Asha N Talati1, Kelly L Gilmore1, Emily E Hardisty1, Anne D Lyerly2, Christine Rini3, Neeta L Vora1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 2. Department of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand motivations for and parental interpretation of results from trio-exome sequencing (ES) for fetal anomalies with a negative standard genetic diagnosis. METHODS: Analysis of an ongoing, prospective prenatal trio-ES study of pregnancies with ultrasound-identified congenital anomalies and lack of a standard genetic diagnosis. After determination of pregnancy disposition, participants completed questionnaires and a semi-structured interview pre- and post-sequencing. Interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory methodology to identify themes. Associations between themes and ES result were also examined. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six trios have been sequenced. Of those, 45 (36%) resulted in fetal diagnosis. One hundred twenty-five women completed pre-sequencing surveys, and 91 women completed post-sequencing surveys. The main themes identified include (1) variable reasons to pursue ES, (2) limited expectations but high hopes from ES, (3) parental adaptation to uncertain results, (4) impact on personal health and reproduction, and (5) gratitude for the process. CONCLUSION: Participants pursued ES for various reasons, most often to identify a diagnosis and guide reproduction. Post-sequencing, most participants described the process, their interpretation of results, and the impact of receiving the results. Less frequently, but of most concern, participants expressed anxiety about testing and implications for themselves, relationships, and other family members, thus identifying an area of high need for additional support among patients undergoing prenatal ES.
PURPOSE: To understand motivations for and parental interpretation of results from trio-exome sequencing (ES) for fetal anomalies with a negative standard genetic diagnosis. METHODS: Analysis of an ongoing, prospective prenatal trio-ES study of pregnancies with ultrasound-identified congenital anomalies and lack of a standard genetic diagnosis. After determination of pregnancy disposition, participants completed questionnaires and a semi-structured interview pre- and post-sequencing. Interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory methodology to identify themes. Associations between themes and ES result were also examined. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six trios have been sequenced. Of those, 45 (36%) resulted in fetal diagnosis. One hundred twenty-five women completed pre-sequencing surveys, and 91 women completed post-sequencing surveys. The main themes identified include (1) variable reasons to pursue ES, (2) limited expectations but high hopes from ES, (3) parental adaptation to uncertain results, (4) impact on personal health and reproduction, and (5) gratitude for the process. CONCLUSION: Participants pursued ES for various reasons, most often to identify a diagnosis and guide reproduction. Post-sequencing, most participants described the process, their interpretation of results, and the impact of receiving the results. Less frequently, but of most concern, participants expressed anxiety about testing and implications for themselves, relationships, and other family members, thus identifying an area of high need for additional support among patients undergoing prenatal ES.
Authors: Sunayna Best; Karen Wou; Neeta Vora; Ignatia B Van der Veyver; Ronald Wapner; Lyn S Chitty Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Jenny Lord; Dominic J McMullan; Ruth Y Eberhardt; Gabriele Rinck; Susan J Hamilton; Elizabeth Quinlan-Jones; Elena Prigmore; Rebecca Keelagher; Sunayna K Best; Georgina K Carey; Rhiannon Mellis; Sarah Robart; Ian R Berry; Kate E Chandler; Deirdre Cilliers; Lara Cresswell; Sandra L Edwards; Carol Gardiner; Alex Henderson; Simon T Holden; Tessa Homfray; Tracy Lester; Rebecca A Lewis; Ruth Newbury-Ecob; Katrina Prescott; Oliver W Quarrell; Simon C Ramsden; Eileen Roberts; Dagmar Tapon; Madeleine J Tooley; Pradeep C Vasudevan; Astrid P Weber; Diana G Wellesley; Paul Westwood; Helen White; Michael Parker; Denise Williams; Lucy Jenkins; Richard H Scott; Mark D Kilby; Lyn S Chitty; Matthew E Hurles; Eamonn R Maher Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Neeta L Vora; Kelly Gilmore; Alicia Brandt; Chelsea Gustafson; Natasha Strande; Lori Ramkissoon; Emily Hardisty; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Kirk Wilhelmsen; Phillips Owen; Karen E Weck; Jonathan S Berg; Cynthia M Powell; Bradford C Powell Journal: Genet Med Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Barbara A Bernhardt; Danielle Soucier; Karen Hanson; Melissa S Savage; Laird Jackson; Ronald J Wapner Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Anna Kucińska-Chahwan; Maciej Geremek; Tomasz Roszkowski; Julia Bijok; Diana Massalska; Michał Ciebiera; Hildeberto Correia; Iris Pereira-Caetano; Ana Barreta; Ewa Obersztyn; Anna Kutkowska-Kaźmierczak; Paweł Własienko; Małgorzata Krajewska-Walasek; Piotr Węgrzyn; Lech Dudarewicz; Waldemar Krzeszowski; Magda Rybak-Krzyszkowska; Beata Nowakowska Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 4.141