Literature DB >> 29410473

Offering pregnant women different levels of genetic information from prenatal chromosome microarray: a prospective study.

Jane L Halliday1,2, Cecile Muller3,4, Taryn Charles3, Fiona Norris5, Joanne Kennedy3, Sharon Lewis3,6, Bettina Meiser7, Susan Donath3,6, Zornitza Stark5, George McGillivray3,8, Melody Menezes3,9, Sian K Smith7, Della Forster10,11, Susan Walker12,13, Mark Pertile5, David J Amor3,6,14.   

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the choice pregnant women make about the amount of fetal genetic information they want from chromosome microarray. Women having invasive prenatal testing in the absence of fetal structural abnormality were recruited in Victoria, Australia. A decision aid for women described 'targeted' analysis as reporting only copy number variants implicated in a highly penetrant and well-described phenotype and 'extended' as additionally reporting variants of uncertain or unknown significance. Participant's choice and demographics were collected by survey before chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis; psychological data were also collected then and again about 10 days after receiving results. High-resolution single-nucleotide polymorphism array analysis was performed, and a clinical review committee assessed variants for reporting before returning results to participants. Sixty-six participants (59.5%) chose extended analysis and 45 (40.5%) targeted. Choosing extended information was associated with (1) indication for prenatal diagnosis: maternal age alone (adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) 9.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-66.0, p= 0.02), or 'other' indication (adjOR 7.1, 95% CI: 1.5-33.1, p= 0.01)); (2) >12 months to conceive (adjOR 4.1, 95% CI: 1.0-17.7, p= 0.05); and (3) Asian background (adjOR 4.67, 95% CI: 1.0-21.0, p= 0.04). No adverse psychological impact occurred in either group. We conclude that offering pregnant women different levels of fetal genetic analysis is warranted, alongside decision support.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29410473      PMCID: PMC5891486          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-017-0084-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  33 in total

1.  Personalized genomic medicine and prenatal genetic testing.

Authors:  Siobhan M Dolan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Validation of a decisional conflict scale.

Authors:  A M O'Connor
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Detection of genomic imbalances by array based comparative genomic hybridisation in fetuses with multiple malformations.

Authors:  C Le Caignec; M Boceno; P Saugier-Veber; S Jacquemont; M Joubert; A David; T Frebourg; J M Rival
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 6.318

4.  Genetic counselling and ethical issues with chromosome microarray analysis in prenatal testing.

Authors:  George McGillivray; Jill A Rosenfeld; R J McKinlay Gardner; Lynn H Gillam
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 5.  Ethical controversies in prenatal microarray.

Authors:  Zornitza Stark; Lynn Gillam; Susan P Walker; George McGillivray
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.927

6.  Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Ronald J Wapner; Christa Lese Martin; Brynn Levy; Blake C Ballif; Christine M Eng; Julia M Zachary; Melissa Savage; Lawrence D Platt; Daniel Saltzman; William A Grobman; Susan Klugman; Thomas Scholl; Joe Leigh Simpson; Kimberly McCall; Vimla S Aggarwal; Brian Bunke; Odelia Nahum; Ankita Patel; Allen N Lamb; Elizabeth A Thom; Arthur L Beaudet; David H Ledbetter; Lisa G Shaffer; Laird Jackson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Validation of a decision regret scale.

Authors:  Jamie C Brehaut; Annette M O'Connor; Timothy J Wood; Thomas F Hack; Laura Siminoff; Elisa Gordon; Deb Feldman-Stewart
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Clinical implementation of routine screening for fetal trisomies in the UK NHS: cell-free DNA test contingent on results from first-trimester combined test.

Authors:  M M Gil; R Revello; L C Poon; R Akolekar; K H Nicolaides
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 7.299

9.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Authors:  Sarah S Kalia; Kathy Adelman; Sherri J Bale; Wendy K Chung; Christine Eng; James P Evans; Gail E Herman; Sophia B Hufnagel; Teri E Klein; Bruce R Korf; Kent D McKelvey; Kelly E Ormond; C Sue Richards; Christopher N Vlangos; Michael Watson; Christa L Martin; David T Miller
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Counseling Challenges with Variants of Uncertain Significance and Incidental Findings in Prenatal Genetic Screening and Diagnosis.

Authors:  Lauren Westerfield; Sandra Darilek; Ignatia B van den Veyver
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 4.241

View more
  4 in total

1.  Postpartum women's attitudes to disclosure of adult-onset conditions in pregnancy.

Authors:  Vitalia Libman; Michal Macarov; Yechiel Friedlander; Sidra Goldman-Mellor; Salomon Israel; Drorith Hochner-Celnikier; Yishai Sompolinsky; Uri Pinchas Dior; Michael Osovsky; Lina Basel-Salmon; Arnon Wiznitzer; Yehuda Neumark; Vardiella Meiner; Ayala Frumkin; Shiri Shkedi-Rafid; Hagit Hochner
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 3.242

Review 2.  A framework for reporting secondary and incidental findings in prenatal sequencing: When and for whom?

Authors:  Danya Vears; David J Amor
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 3.242

3.  Chromosomal microarray analysis for pregnancies with abnormal maternal serum screening who undergo invasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Wu; Ying Li; Na Lin; Xiaorui Xie; Linjuan Su; Meiying Cai; Yuan Lin; Linshuo Wang; Meiying Wang; Liangpu Xu; Hailong Huang
Journal:  J Cell Mol Med       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 5.310

4.  Couples experiences of receiving uncertain results following prenatal microarray or exome sequencing: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Authors:  Eleanor Harding; Jennifer Hammond; Lyn S Chitty; Melissa Hill; Celine Lewis
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2020-05-24       Impact factor: 3.242

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.