BACKGROUND: Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is an assisted reproductive technology procedure which provides parents with the option of conducting genetic analyses to determine if a mutation is present in an embryo. Though studies have discussed perceptions of PGD from a general population, couples or high-risk women, no studies to date have specifically examined PGD usage among men. This study sought to explore perceptions and attitudes towards PGD among males who either carry a BRCA mutation or have a partner or first degree relative with a BRCA mutation. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 228 men visiting the Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered or Craigslist website. Eligibility criteria included men who self-reported they had been tested for a BRCA mutation or had a partner or first degree relative tested for a BRCA mutation. A 41-item survey assessed socio-demographic, clinical characteristics, PGD knowledge and attitudinal factors and consideration of the use of PGD. Differences in proportions of subgroups were tested using the Monte Carlo exact test for categorical data. A multiple logistic regression model was then built through a backward elimination procedure. RESULTS: Although 80% of men reported being previously unfamiliar with PGD, after learning the definition of PGD, 34% of the 228 respondents then said they would 'ever consider the use of PGD'. Respondents who thought of PGD only in terms of 'health and safety' were almost three times more likely (OR = 2.82; 95% 1.19-6.71) to 'ever consider the use of PGD' compared with respondents who thought of PGD in terms of both 'health and safety', and 'religion and morality'. CONCLUSIONS: As with other anonymous web-based surveys, we cannot verify clinical characteristics that may impact consideration of PGD use. Our findings indicate high-risk men need more information about PGD and may benefit from educational materials to assist them in reproductive decision-making.
BACKGROUND: Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is an assisted reproductive technology procedure which provides parents with the option of conducting genetic analyses to determine if a mutation is present in an embryo. Though studies have discussed perceptions of PGD from a general population, couples or high-risk women, no studies to date have specifically examined PGD usage among men. This study sought to explore perceptions and attitudes towards PGD among males who either carry a BRCA mutation or have a partner or first degree relative with a BRCA mutation. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 228 men visiting the Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered or Craigslist website. Eligibility criteria included men who self-reported they had been tested for a BRCA mutation or had a partner or first degree relative tested for a BRCA mutation. A 41-item survey assessed socio-demographic, clinical characteristics, PGD knowledge and attitudinal factors and consideration of the use of PGD. Differences in proportions of subgroups were tested using the Monte Carlo exact test for categorical data. A multiple logistic regression model was then built through a backward elimination procedure. RESULTS: Although 80% of men reported being previously unfamiliar with PGD, after learning the definition of PGD, 34% of the 228 respondents then said they would 'ever consider the use of PGD'. Respondents who thought of PGD only in terms of 'health and safety' were almost three times more likely (OR = 2.82; 95% 1.19-6.71) to 'ever consider the use of PGD' compared with respondents who thought of PGD in terms of both 'health and safety', and 'religion and morality'. CONCLUSIONS: As with other anonymous web-based surveys, we cannot verify clinical characteristics that may impact consideration of PGD use. Our findings indicate high-risk men need more information about PGD and may benefit from educational materials to assist them in reproductive decision-making.
Authors: Thereasa A Rich; Mei Liu; Carol J Etzel; Sarah A Bannon; Maureen E Mork; Kaylene Ready; Devki S Saraiya; Elizabeth G Grubbs; Nancy D Perrier; Karen H Lu; Banu K Arun; Terri L Woodard; Leslie R Schover; Jennifer K Litton Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Kelly Reumkens; A J G van Oudheusden; J J G Gietel-Habets; M H E Tummers; C E M de Die-Smulders; L A D M van Osch Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 2.537