Literature DB >> 30136016

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis versus prenatal diagnosis-decision-making among pregnant FMR1 premutation carriers.

Lilach Marom Haham1, Inbal Avrahami2, Noam Domniz2, Liat Ries-Levavi3,4, Michal Berkenstadt3,4, Raoul Orvieto2,4, Yoram Cohen2,4, Shai E Elizur2,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To detect which factors influence decision-making among pregnant FMR1 premutation carriers regarding the preferred mode of genetic diagnosis: IVF-PGT-M (in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic gene diseases), or CVS (chorionic villus sampling), or AC (amniocentesis) after spontaneous conception.
METHODS: In Israel FMR1 premutation preconception genetic screening is offered, free of charge, to every woman in her reproductive years. FMR1 premutation carriers with ≥ 70 CGG repeats, or a history of FXS offspring, are offered IVF-PGT-M. This is a historical cohort study including all pregnant FMR1 premutation carriers who underwent prenatal diagnosis between the years 2011 and 2016 at a tertiary medical center. Data were collected from electronic charts and through phone interviews.
RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five women with high-risk pregnancies who were offered IVF-PGT-M were evaluated. In 37 pregnancies (21%), the women decided to undergo IVF-PGT-M. Using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) statistical method including seven parameters, we found that previous termination of pregnancy due to FXS and advanced woman's age were significantly associated with making the decision to undergo IVF-PGT-M. Previously failed IVF was the most significant parameter in a woman's decision not to undergo IVF-PGT-M.
CONCLUSION: The most dominant factor affecting the decision of FMR1 premutation carriers to choose spontaneous conception with prenatal diagnosis versus IVF-PGT-M is a previous experience of failed IVF treatments. Women whose IVF treatments failed in the past tended to try to conceive naturally and later, during the course of the pregnancy, perform CVS or AC. Conversely, women who previously experienced a termination of pregnancy (TOP) due to an affected fetus, and older women, preferred to undergo IVF-PGT-M procedures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AC; CVS; FMR1 premutation; IVF-PGT-M

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30136016      PMCID: PMC6240542          DOI: 10.1007/s10815-018-1293-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.412


  22 in total

1.  Evidence of early ovarian aging in fragile X premutation carriers.

Authors:  C K Welt; P C Smith; A E Taylor
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 5.958

2.  Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis-should we use ICSI for all?

Authors:  Baruch Feldman; Adva Aizer; Masha Brengauz; Keren Dotan; Jacob Levron; Eyal Schiff; Raoul Orvieto
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 3.  Fragile X premutation in women: recognizing the health challenges beyond primary ovarian insufficiency.

Authors:  Luis R Hoyos; Mili Thakur
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria.

Authors:  A P Ferraretti; A La Marca; B C J M Fauser; B Tarlatzis; G Nargund; L Gianaroli
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2011-04-19       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 5.  Understanding the molecular basis of fragile X syndrome.

Authors:  P Jin; S T Warren
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2000-04-12       Impact factor: 6.150

Review 6.  The FMR1 premutation and reproduction.

Authors:  Michael D Wittenberger; Randi J Hagerman; Stephanie L Sherman; Allyn McConkie-Rosell; Corrine K Welt; Robert W Rebar; Emily C Corrigan; Joe Leigh Simpson; Lawrence M Nelson
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2006-10-30       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  Variation of the CGG repeat at the fragile X site results in genetic instability: resolution of the Sherman paradox.

Authors:  Y H Fu; D P Kuhl; A Pizzuti; M Pieretti; J S Sutcliffe; S Richards; A J Verkerk; J J Holden; R G Fenwick; S T Warren
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1991-12-20       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 8.  Fragile X and reproduction.

Authors:  J Ryan Martin; Aydin Arici
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.927

9.  Fragile X syndrome: diagnostic and carrier testing.

Authors:  Stephanie Sherman; Beth A Pletcher; Deborah A Driscoll
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Fragile X-Associated Diminished Ovarian Reserve and Primary Ovarian Insufficiency from Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Manifestations.

Authors:  Limor Man; Jovana Lekovich; Zev Rosenwaks; Jeannine Gerhardt
Journal:  Front Mol Neurosci       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 5.639

View more
  3 in total

1.  Preimplantation Genetic Testing Prevented Intergenerational Transmission of X-Linked Alport Syndrome.

Authors:  Xiaoling Hu; Jiahui Zhang; Yuan Lv; Xijing Chen; Guofang Feng; Liya Wang; Yinghui Ye; Fan Jin; Yimin Zhu
Journal:  Kidney Dis (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-09

2.  Genome sequencing of human in vitro fertilisation embryos for pathogenic variation screening.

Authors:  Nicholas M Murphy; Tanya S Samarasekera; Lisa Macaskill; Jayne Mullen; Luk J F Rombauts
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.