Literature DB >> 24603131

Decision-making on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and prenatal diagnosis: a challenge for couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

I A P Derks-Smeets1, J J G Gietel-Habets, A Tibben, V C G Tjan-Heijnen, M Meijer-Hoogeveen, J P M Geraedts, R van Golde, E Gomez-Garcia, E van den Bogaart, M van Hooijdonk, C E M de Die-Smulders, L A D M van Osch.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: How do couples with a BRCA1/2 mutation decide on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and prenatal diagnosis (PND) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC)? SUMMARY ANSWER: BRCA couples primarily classify PGD and/or PND as reproductive options based on the perceived severity of HBOC and moral considerations, and consequently weigh the few important advantages of PGD against numerous smaller disadvantages. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Awareness of PGD is generally low among persons at high risk for hereditary cancers. Most persons with HBOC are in favour of offering PGD for BRCA1/2 mutations, although only a minority would consider this option for themselves. Studies exploring the motivations for using or refraining from PGD among well-informed BRCA carriers of reproductive age are lacking. We studied the reproductive decision-making process by interviewing a group of well-informed, reproductive aged couples carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, regarding their decisional motives and considerations. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This exploratory, qualitative study investigated the motives and considerations taken into account by couples with a BRCA1/2 mutation and who have received extensive counselling on PGD and PND and have made a well-informed decision regarding this option. Eighteen couples took part in focus group and dyadic interviews between January and September 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: Semi-structured focus groups were conducted containing two to four couples, assembled based on the reproductive method the couple had chosen: PGD (n = 6 couples) or conception without testing (n = 8 couples). Couples who had chosen PND for BRCA (n = 4) were interviewed dyadically. Two of the women, of whom one had chosen PND and the other had chosen no testing, had a history of breast cancer. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: None of the couples who opted for PGD or conception without testing found the use of PND, with possible pregnancy termination, acceptable. PND users chose this method because of decisive, mainly practical reasons (natural conception, high chance of favourable outcome). Motives and considerations regarding PGD largely overlapped between PGD users, PND users and non-users, all mentioning some significant advantages (e.g. protecting the child and family from the mutation) and many smaller disadvantages (e.g. the necessity of in vitro fertilization (IVF), low chance of pregnancy by IVF/PGD). For female carriers, the safety of hormonal stimulation and the time required for PGD before undergoing preventive surgeries were important factors in the decision. Non-users expressed doubts about the moral justness of their decision afterwards and emphasized the impact the decision still had on their lives. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: The interviewed couples were at different stages in their chosen trajectory, up to 3 years after completion. This may have led to recall bias of original motives and considerations. Couples who did not actively seek information about PGD were excluded. Therefore the results may not be readily generalizable to all BRCA couples. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: The perceived severity of HBOC and, for female carriers, the safety of hormonal stimulation and the time frames for PGD planning before preventive surgeries are essential items BRCA couples consider in reproductive decision-making. The emotional impact of this decision should not be underestimated; especially non-users may experience feelings of doubt or guilt up to several years afterwards. PGD counselling with tailored information addressing these items and decisional support in order to guarantee well-informed decision-making is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by the Dutch breast cancer foundation Stichting Pink Ribbon, grant number 2010.PS11.C74. None of the authors have competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BRCA1/2; hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome; preimplantation genetic diagnosis; prenatal diagnosis; reproductive decision-making

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24603131     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  18 in total

1.  Reproductive Decision-Making in MMR Mutation Carriers After Results Disclosure: Impact of Psychological Status in Childbearing Options.

Authors:  Jacqueline Duffour; Audrey Combes; Evelyne Crapez; Florence Boissière-Michot; Frédéric Bibeau; Pierre Senesse; Marc Ychou; Julie Courraud; Hélène de Forges; Lise Roca
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Performing and Declining PGD: Accounts of Jewish Israeli Women Who Carry a BRCA1/2 Mutation or Partners of Male Mutation Carriers.

Authors:  Efrat Dagan; Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli; Eitan Friedman; Baruch Feldman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Uptake of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in Female BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers.

Authors:  Pnina Mor; Sarah Brennenstuhl; Kelly A Metcalfe
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  The decision-making process, experience, and perceptions of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) users.

Authors:  Shachar Zuckerman; Sigal Gooldin; David A Zeevi; Gheona Altarescu
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Challenges, Dilemmas and Factors Involved in PGD Decision-Making: Providers' and Patients' Views, Experiences and Decisions.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Non-invasive Prenatal Diagnosis for BRCA Mutations - a Qualitative Pilot Study of Health Professionals' Views.

Authors:  Jade Bennett; Lyn Chitty; Celine Lewis
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 7.  Fertility preservation for genetic diseases leading to premature ovarian insufficiency (POI).

Authors:  Antonio La Marca; Elisa Mastellari
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 3.412

8.  Expanding the search for germline pathogenic variants for breast cancer. How far should we go and how high should we jump? The missed opportunity!

Authors:  Hikmat Abdel-Razeq
Journal:  Oncol Rev       Date:  2021-06-24

9.  Comparison of Patients' Ethical Perspectives of Preimplantation Embryo Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) vs. Monogenic Disorders (PGT-M).

Authors:  J Zhang; L R Rubin; H Zierhut; L M Pastore
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 2.924

10.  The impact of an interventional counselling procedure in families with a BRCA1/2 gene mutation: efficacy and safety.

Authors:  Erica Sermijn; Liesbeth Delesie; Ellen Deschepper; Ingrid Pauwels; Maryse Bonduelle; Erik Teugels; Jacques De Grève
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.