Leslie Durham1,2, Ramesha Papanna3, Blair Stevens1,3, Sarah Noblin1,3, David Rodriguez-Buritica3, S Shahrukh Hashmi3, Nevena Krstic1,3,4. 1. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Texas, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Pediatric Development and Rehabilitation, Randall Children's Hospital at Legacy Emanuel, Portland, Oregon. 3. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated what prenatal genetic counselor's (GCs) practices, attitudes, and barriers are in regards to prenatal microarray since the publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) guidelines for microarray use. METHODS: This was a survey-based cross-sectional study of English-speaking, board certified or eligible GCs who currently practice prenatal genetic counseling. RESULTS: Of 192 respondents, 183 (95%) have incorporated chromosome microarray (CMA) into clinical practice, with 64% believing that the benefits of CMA outweigh the harms and 52% agreeing that CMA should be offered to all women regardless of indication. Those who reported being experts/comfortable in their knowledge of CMA (85%) and familiar with current clinical guidelines (86%) were significantly more likely to offer CMA to patients undergoing invasive testing and patients with fetal anomalies. Patient-specific concerns were the largest reported barrier (51%) when GCs do not offer CMA to patients. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates GCs follow guidelines for CMA use when specific indications are involved, but further guidelines are needed regarding CMA use for other routine indications where utility of CMA is not clearly understood. On this basis, ACOG and SMFM should continue revising their guidelines as more information comes to light regarding utility of prenatal CMA for all indications, and organizations like the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) should consider publishing guidelines on prenatal CMA that are specialized to the GCs sphere of practice.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated what prenatal genetic counselor's (GCs) practices, attitudes, and barriers are in regards to prenatal microarray since the publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) guidelines for microarray use. METHODS: This was a survey-based cross-sectional study of English-speaking, board certified or eligible GCs who currently practice prenatal genetic counseling. RESULTS: Of 192 respondents, 183 (95%) have incorporated chromosome microarray (CMA) into clinical practice, with 64% believing that the benefits of CMA outweigh the harms and 52% agreeing that CMA should be offered to all women regardless of indication. Those who reported being experts/comfortable in their knowledge of CMA (85%) and familiar with current clinical guidelines (86%) were significantly more likely to offer CMA to patients undergoing invasive testing and patients with fetal anomalies. Patient-specific concerns were the largest reported barrier (51%) when GCs do not offer CMA to patients. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates GCs follow guidelines for CMA use when specific indications are involved, but further guidelines are needed regarding CMA use for other routine indications where utility of CMA is not clearly understood. On this basis, ACOG and SMFM should continue revising their guidelines as more information comes to light regarding utility of prenatal CMA for all indications, and organizations like the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) should consider publishing guidelines on prenatal CMA that are specialized to the GCs sphere of practice.
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