Preeya Desai1, Hannah Haber2, Jessica Bulafka3, Amita Russell4, Rebecca Clifton5, Julia Zachary5, Seonjoo Lee6,7, Tianshu Feng6, Ronald Wapner4, Catherine Monk1,4,8, Wendy K Chung3,9. 1. New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA. 2. Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 5. George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. 6. Division of Biostatistics, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 9. Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There are concerns regarding the potential harms in receipt of prenatal chromosome microarray (CMA) results, particularly variants of uncertain significance (VUS). We examined the influence that the return of genomic results had on parental well-being and perceptions of children's development. METHODS: Parents (n = 138) of 83 children who underwent prenatal chromosomal microarray testing completed questionnaires assessing perception of children's development, parent-child attachment, parental mood, parenting competence, martial satisfaction, satisfaction with the decision to undergo testing, and attitudes about genetics at age 12 and/or 36 months. Responses were compared between parents who received normal/likely benign results and VUS results. RESULTS: Compared to normal/likely benign results, parents who received VUS results rated their child as less competent on the BITSEA scale at 12 (β = -1.65, P = .04) though not 36 months (P = .43). There were no differences in parent mood, marital satisfaction, or parenting competence. At 36 months, parents in the VUS group reported less satisfaction with their decision to undergo genetic testing (β = 1.51, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Chromosome microarray VUS results have limited impact on parental well-being and perception of children's development. However, the initial diminished perception of child competency and later dissatisfaction with genomic testing indicate the need to assist parents in coping with ambiguous results.
OBJECTIVE: There are concerns regarding the potential harms in receipt of prenatal chromosome microarray (CMA) results, particularly variants of uncertain significance (VUS). We examined the influence that the return of genomic results had on parental well-being and perceptions of children's development. METHODS: Parents (n = 138) of 83 children who underwent prenatal chromosomal microarray testing completed questionnaires assessing perception of children's development, parent-child attachment, parental mood, parenting competence, martial satisfaction, satisfaction with the decision to undergo testing, and attitudes about genetics at age 12 and/or 36 months. Responses were compared between parents who received normal/likely benign results and VUS results. RESULTS: Compared to normal/likely benign results, parents who received VUS results rated their child as less competent on the BITSEA scale at 12 (β = -1.65, P = .04) though not 36 months (P = .43). There were no differences in parent mood, marital satisfaction, or parenting competence. At 36 months, parents in the VUS group reported less satisfaction with their decision to undergo genetic testing (β = 1.51, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Chromosome microarray VUS results have limited impact on parental well-being and perception of children's development. However, the initial diminished perception of child competency and later dissatisfaction with genomic testing indicate the need to assist parents in coping with ambiguous results.
Authors: Erin L Heinzen; Rodney A Radtke; Thomas J Urban; Gianpiero L Cavalleri; Chantal Depondt; Anna C Need; Nicole M Walley; Paola Nicoletti; Dongliang Ge; Claudia B Catarino; John S Duncan; Dalia Kasperaviciūte; Sarah K Tate; Luis O Caboclo; Josemir W Sander; Lisa Clayton; Kristen N Linney; Kevin V Shianna; Curtis E Gumbs; Jason Smith; Kenneth D Cronin; Jessica M Maia; Colin P Doherty; Massimo Pandolfo; David Leppert; Lefkos T Middleton; Rachel A Gibson; Michael R Johnson; Paul M Matthews; David Hosford; Reetta Kälviäinen; Kai Eriksson; Anne-Mari Kantanen; Thomas Dorn; Jörg Hansen; Günter Krämer; Bernhard J Steinhoff; Heinz-Gregor Wieser; Dominik Zumsteg; Marcos Ortega; Nicholas W Wood; Julie Huxley-Jones; Mohamad Mikati; William B Gallentine; Aatif M Husain; Patrick G Buckley; Ray L Stallings; Mihai V Podgoreanu; Norman Delanty; Sanjay M Sisodiya; David B Goldstein Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Lauren A Weiss; Yiping Shen; Joshua M Korn; Dan E Arking; David T Miller; Ragnheidur Fossdal; Evald Saemundsen; Hreinn Stefansson; Manuel A R Ferreira; Todd Green; Orah S Platt; Douglas M Ruderfer; Christopher A Walsh; David Altshuler; Aravinda Chakravarti; Rudolph E Tanzi; Kari Stefansson; Susan L Santangelo; James F Gusella; Pamela Sklar; Bai-Lin Wu; Mark J Daly Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-01-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Erin B Kaminsky; Vineith Kaul; Justin Paschall; Deanna M Church; Brian Bunke; Dawn Kunig; Daniel Moreno-De-Luca; Andres Moreno-De-Luca; Jennifer G Mulle; Stephen T Warren; Gabriele Richard; John G Compton; Amy E Fuller; Troy J Gliem; Shuwen Huang; Morag N Collinson; Sarah J Beal; Todd Ackley; Diane L Pickering; Denae M Golden; Emily Aston; Heidi Whitby; Shashirekha Shetty; Michael R Rossi; M Katharine Rudd; Sarah T South; Arthur R Brothman; Warren G Sanger; Ramaswamy K Iyer; John A Crolla; Erik C Thorland; Swaroop Aradhya; David H Ledbetter; Christa L Martin Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Tim Ott; Lilian Kaufmann; Martin Granzow; Katrin Hinderhofer; Claus R Bartram; Susanne Theiß; Angelika Seitz; Nagarajan Paramasivam; Angela Schulz; Ute Moog; Martin Blum; Christina M Evers Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: James Buchanan; Melissa Hill; Caroline M Vass; Jennifer Hammond; Sam Riedijk; Jasmijn E Klapwijk; Eleanor Harding; Stina Lou; Ida Vogel; Lisa Hui; Charlotta Ingvoldstad-Malmgren; Maria Johansson Soller; Kelly E Ormond; Mahesh Choolani; Qian Zheng; Lyn S Chitty; Celine Lewis Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2022-04-30 Impact factor: 3.242
Authors: Jennifer Hammond; Jasmijn E Klapwijk; Melissa Hill; Stina Lou; Kelly E Ormond; Karin E M Diderich; Sam Riedijk; Celine Lewis Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 2.717
Authors: Celine Lewis; Jennifer Hammond; Jasmijn E Klapwijk; Eleanor Harding; Stina Lou; Ida Vogel; Emma J Szepe; Lisa Hui; Charlotta Ingvoldstad-Malmgren; Maria J Soller; Kelly E Ormond; Mahesh Choolani; Melissa Hill; Sam Riedijk Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 3.050