Literature DB >> 30741804

Noninvasive Prenatal Whole Genome Sequencing: Pregnant Women's Views and Preferences.

Haley K Sullivan1, Michelle Bayefsky, Paul G Wakim, Kathi Huddleston, Barbara B Biesecker, Sara Chandros Hull, Benjamin E Berkman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess pregnant women's views and preferences on noninvasive prenatal whole genome sequencing.
METHODS: A survey was offered to 805 pregnant women receiving prenatal care in practices affiliated with a large, tertiary care maternity hospital. Respondents were asked to envision undergoing prenatal whole genome sequencing and discuss their preferences and reasons for receiving different categories of genomic results, organized by actionability, severity, prevalence, and age of onset. The survey also queried respondents on their preferred role for clinicians in prenatal whole genome sequencing decision-making, and on their demographics and genetic literacy.
RESULTS: From June to August 2017, a total of 553 respondents returned the survey (response rate=68.7%). Respondents were most likely to want information regarding serious treatable childhood-onset conditions (89.7%) and least likely to want to receive information about nonmedical traits from prenatal whole genome sequencing (40%). The most frequently cited reason for wanting medical prenatal whole genome sequencing results was "to prepare financially, medically, or psychologically for a child with special needs." In total, 10.5% of respondents wanted clear recommendations from clinicians about the categories of information that are most appropriate to test for, 44.7% wanted clear recommendations plus all options presented, 26.2% wanted all options presented and joint decision-making, and 13.2% wanted all options presented and independent decision-making.
CONCLUSION: Respondents generally preferred to receive all categories of genetic results pertaining to medical conditions and wanted the information to prepare. More than half of respondents wanted (at minimum) clear recommendations from clinicians when deciding which prenatal whole genome sequencing results to receive.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30741804      PMCID: PMC6389368          DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.623


  18 in total

1.  Noninvasive whole-genome sequencing of a human fetus.

Authors:  Jacob O Kitzman; Matthew W Snyder; Mario Ventura; Alexandra P Lewis; Ruolan Qiu; Lavone E Simmons; Hilary S Gammill; Craig E Rubens; Donna A Santillan; Jeffrey C Murray; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad; Evan E Eichler; Jay Shendure
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 17.956

2.  Views of American OB/GYNs on the ethics of prenatal whole-genome sequencing.

Authors:  Michelle J Bayefsky; Amina White; Paul Wakim; Sara Chandros Hull; David Wasserman; Stephanie Chen; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Technology: The $1,000 genome.

Authors:  Erika Check Hayden
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-03-20       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Joint Position Statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis (ISPD), the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM), and the Perinatal Quality Foundation (PQF) on the use of genome-wide sequencing for fetal diagnosis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  Parental perceptions of prenatal whole exome sequencing (PPPWES) study.

Authors:  Karen Wou; Talia Weitz; Clare McCormack; Julia Wynn; Erica Spiegel; Jessica Giordano; Ronald J Wapner; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2018-08-05       Impact factor: 3.050

6.  Best ethical practices for clinicians and laboratories in the provision of noninvasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  M A Allyse; L C Sayres; M Havard; J S King; H T Greely; L Hudgins; J Taylor; M E Norton; M K Cho; D Magnus; K E Ormond
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 3.050

7.  Practice Bulletin No. 163: Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Births: Final Data for 2016.

Authors:  Joyce A Martin; Brady E Hamilton; Michelle J K Osterman; Anne K Driscoll; Patrick Drake
Journal:  Natl Vital Stat Rep       Date:  2018-01

9.  Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Authors:  Anthony R Gregg; Brian G Skotko; Judith L Benkendorf; Kristin G Monaghan; Komal Bajaj; Robert G Best; Susan Klugman; Michael S Watson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Parental interest in genomic sequencing of newborns: enrollment experience from the BabySeq Project.

Authors:  Casie A Genetti; Talia S Schwartz; Jill O Robinson; Grace E VanNoy; Devan Petersen; Stacey Pereira; Shawn Fayer; Hayley A Peoples; Pankaj B Agrawal; Wendi N Betting; Ingrid A Holm; Amy L McGuire; Susan E Waisbren; Timothy W Yu; Robert C Green; Alan H Beggs; Richard B Parad
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  How does the genomic naive public perceive whole genomic testing for health purposes? A scoping review.

Authors:  Isabella A Sherburn; Keri Finlay; Stephanie Best
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 5.351

2.  The fetus in the age of the genome.

Authors:  Dagmar Schmitz; Wolfram Henn
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 5.881

3.  An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era.

Authors:  Leila Jamal; Will Schupmann; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 2.717

4.  A qualitative study of women and partners from Lebanon and Quebec regarding an expanded scope of noninvasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  Hazar Haidar; Jessica Le Clerc-Blain; Meredith Vanstone; Anne-Marie Laberge; Gilles Bibeau; Labib Ghulmiyyah; Vardit Ravitsky
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  The impact of the emergence of COVID-19 on women's prenatal genetic testing decisions.

Authors:  Ruth M Farrell; Madelyn Pierce; Christina Collart; Caitlin Craighead; Marissa Coleridge; Edward K Chien; Uma Perni; Richard Frankel; Angela Ranzini; Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds; Susannah S Rose
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 3.242

6.  Parental Hopes and Understandings of the Value of Prenatal Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing: A Qualitative Analysis.

Authors:  Simon M Outram; Julia E H Brown; Astrid N Zamora; Nuriye Sahin-Hodoglugil; Sara L Ackerman
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 4.772

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.