form of gender-affirming care education for GCs. This intervention can positively improve the care practicing genetic counselors provide to patients and inform future decision-making about the development of gender-affirming care education for genetic counselors.

Biological underpinnings of sex differences in neurological disorders

The importance of sex differences in neurological disorders has been increasingly acknowledged in recent clinical and basic research studies, but the complex biology and genetics underlying sex-linked biological heterogeneity and its brain-to-body impact remained incompletely understood. Men and women differ substantially in their susceptibility to certain neurological diseases, in the severity of symptoms, prognosis as well as the nature and efficacy of their response to treatments. The detailed mechanisms underlying these differences, especially at the molecular level, are being addressed in many studies but leave a lot to be further revealed. Here, we provide an overview of recent advances in our understanding of how sex differences in the brain and brain-body signaling contribute to neurological disorders and further present some future prospects entailed in terms of diagnostics and therapeutics.

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals' perspectives on research seeking genetic variants associated with TGD identities: a qualitative study

Recent genetic research has explored how genetic variants may contribute to gender dysphoria and transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) identities. When investigating communities that have been marginalized, it is important for researchers to incorporate perspectives of the communities the research is targeting. Therefore, investigators should incorporate the TGD community's opinions into this research to mitigate potential ethical issues, given the history of pathologization of TGD identities and utilization of genetics for eugenics. The aim of this study was to understand the perspectives of TGD individuals about trans-associated genetic research (TAGR). Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the TGD community to explore how TGD individuals view TAGR. Through inductive content analysis, five major themes were emergent: (1) TAGR could affect self-perception of identity; (2) TAGR could affect external views of TGD people; (3) TAGR could affect access to gender-affirming services; (4) TAGR could contribute to the pathologization and elimination of TGD identities; and (5) researchers should consult TGD community members and consider ethical concerns before conducting research. Participants highlighted concerns about TAGR being used as a tool for discrimination. Those who identified potential advantages of TAGR gave warning that TAGR would be unlikely to solely have positive effects. It is important for genetic researchers to prioritize the perspectives and concerns of TGD people highlighted in this study. Research about the TGD community needs to include TGD individuals as core members of the research team. Moreover, due to the serious ethical issues outlined in this study, TAGR should be reconsidered altogether.

Transgender patients' perspectives on their cancer genetic counseling experiences

Transgender (trans) individuals face many forms of discrimination in accessing health care, including lack of provider knowledge and denial of services. Barriers specific to the cancer setting include limited availability of information concerning cancer management and its potential impact on gender affirmation therapies and minimal training for providers regarding inclusive practices for the trans population. The limited research about the experiences of cancer genetic counseling for trans patients has investigated exclusively the perspective of the provider, not the patient. This constructivist grounded theory study sought to fill this gap in the literature by interviewing trans individuals who had undergone cancer genetic counseling. Participants were recruited through social media platforms, LGBTQ+ advocacy and cancer support groups, and the National Society of Genetic Counselors' list serv. Six semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants focusing on their expectations and goals prior to the genetic counseling session, concerns during the session, and reflections on inclusive practices. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a constant comparative approach and five themes emerged: (a) Anxiety for the consult, (b) Disruptions of familial relationships and emotional support systems, (c) Use of inclusive language during session, (d) Impact on gender affirmation journey, and (e) Lack of appropriate cancer risk information for trans patients. The results from this pilot study suggest that trans patients experience anticipatory anxiety before the genetic counseling appointment, particularly about the potential of a physical examination. They may be more likely to experience disrupted family relationships that impact access to family history information and support. Genetic counselors should utilize inclusive language both when referring to the patient and when discussing cancer risk. Finally, additional research is needed to provide more accurate cancer risk predictions for trans individuals.

Considerations in genetic counseling of transgender patients: Cultural competencies and altered disease risk profiles

Transgender people are a growing population with specific healthcare needs, barriers to care, and disease risk factors. Cultural competencies for working with transgender people in healthcare settings are essential to reduce barriers to care and combat the associated health disparities. Genetic counselors support their patients to understand and manage medically and personally complex life events and decisions. A genetic counselor caring for a transgender patient or a patient with a transgender relative will therefore require specific cultural competencies and medical knowledge that may not have been covered in their training. Transgender health is also a relatively young field in which new insights may quickly become fundamental. The present paper therefore provides an overview of current best practices for culturally sensitive working with transgender patients, and an introduction to the additional considerations for assessment of disease risk in transgender people. Guidance on how to ensure communication with patients and other stakeholders is inclusive and affirming of transgender identities, is offered. Medical interventions used for gender transitions are described, and their (potential) effects on cancer and cardiovascular disease risk are discussed. Furthermore, the effects of sociocultural risk factors such as minority stress are outlined. In sum, we invite the reader to consider the specific biological, psychological, and social context of the consultation. Finally, we explore culturally competent approaches to pedigree charting and physical examinations with transgender people and provide recommendations for practice.