Melody A Rasouli1, Hailey E Roberts2, David N Jackson3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 1701 W Charleston Blvd., Ste. 290, Las Vegas, NV, 89102, USA. melody.rasouli@unlv.edu. 2. University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA. 3. High Risk Pregnancy Center, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pregnancies conceived as contracted gestational carriers are a relatively new phenomenon for reproductive medicine. Since the intended parents control genetic screening decisions, there may be differences in genetic decisions made for gestational carrier (GC) in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies as compared to traditional non-gestational carrier IVF pregnancies. Our goal was to investigate the frequency and types of these genetic testing decisions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of GC pregnancies counseled at a private maternal-fetal medicine practice between January 2006 and January 2021. Inclusion criteria were pregnancies that completed counseling with a certified genetic counselor and obtained high-resolution imaging. Controls were non-GC IVF pregnancies seen in the same period matched by parity, estimated delivery date (EDD), and the oocyte age utilized in conception. Statistical analysis included patient demographics, pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT-A) frequency and results, ultrasound imaging results, and the frequency with results of prenatal genetic screening (first or second-trimester serum screens), non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), or diagnostic testing (chorionic venous sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis). RESULTS: One hundred and ninety one gestational carrier pregnancies were identified and 167 met inclusion criteria. Gestational carrier pregnancies were significantly more likely to pursue PGT-A, PGT-A with NIPT, first-trimester screening, and second-trimester screening. There were no differences in rates of amniocentesis or CVS over controls. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding genetic counseling and screening options, our series is the first to demonstrate that gestational carrier parents seek additional genetic counseling resources, even with reassuring PGT-A and ultrasound.
OBJECTIVE: Pregnancies conceived as contracted gestational carriers are a relatively new phenomenon for reproductive medicine. Since the intended parents control genetic screening decisions, there may be differences in genetic decisions made for gestational carrier (GC) in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies as compared to traditional non-gestational carrier IVF pregnancies. Our goal was to investigate the frequency and types of these genetic testing decisions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of GC pregnancies counseled at a private maternal-fetal medicine practice between January 2006 and January 2021. Inclusion criteria were pregnancies that completed counseling with a certified genetic counselor and obtained high-resolution imaging. Controls were non-GC IVF pregnancies seen in the same period matched by parity, estimated delivery date (EDD), and the oocyte age utilized in conception. Statistical analysis included patient demographics, pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT-A) frequency and results, ultrasound imaging results, and the frequency with results of prenatal genetic screening (first or second-trimester serum screens), non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), or diagnostic testing (chorionic venous sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis). RESULTS: One hundred and ninety one gestational carrier pregnancies were identified and 167 met inclusion criteria. Gestational carrier pregnancies were significantly more likely to pursue PGT-A, PGT-A with NIPT, first-trimester screening, and second-trimester screening. There were no differences in rates of amniocentesis or CVS over controls. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding genetic counseling and screening options, our series is the first to demonstrate that gestational carrier parents seek additional genetic counseling resources, even with reassuring PGT-A and ultrasound.
Authors: David H Barad; Sarah K Darmon; Vitaly A Kushnir; David F Albertini; Norbert Gleicher Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Gayathree Murugappan; Leslie V Farland; Stacey A Missmer; Katharine F Correia; Raymond M Anchan; Elizabeth S Ginsburg Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Maria Facadio Antero; Bhuchitra Singh; Apoorva Pradhan; Megan Gornet; William G Kearns; Valerie Baker; Mindy S Christianson Journal: F S Rep Date: 2020-12-09