Karen Wou1, Talia Weitz2, Clare McCormack3, Julia Wynn1, Erica Spiegel4, Jessica Giordano4, Ronald J Wapner4, Wendy K Chung1,5. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Clinical Genetics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 2. College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Division of Behavioral Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Genetics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Molecular Genetics, and Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to investigate the experiences of couples who underwent prenatal whole-exome sequencing (WES) for fetal anomalies and the amount/type of information couples want from prenatal WES. METHOD: Participants in the Fetal Sequencing Study who had genetic testing for fetal anomalies were invited for a semistructured interview about their experience with prenatal WES. A constructivist grounded theory approach with an inductive coding style was used for coding and analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 29 participants from 17 pregnancies. Two pregnancies had positive prenatal WES results, and 4 were terminated prior to receipt of WES results. The main themes were anxiety and stress around the time of diagnosis, education and consent for WES, coping and support while waiting for results, and receiving genetic testing results. In response to hypothetical scenarios probing the desire for uncertain results, 86% would like to be told about results for which the provider had some degree of uncertainty, and the percent desiring results decreased as the certainty of the results decreased. CONCLUSION: Participants' experience with exome sequence was similar to other prenatal genetic diagnostic tests, except for the longer wait time for results. When probed with hypothetical scenarios, participants desired more results than were provided in the study, including uncertain results that might diagnose the fetal condition. This highlights the need for specialized prenatal genetic counseling to have nuanced discussions of multiple dimensions of uncertainty with implementation of prenatal WES.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to investigate the experiences of couples who underwent prenatal whole-exome sequencing (WES) for fetal anomalies and the amount/type of information couples want from prenatal WES. METHOD:Participants in the Fetal Sequencing Study who had genetic testing for fetal anomalies were invited for a semistructured interview about their experience with prenatal WES. A constructivist grounded theory approach with an inductive coding style was used for coding and analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 29 participants from 17 pregnancies. Two pregnancies had positive prenatal WES results, and 4 were terminated prior to receipt of WES results. The main themes were anxiety and stress around the time of diagnosis, education and consent for WES, coping and support while waiting for results, and receiving genetic testing results. In response to hypothetical scenarios probing the desire for uncertain results, 86% would like to be told about results for which the provider had some degree of uncertainty, and the percent desiring results decreased as the certainty of the results decreased. CONCLUSION:Participants' experience with exome sequence was similar to other prenatal genetic diagnostic tests, except for the longer wait time for results. When probed with hypothetical scenarios, participants desired more results than were provided in the study, including uncertain results that might diagnose the fetal condition. This highlights the need for specialized prenatal genetic counseling to have nuanced discussions of multiple dimensions of uncertainty with implementation of prenatal WES.
Authors: Asha N Talati; Kelly L Gilmore; Emily E Hardisty; Anne D Lyerly; Christine Rini; Neeta L Vora Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.242
Authors: Haley K Sullivan; Michelle Bayefsky; Paul G Wakim; Kathi Huddleston; Barbara B Biesecker; Sara Chandros Hull; Benjamin E Berkman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Mirjam Plantinga; Lauren Zwienenberg; Eva van Dijk; Hanna Breet; Janouk Diphoorn; Julia El Mecky; Katelijne Bouman; Joke Verheij; Erwin Birnie; Adelita V Ranchor; Nicole Corsten-Janssen; Irene M van Langen Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 3.242
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
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