Sarah A Walser1, Katherine S Kellom1, Steven C Palmer2, Barbara A Bernhardt1. 1. Division of Translational Medicine and Human Genetics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Abramson Cancer Center, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chromosome microarray analysis is poised to take a significant place in the prenatal setting given its increased yield over standard karyotyping, but concerns regarding ethical and counseling challenges remain, especially associated with the risk of uncertain and incidental findings. Guidelines recommend patients receiving prenatal screening to undergo genetic counseling prior to testing, but little is known about women's specific pre-testing and post-testing informational needs, as well as their preference for return of various types of results. METHODS: The present study surveys 199 prenatal genetic counselors who have counseled patients undergoing chromosome microarray analysis testing and 152 women who have undergone testing on the importance of understanding pre-test information, return of various types of results, and resources made available following an abnormal finding. RESULTS: Counselors and patients agree on many aspects, although findings indicate patients consider all available information very important, while genetic counselors give more varying ratings. CONCLUSION: Counseling sessions would benefit from information personalized to a patient's particular needs and a shared decision-making model, to reduce informational overload and avoid unnecessary anxiety. Additionally, policies regarding the return of various types of results are needed.
OBJECTIVE: Chromosome microarray analysis is poised to take a significant place in the prenatal setting given its increased yield over standard karyotyping, but concerns regarding ethical and counseling challenges remain, especially associated with the risk of uncertain and incidental findings. Guidelines recommend patients receiving prenatal screening to undergo genetic counseling prior to testing, but little is known about women's specific pre-testing and post-testing informational needs, as well as their preference for return of various types of results. METHODS: The present study surveys 199 prenatal genetic counselors who have counseled patients undergoing chromosome microarray analysis testing and 152 women who have undergone testing on the importance of understanding pre-test information, return of various types of results, and resources made available following an abnormal finding. RESULTS: Counselors and patients agree on many aspects, although findings indicate patients consider all available information very important, while genetic counselors give more varying ratings. CONCLUSION: Counseling sessions would benefit from information personalized to a patient's particular needs and a shared decision-making model, to reduce informational overload and avoid unnecessary anxiety. Additionally, policies regarding the return of various types of results are needed.
Authors: Diane Van Opstal; Femke de Vries; Lutgarde Govaerts; Marjan Boter; Debora Lont; Stefanie van Veen; Marieke Joosten; Karin Diderich; Robert-Jan Galjaard; Malgorzata I Srebniak Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: D Oepkes; Y Yaron; P Kozlowski; M J Rego de Sousa; J L Bartha; E S van den Akker; S M Dornan; E Krampl-Bettelheim; M Schmid; M Wielgos; V Cirigliano; G C Di Renzo; A Cameron; P Calda; A Tabor Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: David T Miller; Margaret P Adam; Swaroop Aradhya; Leslie G Biesecker; Arthur R Brothman; Nigel P Carter; Deanna M Church; John A Crolla; Evan E Eichler; Charles J Epstein; W Andrew Faucett; Lars Feuk; Jan M Friedman; Ada Hamosh; Laird Jackson; Erin B Kaminsky; Klaas Kok; Ian D Krantz; Robert M Kuhn; Charles Lee; James M Ostell; Carla Rosenberg; Stephen W Scherer; Nancy B Spinner; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; James H Tepperberg; Erik C Thorland; Joris R Vermeesch; Darrel J Waggoner; Michael S Watson; Christa Lese Martin; David H Ledbetter Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Lindsay B Henderson; Carolyn D Applegate; Elizabeth Wohler; Molly B Sheridan; Julie Hoover-Fong; Denise A S Batista Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Paul Daniel Brady; Barbara Delle Chiaie; Gabrielle Christenhusz; Kris Dierickx; Kris Van Den Bogaert; Bjorn Menten; Sandra Janssens; Paul Defoort; Ellen Roets; Elke Sleurs; Kathelijn Keymolen; Luc De Catte; Jan Deprest; Thomy de Ravel; Hilde Van Esch; Jean Pierre Fryns; Koenraad Devriendt; Joris Robert Vermeesch Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Brock A Peters; Bahram G Kermani; Oleg Alferov; Misha R Agarwal; Mark A McElwain; Natali Gulbahce; Daniel M Hayden; Y Tom Tang; Rebecca Yu Zhang; Rick Tearle; Birgit Crain; Renata Prates; Alan Berkeley; Santiago Munné; Radoje Drmanac Journal: Genome Res Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Sarah Scollon; Mary A Majumder; Katie Bergstrom; Tao Wang; Amy L McGuire; Jill O Robinson; Amanda M Gutierrez; Caroline H Lee; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Sharon E Plon; D Williams Parsons; Richard L Street Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-11-12
Authors: Sarah A Walser; Allison Werner-Lin; Amita Russell; Ronald J Wapner; Barbara A Bernhardt Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Jane L Halliday; Cecile Muller; Taryn Charles; Fiona Norris; Joanne Kennedy; Sharon Lewis; Bettina Meiser; Susan Donath; Zornitza Stark; George McGillivray; Melody Menezes; Sian K Smith; Della Forster; Susan Walker; Mark Pertile; David J Amor Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Jennifer Hammond; Jasmijn E Klapwijk; Sam Riedijk; Stina Lou; Kelly E Ormond; Ida Vogel; Lisa Hui; Emma-Jane Sziepe; James Buchanan; Charlotta Ingvoldstad-Malmgren; Maria Johansson Soller; Eleanor Harding; Melissa Hill; Celine Lewis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240